TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

spankaway Archive

View 0 posts and 311 comments by spankaway on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

If someone behaves as an idiot child, treat them as such. If someone behaves as a beast, ditto. You really didn't get my point, but that's all right. This is an old post, I don't feel like arguing in here.
/r/MensRights06/05/16 07:35 PM
1

Ok go stab people, whatever.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 11:49 PM
1

That shit's stupid too.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 11:48 PM
0

Honestly, if that was my situation I'd be hitting the gym again. There are a lot of ways bringing out an ice pick can go bad for you in that sort of a fight. And in court.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 11:43 PM
6

Not really. And it's just as patronizing and generalizing, only in the other direction. Treating women as idiot children is just as silly and harmful as treating men like savage beasts.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:31 PM
2

But you weren't liable for any of that, right? Debit card protection and all that? The bank just replaced your money? And actually be careful with PayPal if you're using it with a debit card or with your bank account. That doesn't always have the same protections. Certainly the bank treats ACH withdrawals and fraudulent debit card usage very differently, so you're down to PayPal's policies as a safety net.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:21 PM
2

No, my guess was correct. Look at the Imgur OP. First, their title: Last week, my friend was savagely beaten in front of my eyes by his ex girlfriend. Now he's looking at the possibility of having to return their infant daughter to a dangerous environment. Ex girlfriend, no mention of MMA anywhere in the post. But if you look at the poster's comments: She does MMA and I'm a 5'3 chick. I tried to pull her off and she wouldn't budge and she bit me. So I did the only thing I could, call 911 So, ex-…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:18 PM
2

I'll indulge you, even though this question is bizarre. He doesn't seem like a very big dude in the photos, but we don't know what his ex looks like. I'm going to assume the girl is still training and is in excellent shape. He is a guy, which is a big genetic advantage here, but suspect neither has an enormous raw strength or size advantage over the other in this case. I'm going to guess the girl is a little smaller, but in much better overall shape. I'm also going to guess she's aggressive, bec…
/r/MensRights01/05/16 08:09 PM
1

Don't be retarded.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:50 PM
2

Youcaring is a fairly legit venue. Doesn't protect you if anyone is lying, but it's not a fly by night shop that will steal your card.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:49 PM
2

It's an ambiguous title - "ex-mma fighter girflriend" but elsewhere in the text it refers to her as his ex. I suspect the title should have just been mma fighter ex-girlfriend and someone screwed up.
/r/MensRights01/05/16 07:48 PM
-1

That is arbitrary as fuck.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 08:19 PM
2

Same with monogamy. But just try poly and see how tough it is, and how often it turns into a disaster.
/r/TheRedPill23/03/16 12:29 AM
5

It's kind of a shit contract when one of the parties doesn't know the terms. Having limits is fine, poly is a limit for many. It's one of mine. But don't be surprised that there are people out there living in different ways. Btw, you don't need "adequate grounds" to dump someone. It's an at will scenario, you can walk at any time.
/r/TheRedPill22/03/16 10:45 PM
6

A relationship is indeed like a contract. The terms are up to those involved, and it can always be renegotiated. Poly shit is complicated, but it works for some people.
/r/TheRedPill22/03/16 07:47 PM
2

The article states she had little sexual experience, why the hell didn't he try and fix that himself? You don't understand how this sort of thing works, huh? There is nothing you can change about the fact that someone's only fucked one person in their life. No amount of wild or inventive sex will change that, or make them stop wondering. A decade down the road that shit can turn all-consuming. Monogamy is tough, and kind of shitty. But like democracy, it tends to be better than alternatives for …
/r/TheRedPill22/03/16 07:42 PM
1

Right, you're full of shit.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 10:09 PM
0

You didn't say it generates an uncomfortable atmosphere, you blatantly said that it's men scaring women off. I'm not really sure where he communication gap is. In my program the uncomfortable atmosphere was created by too many maladjusted men and not enough women. It did scare people off. The campus is a big place, but not that big. There was enough opportunity to run into people and ask why they switched. And you could literally see it in classes. You are actively denying the very real possibil…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:47 PM
1

There is no conversation, you're resorting to bitching about my grammar. And you've already made all my points. Apparently a 16 year old getting a job in development during the late 90s is average. Hence, coding is easy enough for the average child. Presto.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:40 PM
0

I don't really expect you to believe anything, and don't pretend this is anything but purely anecdotal and subjective experience from my years in school. I'm not being particularly vague. There were too few women, and too many neckbeards. If you don't get why that situation generates an uncomfortable atmosphere, you don't get it. On the flipside, the girls who stayed in despite all that bullshit usually really wanted to be there, so that's something.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:22 PM
1

http://i.imgur.com/2O8vjfv.gif
/r/MensRights11/03/16 08:59 PM
1

My school didn't issue work permits for under 16 year olds except in cases of serious financial need, but whatever. You're arguing against my point that coding is easy enough for children by arguing that you did it when you were a child. Congrats, I did too. And you've never gone to the university, which is what this whole post is about. Firing on all cylinders today, aren't we.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 08:49 PM
1

16 is when I got my first coding gig, full time in the summer, part time during the schoolyear. You really don't understand the context of this entire conversation, do you?
/r/MensRights11/03/16 08:24 PM
1

Probably not, since you think undergraduate coding is hard. Must have been one of the dim ones. Always a few in every class.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 07:30 PM
1

Why don't you tell me how hard it is? I only went to school for it, and have been working for a decade full time and since 16 part time - more than half my life now. Maybe you can teach me a few things.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 06:08 PM
1

What merit? You don't need any merit to be in a CS program, you just have to want to do it.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:22 PM
0

It isn't. CS is the easiest of the engineering or science majors imo. And coding doesn't require any and is so simple many children can do it. Doing it professionally requires a good amount of domain knowledge, and a bit of engineering know how, but academic coding is dead easy.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 03:15 PM
1

They do. And you're missing the point of all of this entirely. This is a no-credit women's coding class for non-CS majors because the program is having a tough time attracting women. They're not having the same problem with boys, who are 80%+ of the students - enough of them are already interested. You don't need any coding knowledge to go and study CS.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:10 PM
8

That is literally retarded, and I don't understand why they're trying to regulate clubs that don't even have a relationship with the school. This is personal time stuff.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:59 AM
1

You so missed the point. Bah, I don't even care anymore. Look, when I was in school, I thought it would be lovely to have more women in the classes. Now that I'm working, it would be lovely to have more women in the trenches. If this tiny violation of your holy principles can make that happen, I'm all for it. It will make the field healthier. And note that I would like to see the same thing happen for the men in the fields where they might feel marginalized or excluded. 85% of CS students are me…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:57 AM
0

No, they are men-only because the men in them do a terrific job of scaring away the women.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:35 AM
1

Then they need to get over their intimidation on their own. Do you think I wasn't intimidated by the idea of learning all this stuff? No? Why would you be? Do you think I enjoyed being socially ostracized and called a "nerd" for daring to be interested in computers? Because that wasn't uncommon at all when I was learning this stuff. Someone did that to you in your CS classes? You're literally among your own there.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:34 AM
1

You weren't there. A rather large chunk of the students seemed... special. The normal ones are the sort I've spent the last decade working with. The weirdos might as well have dropped off the face of the planet.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:29 AM
0

You are not the only one to have done CS, and the only way you can really ever justify the double standard of thinking women only anything is ok, is if you think of women as less than men, or as perpetual children. This is odd, because I literally said that men could use some help in fields where they are extreme minorities. I don't think men are perpetual children either. I do think that when proportions get very lopsided, people might need a bit of extra help getting started, staying engaged, …
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:25 AM
-1

The people that are successful in the field of CS may not be perfect specimens of human form (as I am sure you are) but they have an intellect that far exceeds the normal joe. Thats why they are there, thats why they are doing what they are doing. Thats why they will be on huge salaries comparatively to other professions later on in life. I've been doing the job for ten years now. You've got some illusions about the gig. For one, it's a lot more social than you'd expect, because people work in t…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 09:14 AM
-4

The work environment is just a normal office. I'm not sure if the quasi-autistic weirdos from my department even managed to land jobs.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 07:26 AM
-2

I was in around '00-'05. The immediate post dot-com crash generation. Numbers were awful, and neckbeardry on display was fairly epic. Bringing my gf around to the engineering building was embarrassing as fuck.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 06:26 AM
-11

I agree with you in some theoretical sense, but as someone who actually went trough the CS program... you're just barking up the wrong tree. Those clubs and workshops are already men only, defacto, aside from the occasional token girl. You don't need separate mens' only CS stuff, but having a more welcoming environment for girls is actually useful at this point. I wish it wasn't the case, but damn. /r/neckbeardthings is on point sometimes. If anyone did actually try to setup an equivalent group …
/r/MensRights11/03/16 05:17 AM
0

As a software engineer... I think that female-only coding workshops aren't such a bad thing. This stuff can be intimidating to girls, and I remember how my own CS classes often only had one or two girls in them - even from the side it totally looked lonely and alienating. This was in the early 2000's and I hope things have gotten better since then, but the field is very strongly male dominated, and a bit of extra encouragement is nice. Rather than trying to get initiatives like this taken down, …
/r/MensRights11/03/16 02:18 AM
1

Thanks for linking some actual data :)
/r/MensRights26/01/16 11:16 AM
11

One thing that a lot of people bring up is that when domestic violence results in substantial injuries - requiring hospitalization, etc, the victims are overwhelmingly female. And I suppose that is true, and is probably simply rooted in the physical difference between the sexes. But ultimately, the primary damage of domestic violence is mental, and situations involving serious injuries are outliers in any case.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:55 AM
1

I think it simply doesn't. There are different statistics for those.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:52 AM
3

Humans have changed very little in the last couple of hundred thousand years, and our need for "us vs them" group dynamics is deeply rooted. And children are animals anyhow.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 12:36 AM
6

It's the same around the world. Where ritual mutilation is the norm the unaltered are outcasts. Doesn't matter what type.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 11:10 PM
3

Circumcision rate is down to 50%. Oh no, you'll have to flip a coin now.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 11:08 PM
1

America is in a constant struggle in regards to abortion rights. There are a lot of people who are trying to take them away.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 10:57 PM
-1

Yeah this is true, people have been trying to demonstrate it one way or the other for a long time, and generally there is no real change. Number of complications is relatively low - and there are no real advantages either. But it is essentially ritual mutilation, akin to scarification, tattooing, etc - and we explicitly ban every single other form of it for (good imo) ethical reasons. Parental rights have defined limits, and I think stuff like that should fall outside of them.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 10:54 PM
13

It is for Jews and Muslims. In America it's purely cultural. Became popular as an anti-masturbation measure, actually.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 10:46 PM
2

Found the American.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 10:41 PM
13

That would also be rape. So apparently not that easy for the likes of you.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 08:04 PM
12

Emotions during an S&M scene can be extremely heavy even everything is talked through and people are being responsible. Bottoms being frozen/disassociated and unable to stop a scene they want to end is actually pretty common. If you've never been on that roller-coaster, don't judge. This story is not particularly unbelievable - or even uncommon.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 08:01 PM
19

No offense man, but as someone who's pretty experienced with the "kink community", you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and this is not how people do things.
/r/MensRights21/08/15 07:56 PM
0

If someone takes a swing at you, yeah.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 12:39 AM
1

Rough year.
/r/MensRights20/07/15 10:10 PM
1

Well granted I recently visited Eastern Europe - Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, etc :) And US birthrate is skewed a bit. Among the college-educated professionals around my age (early 30s), having kids actually seems relatively rare. And we aren't exactly young anymore. As these things go, most of us are supposed to have had offspring already. My mom was 24 when she had me - but the Soviet system was also far more helpful for younger parents and their careers than what we have in US.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 11:27 PM
4

This is really a demonstration of how sad the maternity/paternity leave situation really is in the US. Even without the gender issues, 12 weeks is not that impressive either. This is why when I go to Europe I see young parents everywhere - but in US young professionals simply can't afford to have them. This is a stupid way to run a society.
/r/MensRights17/05/15 06:15 PM
8

This isn't dominance, it's just abuse. Healthy d/s relationships don't look like this.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 08:49 PM
4

Or we could just have birthdays like regular people without being giant cunts about it.
/r/MensRights16/05/15 08:14 PM
1

It's everyone's fault, because literally, how fucking retarded do you have to be to be, say, guy #20 and not to wear a condom. Or guy #1 for that matter. "Hey, this chick is down for an unprotected gang bang, I'm sure she's been responsible with her sexual behavior and birth control, who needs protection?"
/r/MensRights13/04/15 06:14 PM
0

I don't think that's the right way to look at it, tbh. You can still build a long trusting marriage, and never need to use the prenup. And it doesn't have to be a "you get nothing" kind of thing either, it's possible to build in protections and stipulations for the poorer party, including passing partial ownership of pre-marital assets conditional on length of marriage, maintenance plans, etc. Ideally, both parties should feel that things are fair and feel relaxed about the future.
/r/MensRights12/04/15 12:46 AM
2

What is the point of saying this? Yes, many victims of all kinds of crimes do this, all the time. Rationalizing is easy and is common, and it's not really for us to judge anyone for that - it's just another way to process the trauma and move on. Perhaps not even the worst one. But the bigger question is why "pressing charges" is even an issue in this situation. The state is supposed to prosecute these things regardless of wishes of anyone involved. It is South Africa though, you probably have to…
/r/MensRights22/03/15 08:46 AM
10

Or, you could just go to a different gym. I guarantee that you taking your money elsewhere and letting them know why you're doing it would have a stronger impact than making a scene in the women's weight room. And seriously, nobody "physically removes" anyone anymore unless you're drunk in a bar. People just call the cops.
/r/MensRights22/03/15 08:40 AM
-9

Nah, but people would realize that it happens literally every day and isn't something that stands out. I mean, it takes two people to collide into each other like that, and I even believe that it's mostly the men who have that "everyone will move out of my way" mentality, especially when it comes to smaller people. I observe it all the time too when me and my gf walk together - people avoid me, but not her. It's very much a dominance thing really, and while it's tangentially related to gender is…
/r/MensRights12/01/15 12:50 AM
3

When they divorced, she was left to care for the couple’s young son and her daughter from a previous relationship, who Mr Vince treated as his own during their marriage. There was this too. If he didn't pay child support I'd say that she's due some money. But that's it.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 09:31 AM
1

Do you actually think that death threats over the internet are legal? They aren't. They're just not usually worth the effort to follow up. Threaten the POTUS over the web and see what happens, though. I am not a prude. Hell, this is my kink/gw account. Nevertheless, I think that in this day and age, creating a specially protected category of data makes sense.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:47 PM
2

so where does this leave us? A man allows a woman to photograph him naked, making her the legal copyright owner, and then she posts them to a website and now suddenly it magically becomes "revenge porn" and a criminal act? Yeah. IANAL, and I don't know exactly how to formulate such a law. But I feel like it can be kind of like the whole "expectation of privacy" thing that protects people from being recorded without their knowledge. An expectation that media taken in certain circumstances won't b…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:44 PM
6

That's a strangely one-dimensional way to look at it. Men and women simply face very different challenges in this arena, and slut shaming is very much alive.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:31 PM
3

In a criminal case the burden of proof are higher, and cops/prosecutors would have to show proof that the accused was the one that uploaded the material. Chances are it wouldn't be prosecuted unless there was pretty good evidence for it. And perjury is already a crime. Civil courts are just lawyers playgrounds, really.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:28 PM
1

Your argument is mostly spite hahaha.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:24 PM
1

This logic doesn't really compute - just because other people are getting away with other crimes doesn't really say anything about whether a whole other activity is "bad" or not. It's totally irrelevant.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:21 PM
2

they'd seem to be the property of the person they were given to Property of the photographer, always - being given the photos in not a license to distribute. But not having a model release isn't a barrier to distribution, on the other hand. I would be ok for certain protections on data captured in intimate settings.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:17 PM
-1

Eh, people should be able to make private pictures for themselves and have some kind of protections for them staying private. Like it or not, it's pretty ubiquitous in this day and age. If we lived in a society where release of such material is needlessly damaging and humiliating, yeah, I'd agree with you. But while sexual mores catch up, I think it makes sense to create a protected category for intimate data. You can be proud of your body, and still feel viciously violated if someone sends pict…
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:08 PM
0

Couldn't agree more.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 08:05 PM
46

Google Maria Abramovic - these types of projects aren't new. And yes, it would still be rape.
/r/MensRights28/11/14 05:11 AM
7

Maybe it isn't. This sub jumps the gun sometimes.
/r/MensRights22/11/14 08:04 PM
-5

Do you want to behave like a jealous insecure caricature of a woman? Go right ahead.
/r/askTRP12/11/14 11:32 PM
2

Good analysis.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/11/14 09:56 PM
-5

a) You have no idea of their financial situation or the potential consequences of their divorce. b) Alimony limitations depend on the state. c) You are seriously looking at this guy like he is a trapped hostage with a psycho who could blow at any time, it's kind of hilarious. d) Best case scenario is that they catch up and have a good time like a pair of old friends. That's a good feeling. Ironically, at her most hormonal pre-period mood swing days, my gf has also presented similar arguments to …
/r/askTRP12/11/14 07:18 PM
1

The part where that magically makes everything different, I guess. The line between stable long-term cohabitating couples and marriages is starts to blur after a while, hence the whole common-law marriage thing. In any case, are you married to someone for over ten years? Because if not your input is irrelevant as well.
/r/askTRP12/11/14 06:39 PM
1

An STD test is never a bad idea, but you're fine. Seriously. Life is full of risks - literally at any moment something deadly could happen to you. A brick could fall on your head, you could catch flesh eating bacteria from a papercut, etc. But most of the time it doesn't and we just kind of learn to not worry about it. The single most dangerous part of your day is driving, but most of us hardly give that a thought. You are a risk taking machine, and your brain is actually wired to cope with it p…
/r/askTRP12/11/14 06:34 PM
1

I'm not single, I'm in a multi-year committed relationship.
/r/askTRP12/11/14 06:23 PM
6

Ironically, if a woman told me I couldn't hang out with a friend just because we've had sex all those years ago, I'd treat it as overly controlling behavior and disengage. Shit's immature.
/r/askTRP12/11/14 06:15 PM
2

Actually I did. Some of them are still friends - and an old fwb is one of my closest friends. We meet up pretty regularly, and gasp sometimes we even have a few. Have you seriously never hooked up with a friend before? How? And here in this part of the world, meeting up for a drink is how adults hang out. Coffee is for children.
/r/askTRP12/11/14 06:12 PM
10

When your woman ASKS if she can go meet someone the first thing you should be thinking about is why did she feel the need to ask your permission? She doesn't ask your permission to hang out with her girlfriend Sally does she? You talk about this stuff beforehand so that it doesn't look weird later. The view you propose puts everyone in a lose-lose situation. It looks fishy if you clear it with your SO, and fishy if you don't. His wife is probably just trying to make sure he feels validated and i…
/r/askTRP12/11/14 06:00 PM
3

I'm the male part of a "used to fuck but are now brother/sister type platonic friends" situation. My gfs get jealous, her bfs are quizzical - but seriously, we would have kept fucking or dated if either one of us was that interested. Some people are just better off friends and that's ok with everyone. We haven't hooked up in years and have no urge to, but we are close. A lot closer than those two sound like. Dunno, all this "karnal knowledge" shit seems silly to me (wtf, are we in the middle age…
/r/askTRP12/11/14 05:50 PM
2

It's not about entitlement, it's just usually very clear when someone is playing stupid games.
/r/askTRP12/11/14 05:42 PM
1

Criminy. There is no black or hispanic angle to the proposed law, this source is total nonsense.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 10:06 PM
1

You guys notice, that the racist angle is completely inserted by the newspaper, right? The proposed laws would apply to everyone.
/r/MensRights04/11/14 04:34 AM
1

Attractive people (either gender) can get away with socially unacceptable behavior, sometimes wildly so. That doesn't mean that we should make those things acceptable. Honestly we should probably make them so unacceptable that even attractive people will get flak if they persist.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:56 AM
2

In my experience, medical people become utterly immune to pain or humiliation of others, just through the daily rigors of their job. And anything unusual is likely to draw a crowd. They'll even present it as "teaching exercise". And they might not even be wrong about that, because years down the road some doctor will be removing a live fish from someone and draw on this incident. Dunno, I was in the ER twice last weekend. Male, female, we're just livestock to them. And honestly the job couldn't …
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:49 AM
1

There actually are already quite strict laws against spreading that kind of stuff - see HIPAA. But I suspect Brazil is a bit less informal.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:48 AM
2

Dude she was seven, I'm not particularly offended. All of us are thoroughly clueless at that age, and these kinds of abortive explorations are pretty much the norm. The fact that we're terrified to talk about it is kind of silly.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 02:14 AM
3

It does sound pretty normal, tbh. About exposing her sister to unwanted attention I can understand... but that's really between them. Autobiographies can be uncomfortable by their very nature.
/r/MensRights03/11/14 12:40 AM
5

Damn, the guy who wrote that article has some issues.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 05:19 PM
7

I am not threatened by women in short shorts and low cut tops. And I don't want to live in a world where those things aren't ok. For fuck's sake man, what is wrong with you? This is Beavis and Butthead "she's sexually harassing my by looking so hot" shit.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 01:18 AM
2

Spinsters-in-waiting are rarely campaigning for the right to wear revealing clothes,
/r/MensRights30/04/14 01:06 AM
3

Modesty is overrated.
/r/MensRights30/04/14 01:04 AM
15

No. Most men aren't prepared for physical confrontation either, and learning how to handle the adrenaline dump and not back down in the face of a larger stronger aggressor is invaluable for anyone, period. This is actually one of the primary things that sets apart self-defense and martial arts, and why approaches like Krav Maga, etc are so successful. The root of self defense is habituation. If you're taking MMA, Boxing, etc, you're actually pretty well prepared for the physical side of things. …
/r/MensRights21/03/14 10:01 PM
-3

MR is not TRP
/r/MensRights24/02/14 09:09 AM
2

Oops, I conflated your answer with the joke that was a response to it - sorry.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 11:15 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.[1] An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law. There is, however, an additional criminal law categor…
/r/MensRights08/02/14 07:35 PM
-3

Threat of rape should not be considered rape, but you're being needlessly silly. There is a big difference when it's a credible threat. Threatening violence is considered assault as well, actually - but people give online gaming a pass there too. It's just that there is a difference between assault and battery, and same should go for rape.
/r/MensRights08/02/14 06:57 PM
3

If GI Joe Extreme were life-size: • 55 inch chest • 27 inch bicep • His bicep would be almost as big as his waist and bigger than most competitive body builders • In comparison, the average real-life man of the same height (even a guy who’s fairly athletic) will have biceps that are only about 11.5 inches around • Mark McGwire’s biceps measure “only” about 20 inches As for getting laid, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything at all. The issue here is unhealthy body image stuff, and we're…
/r/MensRights26/01/14 06:13 PM
4

A semblance - but only the most extreme body builders even get close. This shit isn't good for young men growing up, tbh. Does anyone else remember when GI-Joe looked human?
/r/MensRights26/01/14 05:48 PM
58

Many of them are actually highly improbable and only the most extreme body builders get close. Modern GI-Joe dolls also have measurements that are almost unattainable. I actually do think shit like that matters, and steroid abuse among young men is pretty high these days.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 05:47 PM
5

That is pointless bitterness, dude.
/r/MensRights26/01/14 05:45 PM
6

In all seriousness - would you allow similar forms of FGM, like removal of the clitoral hood? There aren't any terrible side effects or anything.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:01 PM
3

Some types of FGM aren't that bad either - really. We still ban them.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:35 PM
2

Who is getting bent out of shape about the slut walk? It's like every other thing thing you say comes straight out of the left field. I disagreed with you on one point - that promoting safety awareness and habits that make one less likely to be a victim is not victim blaming, it's part of a responsible approach to lowering incidence of rape. I think you were wrong to say what you did. If you had said something along the lines of "telling someone that they were raped because they did X under the …
/r/MensRights24/01/14 12:15 AM
3

So... why did you start this little kerfuffle? (the kind that says giving women instructions on preventing rape is "victim blaming"). People that are raped, don't cause it, so that is victim blaming You were just as general as any tumblr feminist.
/r/MensRights23/01/14 11:56 PM
3

"Problematic advice" isn't the same as "advice". Nobody is getting mad about people telling each other to look both ways before you cross, walk on the headlight-facing side of the road at night so that you can be prepared to jump out of the way if need be, or explaining that headphones radically decrease situational awareness when it comes to vehicles around you. If you want to complain about people giving out terrible advice, for example, about how provocative clothing invites rape - be my gues…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 11:42 PM
6

Ideally, people doing the lecturing should be experts. And while I certainly feel bad for victims who hear things that could have prevented their painful experience (though quite possibly not, there are no guarantees in life, lesser risk is still risk), it's more important to create awareness and skills that result in prevention. Anyway, you've moved the goalposts. Anyone can object to anyone - but that doesn't make giving people tips on decreasing risk of being a victim of violence necessarily …
/r/MensRights23/01/14 11:05 PM
5

... How did you jump to that conclusion from anything I said here? And in my experience most people are woefully unprepared for violence both physically and mentally - and most young people in general have a bevy of terrible habits that put them under extra risk. It is particularly because rape is so common and damaging that we focus a bit more on young women and try to give them whatever extra chance of avoiding it that we can. Frankly I probably do know more about how to minimize risk and surv…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 10:53 PM
9

You are being deliberately obtuse. Crime, assault, and violence are a constant danger for all of us - and we regularly take steps to prevent it. We lock our doors, study martial arts, carry self-defense weapons, maintain situational awareness, stay out of bad parts of town, etc. Women are much more vulnerable to some forms of assault. Men are much more vulnerable to other forms (most victims of violence are men). When something happens, the moral blame is always on the shoulders of the perpetrat…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 10:40 PM
6

This article is actually pretty infuriating, due to how society dismisses men in her position. I think spousal support, within limits, has its place - but there is a massive double standard to how we view people complaining about this.
/r/MensRights19/01/14 12:14 AM
2

That was unrelated - the OP's wife did not want to pursue BDSM type stuff, etc, with her husband, even though she was ok doing with with her ex. I simply speculated to her reasons because I know a lot of subbies who have a hard time in relationships. They want their dom to be mysterious, inscrutable, and perfect - but that doesn't survive close relationships or cohabitation. With anyone. This is one of the reasons why so many kinky people are poly - so that they could have a committed partner, a…
/r/TheRedPill22/12/13 12:42 PM
9

It's the hypocrisy that's the point, honestly. The same people who are getting so worked up about any sort of sexual attention towards female athletes are often blatantly drooling on the men. Nobody is getting huffy about Cosmo doing a male swimmer photospread. But when an outspoken feminist outlet engages in the same practice, it looks shitty. And strangely enough, a lot of female curlers are pretty attractive.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 07:44 PM
-2

Cheating isn't manning up, lol, it's just stupid cowardly bullshit. Just divorce if it's that bad. Their kids sound like they're grown, they'll be fine. Despite trp and mr horror stories, most people's divorces go reasonably smoothly. Or they could work through this massive, massive relationship drama caused by his wife's terrible fuckup, and maybe even get some great sex out of it all.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 05:15 AM
2

Hahahaha awww, that made me feel a little bad for my gf. She's a lot younger than me, and there are times when she wants to do the sort of youthful shit that I thought was awesome ten years ago... but know is kind of stupid now. Still fun, but the downsides aren't really worth it. I'm 31 and she is 20, and a lot of things that were awesome at 20 just kind of sound silly now. Alpha fucks, beta bucks. You do not marry a slut for this reason. She was a slut to alpha cocks, betas are just her fleshy…
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 05:00 AM
5

People will toss out all kinds of rational-sounding reasons for this, but all of those reasons are just cover-reasons for the real deal: She isn't attracted to her husband and has no respect for him. She doesn't see him in that way. He's not her sexual partner, he's her meal ticket. She will have duty sex with him to keep the meals coming, and has for 20 years. But he's her settle-down-marriage-kids guy, not a guy she's sexually attracted to. And definitely not a guy she respects. As someone wit…
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 04:49 AM
0

Either way, you would get women showing up to these concerts but, realistically, that really shouldn't be your main appeal to go there in the first place either. There are a lot of other venues that cater and are better suited to that particular interest. If you really want to be spending that kind of money to leer at women, there are also strip clubs, bars, dance clubs, parties,etc. Is this where the disconnect is? There is a big overlap between a party and an EDM show. Hell, in my city they ar…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 10:27 PM
4

Probably not. The men are where the money is, obviously. You want a good number of them in there. Everything here is part of a cycle. It's not just the music - the men were willing to pay for expensive tickets to get access to a large number (hopefully equal number) of hot scantily clad girls. Without the girls, it's not an EDM show, and the guys wouldn't go either.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:35 PM
2

The fans wouldn't bother going if they thought it was going to be a sausage fest. It's an EDM concert, the scenery is a huge reason for going in the first place. GIS it if you've never been to one.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:31 PM
1

Have you been to an edm concert? Let's just say that the experience is rather different that your typical outing to the symphony, and one of the prime draws is that there are acres of flesh on display. And it is not a self correcting cycle - the venue just dies, and quickly. People are working so hard to get more women through the doors for a reason. Women in the club = money. And women don't want to go to heavily male-dominated events either, not because of indifference or disdain, but because …
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:49 PM
0

It sounds like black people can't have a good time without some white folks around? Or you're trying to keep out the blacks. Which analogy is closer to what is happening here?
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:40 PM
1

They wouldn't have capped male attendees, or had simply charged 120 and accepted a mostly male crowd. But they didn't - and clearly gender balance was a priority (note, male tickets are sold out and female aren't, so they still failed).
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:38 PM
2

Male tickets are indeed limited (and sold out). The women's tickets aren't. So even with the price differential the promoters weren't able to get enough women in. How is setting the ticket prices equally going to help this?
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:34 PM
13

Note that the men's tickets are sold out. Even with the price incentive for girls, it's still a sausage fest. This is one of the reasons why this system is adopted so often.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 04:28 PM
1

And what I meant was that people who had a tough life often turn around and abuse others in turn. Gender has nothing to do with that aspect of the human nature.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 12:28 AM
3

That's not strange, that's how people are in general, not just women.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 11:06 PM
1

Regardless of reddit's (sometimes justified imo) opinions on mr, you're still being a huge dick.
/r/MensRights28/11/13 05:03 PM
7

This just makes you sound like a colossal asshole.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 07:29 PM
1

It's a silly view to have in this day and age. It's great to hope for lifelong relationship, but one has to understand what will happen in case of divorce.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 08:14 PM
1

You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about stay at home partners in general, so this isn't a very productive discussion. Luckily - you don't have to put up with any of this because this sort of relationship is a choice that you don't have to make. If you don't think that encouraging stable nuclear families is a worthwhile pursuit then of course alimony is silly - but if you do then it might make sense. If you don't have a stay at home wife, nobody will make you pay alimony, problem solved.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 07:16 PM
1

No. It's a division of labor in which each party supports the other. It is in every case presented as the party raising their own children doing something for the breadwinner, as if the breadwinner is selfishly doing nothing for the family. It is a means by which breadwinners are deprived of credit for their own contribution to the family at the same time as they are required to compensate the other party for the other parties contribution. Nobody is depriving anyone, being the breadwinner is a …
/r/MensRights18/10/13 07:00 PM
1

Financially? Yes. Well, alimony is a purely financial matter. As I said to someone else, I'd have much less of a problem with it, if it was more of an "opt-in" system. I don't think it's fair for one person to go into a marraige expecting it to last forever (therefor not even considering alimony), and then the other party is able to initiate the divorce for any reason whatsoever, and then get money. Why in the hell wouldn't you consider that the marriage wouldn't last forever? I also think lifet…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 06:46 PM
-1

To be clear I'm talking alimony in a (true) no-fault divorce. Not a "husband pulls the rug out and shacks up with younger secretary" nor the "Wife decides she wants to lay pipe and took me for all I'm worth" memes. I'm talking about the "Honey, I just don't think this is working any more....Yes dear I agree" situation. The first two are useless to discuss: of course he should subsidize her, and of course she doesn't deserve a cent of his future pay for deciding she wants something else more. To …
/r/MensRights18/10/13 06:37 PM
1

Marriage itself is a made up rule. Really, I was just pointing out that "well nobody is forcing you" angle is kind of silly. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything - including get married in the first place. And I don't agree that the concept of alimony, even lifetime alimony in some cases, is inherently unjust. To me it's a pretty essential protection. I honestly don't see why a reasonable woman would agree to stay home and raise my kids without some kind of guarantee along these lines - it be…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 06:23 PM
2

You can't control your spouse. Anything you would use to prevent yourself from having a stay at home wife or husband is considered spousal abuse. Rightly so, generally. It seems incredibly simple to me. If your spouse is making life choices you don't agree with that may affect you down the road - leave. All there is to it. I know that simple isn't easy, but that's how you control the situation. If your partner refuses to get a job and that's not ok with you, it's time to go. You were right when …
/r/MensRights18/10/13 06:14 PM
2

Indeed. This is why AOL bought Bebo for 850 mil
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:31 PM
2

Bwahaha most definitely not. 'What a business is currently worth' most definitely includes projections, growth, market share, etc. Why do you think it's possible to sell a startup that's bleeding money for millions? The potential.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:24 PM
-1

Alter, sure - but you seem to want to shift them entirely onto the stay at home partner, who is by far the more vulnerable and worse-off partner in a divorce. And yes, it's easy. If your partner wants to stay at home, divorce them - problem solved. Lifetime alimony is (or should be) only awarded when the arrangement lasted long enough to have lifelong impact on career prospects.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:19 PM
2

Well, you should probably consider a change. But is housework really 'doing something'? It's also the same old shit, always keeping the mess at bay, never having a lasting success, etc. At least on the office you change your environment. I work from home - I'd kill to have ten people to talk to. So lonely.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:15 PM
1

Nobody is forcing anyone to have stay at home partners either - and everyone is aware of the alimony laws. It's a decision people make together after weighing the risks.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:09 PM
3

I wouldn't, it would drive me nuts. It's constant, and seven days a week. I hate working from home too (seriously, really miss the office environment, go figure). But if I had to take care of everything and make three meals a day seven days a week, clean, etc - I would rather die, that's a fucking prison. I really appreciate my gf for taking care of our house for us - it really doesn't seem that easy to me.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 03:03 PM
3

Having the traditional stay at home family is also a voluntary choice for the higher income partner as well. This includes a risk of paying alimony. To me it seems like it's a more sensible risk than the risk of being tossed out with nothing after decades of being a home maker. Alimony is easy to avoid - just don't have a stay at home wife or husband. But if you want to accept the benefits of that arrangement, you have to accept the risks as well.
/r/MensRights18/10/13 02:54 PM
1

I don't think that this is the point the author is making. It's not about privilege or oppression, it's investment. One person invests time into a career, the other person supports him/her in those efforts through domestic work. I plain don't have the energy for both, for example. But while the career investment pays off and keeps paying off, without alimony, the other persons investment of time and energy evaporates with divorce. Basically, being a housewife is a stupid thing to do without the …
/r/MensRights18/10/13 02:43 PM
2

The thing is that shoving your sexuality in someone's face erases the ability to never think of the person as a sex object. Questionable that anyone has that power to begin with, but ok. Since young women are taught that they have the right to never be treated as sex objects, Notice the huge difference between 'think of' and 'treated as'. And yes, treating someone as a sex object is pretty rude outside of specific context. How you think about someone is none of anyone else's business really. And…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 11:37 PM
3

We're a couple of laymen talking about technical terms here - what I meant was that only being able to treat people as objects (sexual or otherwise) is a serious abnormality of some kind.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 09:33 PM
6

I remember being 14. I don't remember being a sociopath. Women were infinitely fascinating, exciting, and confusing, and sexual objectification was only a small part of it.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 07:25 PM
6

I was raging about this when my gf showed me this article a while back. It's nuts. Yes, guys see attractive girls in their classes in sexual terms, but it's not some kind of binary switch. And when we went skinny dipping or to the beach we saw a hell of a lot more than what this mother is complaining about - and while it might have been exciting and interesting, it's not like our friends suddenly forever became sex dolls to us. That said, a girl can definitely ruin her reputation due to some ret…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 07:23 PM
3

Well, that song is fucking terrible, so everyone wins? Goddammit, this whole "end lad culture" thing is retarded and seems like a thoughtcrime witch hunt ... but I kind of hate the sort of people these policies would affect. It's like defending nazis' rights to free speech. Yes it's the right thing to do. But you feel kind of shitty doing it.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 07:13 PM
2

Well no, but any time there is grievous injury (such as here), it's especially serious.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 11:54 PM
-2

It sucks - maybe they just got deleted? When you're dealing with youtube, you're not dealing with the government or a public institution. As long as they don't break any laws, or their own agreement (which I'm pretty sure is heavily weighted in their favor), they don't really need any reason for anything they do. If you're not satisfied with their level of service, you can always use something else. It's ok to complain that youtube sucks ass - but this isn't a freedom of speech issue.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:53 AM
1

Well, yes, it's very hard. It's much easier to use a venue that's provided by someone else, but then you're going to be subject to their every whim.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:20 AM
-10

Obviously we're not going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree. I'm the type that will always fight for someones right to say something no matter what it is, no matter the medium, and you're, well, not. This isn't true - I'm in no way against anyone's right to say anything. Youtube is not a medium. It's a web host, and a business, run for profit. And it doesn't even have any pretentions at being a laissez-faire free speech establishment like reddit. They have always been nazis, about everyt…
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:17 AM
-5

What rules did anyone break? I don't like the guy, but that has nothing to do with it really. I don't much like youtube either. But I didn't make it, and I'm not running it. I don't gripe at reddit admins either. Running a large profitable website is very hard, and a lot of compromises have to be made.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:03 AM
-24

This is TAA, I expect him to rage and sputter, and make stupid decisions that make atheists and MRAs look terrible. Frankly, if his channel dies, the movement will be better off. As for what he should do - perhaps create his own portal for advertizing and media, and use YT as a way to funnel visitors there. Control the means of expression, so to speak, and keep his YT as family friendly as possible. His fans are pretty likely to follow him - folks like him are very polarizing, and people either …
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:26 AM
-11

(´･ω･`)
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:20 AM
-13

Find a better, more secure source of revenue. Just like paypal, if you're making a living off youtube, you're always at their mercy and have to jump through their hoops. If you're even remotely controversial, you're living under a sword.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:16 AM
-21

TAA has a bad rep with atheists, because he is a huge asshole (and has atheist in his name). No idea about GWW.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:14 AM
-5

For fuck's sake, dude, I can make a basic tube site in rails in a few minutes - and a few dollars a month get nigh-unlimited bandwidth for it. Free speech on the internet is still very easy to come by. When it comes to mass-market-oriented portals run by giant corporations, unfettered speech was never anything but an illusion - and if you want their audience and infrastructure, you've always had to play by their rules.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:13 AM
-18

Youtube is free speech now? Look, you never, ever had a right to post whatever you wanted to on Youtube. You can post stuff on there if it makes money for google, and anything even remotely questionable has always been yanked. This is why dailymotion, etc exist. Thinking of youtube as an unhindered vehicle of personal expression is a very big mistake, and unlike something like reddit, free(ish) speech isn't even a priority.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:07 AM
8

In theory, this is what feminism is as well. It's all in how you go about it.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 08:29 PM
2

I don't think callthebankshot said that it was satisfying. Most sensible people would say that a properly functioning justice system is infinitely better than mob justice. But having lived through a social collapse of a sort (USSR, early 90's), I'm hesitant to judge a community for taking matters in their own hands when things become to feel lawless. We're talking about the thin veneer of civilization here. It's not justice, but informal community self-policing through violence can at least keep…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 08:58 PM
1

If a man takes a self defense class, he isn't viewing it as his fault for lacking those skills to prevent earlier victimization, he's simply making efforts to oppose it in the future. This is off topic - but actually the relationship between masculinity and violence is quite complicated. Many men do experience intense sensations of self-blame and emasculation if they aren't able to defend themselves or their loved ones. But that is a whole different, and interesting topic.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 10:13 PM
2

there are cognitive distortions present in the population (including rapists) which leads them to make assumptions (wrong ones) about people's motives and desires and consent on the basis of their clothing. This is actually a wonderful succint summary of why Slutwalks are a thing. They are trying to challenge those very distortions through awareness. They are aimed at the general population as much as rapists - and the issue of blaming the victim is only part of it.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 10:01 PM
2

I wouldn't think anything of you thinking of yourself as a 'mugging survivor'. I'm sorry that happened to you. I think you're looking too closely at the dictionary definition. The term 'survivor' seems to focus more on moving on, I guess.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 09:56 PM
2

I can't think of slut walks without thinking of people like Andrea Dworkin. It's literally 180 degrees away from Dworkin. Starting with general sex-positivity.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 09:53 PM
2

You're not wrong... but the historical context of the issue being what it is MR movements have to be more level-headed and sober-minded. The PR pressure will be there for years and years.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 09:43 PM
1

The attitude is more conservatively "some rapists react more to such clothing", a reality we acknowledge because some people do. I actually don't think this is the case. "Stranger Danger" rapes are pretty rare, and women in revealing clothing aren't any more likely to be raped than anyone else. Actually, probably less - sexual confidence often seems to spook the predatory types. But if something does happen, a woman's clothing choice can be used up against her, and that's what people who go to s…
/r/MensRights11/08/13 09:11 PM
3

Awesome skateboard OP - care to share your build?
/r/MensRights11/08/13 08:59 PM
1

When a judge speaks it's not just 'one man', it has the weight of the state behind it - which is why when someone in that position makes strongly objectionable statements it becomes a big deal. I don't think that the slut-walks are inherently anti-male, they are just a statement that as a society we view female clothing and sexuality in a conflicted and problematic fashion. "Objectification" is something that sociopathic rapists and serial killers do. It is a mental illness and it cannot be refo…
/r/MensRights11/08/13 08:58 PM
4

Can't we lose lad's mags AND stupid bullshit women's mags? The world will be a better place... Great article though, and right on point.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 07:37 PM
7

jury nullification is a thing.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 11:38 PM
1

Nerds :)
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:22 PM
1

Fairly standard engineering salary out of college. If you got good grades. But that sector of men doesn't always do well with young women.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:09 PM
1

I can answer this very easily because I was in that bracket at that age. They're nerds and engineers, that's why :)
/r/MensRights12/07/13 05:07 PM
8

On one hand I agree with you - but at the same time, some relationships just need to end. How long does one wait to see if love and attraction will return? We only get one chance at life, and if I think I'm living it with the wrong person I will leave, and I hope that my girlfriend/wife would do the same. Trying to work things out is important - but realizing that things are over sometimes is also very important. In the day when divorce was harder and more looked down on, I remember seeing a LOT…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:03 PM
6

Why does there need to be a feminist explanation? That relationship sounds fucking terrible. I'd leave too.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 09:56 PM
1

The way I see it is that success is sexy (for men, a lot of men find it threatening in women), and a high income/status toys are an indicator of success. This is just how it goes in our Western consumer society, for a number of reasons. But bragging about anything is usually looked down upon, and overtly bragging about money is especially seen as an unclassy thing to do. Certainly, if my date was bragging about how rich she was I would find that offputting, just because it seems impolite. There …
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:22 AM
1

No it is called playing the odds if a person has glasses s/he has a increased chance of being someone that reads a lot for example. Seriously? This is retarded because those things have next to nothing to do with each other. And in general assuming someone doesn't know something (unless perhaps it's something extremely specialized) is plain rude. You are so goddamn angry. Relax, dating isn't nearly as complicated as it seems. Much of the stuff on that list most people already do as a matter of d…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:10 AM
0

some men might be sexually submissive Sexually submissive men actually benefit more from being socially dominant than most men. Competition for dominant women is fucking fierce, due to the (real or perceived) scarcity, and most of them seem to want an 'alpha sub', and prefer someone with an aggressive dominant personality. Obviously, kinky people are all different and like all kinds of different things. But this is my experience. Hell, even my own fling with a domme (I'm usually on the other sid…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:13 AM
1

It's honestly nothing to do with being nice. "Mr Nice guy" is also synonymous with being spineless and boring. You can be nice while being confident and fun. In context of this particular article, it means someone who is too 'nice' to make their intention known and flirt. Literally, the problem was that she was "stunned to find out they were interested". That's a hell of a problem. Most likely this is your problem as well. Many very nice guys spend their lives drowning in pussy, but they tend to…
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:54 AM
1

People go to HR over the strangest things. Though to be fair the sarcastic apology is kind of rude if the waive of assistance was politely phrased.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 10:48 PM
1

You do but what does this have to do with anything? Your argument seems to be almost in line of what said here, Said by someone that women should cover up ironically enough. Sigh. That is basically the opposite of what I'm trying to say. Again how would you feel if I said you finding the backs and shoulders of women attractive was slut shaming and that you must not view backs and shoulders as sexual nor that attractive at all? Answer me that question. That would be ludicrous. And that's not what…
/r/MensRights14/05/13 09:35 PM
1

Actually half the people in this thread are saying that they should cover up - and the principal's statement to that effect is what started this whole thing. And I keep saying that sexualizing something and finding it sexually attractive are completely different things.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 05:01 PM
1

If I can see your ass, I've been known to slip a dollar in. You are either a liar or an asshole, lol.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 07:53 PM
1

I don't really give a shit what anyone wears. And we did go through a few years there where guys were wearing their girlfriend's pants. Somehow everyone survived. This picture was taken almost 40 years ago and those girls wouldn't even pass your rule. http://i.imgur.com/YwtJtr2.jpg No, shorts don't make you slutty. Promiscuity might, but to be honest I don't really care about that either. Actually now that I think about it, calling out someone for being slutty is just kind of sad much of the tim…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 09:01 AM
0

Girl board shorts are tiny. Anyway, I'm quite happy with the way I grew up, obviously my area had a lot less hangups about a lot of this stuff. It's not a choice of either full on nudism or Amish outfits. It's just shorts. Kids have been wearing these things to high school since the 60's.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 08:06 AM
3

Sexualizing something and finding it sexually attractive are different things. Someone with a foot fetish might find feet extremely erotic - but they don't jump to thinking that someone in flip flops is a whore who is displaying her feet because she wants sex. And if the sight of feet drives him to distraction he doesn't think it's ok to tell her to cover them up, he deals with that problem himself because he understands that regardless of his feelings, people showing their feet is a normal thin…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 07:52 AM
1

I grew up in a beach town... for much of the year we all wore our beach gear with a t-shirt thrown over it, except that girls added those little board shorts over their bikini bottoms. We were generally headed for the beach after class anyway, one way or another. It's not especially distracting. Women in general are distracting when you're young - they could be wearing burkas and we'd still steal every glance we can. But you learn to deal with that pretty quickly if you need to actually get shit…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 09:44 PM
1

Why can't a man wear booty shorts to school? While socially risky I don't see anything indecent about it. Anyway, yes those shorts are skimpy to us older folks, but at this point girls have been wearing them all of their lives and to them it's just normal. To anyone who lives in a city, this is what women between the ages of 12 and 30 wear these days when it's warm. At some point it might have been scandalous, but now I see twenty pairs every time I get on a bus. Making a fuss over it seems sill…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 09:41 PM
2

This really sucks, and I totally understand the frustrations of boys who want to play hockey and there aren't enough other participants to warrant having a team. At least girls are allowed to tryout for boys teams because they don't have a systematic gender advantage and there aren't any fears of them becoming dominant players. I'm not really sure what to do about this, though, the current status quo sort of sucks. Boys do get to play on those teams, but are removed when they start getting reall…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 09:19 PM
1

Coed sports teams basically ruins sports for women. I don't know about aggression, but men have a huge advantage in physical terms. In most sports, fitness and physical capability plays almost as much of a role as skill.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 09:15 PM
1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 09:00 PM
2

Eh it kind of makes sense to me. Principal to everyone: girls need to cover themselves up because boys can't pay attention when they see legs. Girls to everyone: Maybe legs shouldn't be a big deal. Perhaps, as you say that they should have formed a committee and had done this quietly, but putting up the poster isn't a big deal. And it has generated quite a lot of debate around the internet too. Debate is always good. Anyway, it's not nearly as immature as when me and my college buddies hung a gi…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:36 PM
2

In the same vein, maybe these posters aren't worth getting so upset over either.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:20 PM
2

They already have the ability to wear what they want. These posters ARE hateful because they imply (whether directly or indirectly) that men cannot control themselves. (Which is a patently false statement.) They actually directly state the opposite - if men couldn't control themselves there would be no point in telling them to change their behavior. Which the standard 'boys will be boys' position that conservatives like to assume. I think it's a perfectly valid response to a public lecture about…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:01 PM
2

I agree. Though it's not the feminists who think that men can't control themselves, it's the conservative prudes. And these posters aren't hateful, they're just girls who want to keep wearing normal teenager clothes without people freaking out about it. What they want is something they should already have. Legs are normal in the 21st century.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 07:43 PM
2

Glad things went well for this guy - there was potential for some seriously life-altering shit to happen.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 07:18 PM
2

This is actually an extremely common argument - women are told to cover up because young men can't control themselves or concentrate. This mindset is also the basis of many modesty laws the world over, especially in Muslim theocracies. I think this is total bullshit, myself. But the 'distraction' argument is widely used to push for modesty.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 07:08 PM
2

They aren't criticizing anybody for liking legs, that's totally missing the point. They just want to keep wearing shorts without the principal going on the PA and calling them sluts or saying that they're inhibiting the boys' ability to learn.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 07:02 PM
-2

Exactly - shorts are no biggie.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 06:12 PM
-1

They are... legs. If you can't handle seeing legs you will flunk out of college. And sexual harassment? We're in Beavis and Butthead territory here lol.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 06:10 PM
-1

A dress code that doesn't allow shorts is retarded in this day and age, especially depending on what justifications are used. Still, we'd need to see the school's handbook to establish what is and isn't allowed, and it would be nice to get a better idea of what the principal said in his announcement. And in the end I don't really have a huge issue with that line of argument. But it's a long way away from claiming that this is sex-negative feminism or that it's an attack on male sexuality.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:52 AM
-1

Yet we all do anyway. I no longer live in flip flops and shorts like I used to either. Lots of things that are ok for teenagers and college kids to do aren't ok in the office. Most of them, probably. In any case, they're just fucking shorts. Making a fuss over it is ridiculous, and insulting to both men and women.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:45 AM
1

I just meant general intelligence and education. Education, debatable (US is higher in the rankings, actually, but that doesn't necessarily indicate equivalent progress at age 13), general intelligence, very debatable. But anyway, those things don't necessarily make you better prepared for sex. Translation: Because I think so, and my opinion > yours. On some level this will always be a judgement issue, true. I'm gratified my opinion is a lot closer to the general mainstream consensus than yours.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:42 AM
0

Looking isn't the issue, nobody gives a shit. And yes, dress codes are a thing. But this is also the 21st century and they need to reflect this. Shorts have been mainstream wear for decades now, trying to pretend it's the '50's is retarded.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:35 AM
-2

I guess I don't see high school as the same sort of thing as an office building or the Capitol Hill. Certainly, nobody I knew in high school dressed in a business casual manner. Teenagers wear shorts, it's not a big deal.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:33 AM
0

Imagine moving from the middle east to America. Or being an American at a European beach. Yes, all these things you haven't seen being displayed before, they're very arousing! But do you act differently, or do you remind yourself that these women are simply doing what is normal and go about your day? There you go, consciously un-sexualizing things. Anyone who's spent any time in a clothing-optional venue has done this. Or was kicked out, I guess.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:31 AM
2

The actual context for this is that this is a reaction to the principal going on the PA and saying how girls will have to start covering up because the boys find their shorts distracting. So, the girls who want to keep wearing shorts are no-fun-allowed folks who are mad that men find them sexy, gotcha.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:20 AM
0

Omg thank you.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:19 AM
0

The average 13 year old Japanese kid isn't much smarter about sex than the average American 13 tween, nor is their sex education dramatically more comprehensive than ours. And because 13 year olds are just too young and naive and that's all there is to it.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 10:11 AM
-6

I don't think anyone thinks legs are indecent, where you differ is in the way you describe legs as a body part as "over sexualized". A body part is sexualized when it's considered sexual in nature and expected to be covered up. So, breasts and butts are sexualized - and legs and ankles were too at one point. But society changes with these things, and now legs are just normal and women spend half their lives in booty shorts. So if you treat legs the same way you would in the 1950's you're overly …
/r/MensRights11/05/13 09:04 AM
-5

The flyer demands teaching men not to "over sexualize normal body parts". The term "over sexualize" is problematic and loaded. It seems very straight forward to me. If you think girls exposing their legs is indecent in this day and age, you are over sexualizing legs, which have become normal body parts. So is the word "male" in this context, because it does not respect the normal expression of these interests. Slut shaming is normal expression of interest?
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:38 AM
3

Women can turn us on without showing anything off - and part of the point, btw, is that a girl wearing shorts in hot weather isn't necessarily showing off to begin with. 'Don't slut shame girls who wear shorts' is not the same thing as 'Don't look at girls who wear shorts' or 'Don't see women as sexual beings'. More specifically it says that legs aren't a sexualized body part in our modern society and don't need to be covered up to protect us men from ourselves.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:32 AM
4

If looking is the issue, the girls should grow a thicker skin. But I suspect the poster is talking about something else. I wish we had more context.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 06:18 AM
-6

It sound to me like there is a dress code. Get used to dress codes. They will be with you in some form or another, the rest of your life. And guess what, crotch shorts and micro minis, are not allowed in workspaces. I wish they were. Schools aren't a business casual environment, teenagers wear teenager things. And we don't really have enough context to understand whether this poster is targeting the dress code or behavior towards clothing that is technically allowed. That is the gist of the flye…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 06:16 AM
-1

I think that at this stage this has become a semantic difference over what over-sexualization means. I still don't really see the poster as particularly sex-negative, because I don't see it as telling men to see women's bodies as less sexual, but you do.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 06:04 AM
-10

We are not Iran, and last I checked, no guys I know are demanding girls wear more clothes. When teachers give a girl detention because her shorts are too short or slut-shame her in some way they're usually doing it out of the idea that boys will not be able to pay attention. This is also why Iran has their rules about covering their hair, it's actually in their law books that seeing it drives men insane. It comes from the same place, the idea that we can't control ourselves when we see an attrac…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:39 AM
4

The poster isn't complaining about looking.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:32 AM
-1

The person in this example would be demanding modesty. I think that at this point, ankles don't even count as 'immodest' to begin with. They're just neutral. Tying them to the idea of modesty is already overly-sexualizing them as we see things now. Our culture no longer views them as sexual, but certain individuals might. Just like legs, yes. A sex-positive solution would be to change society's attitude regarding sexualized body parts. This is true, but I don't really see anything sex-negative a…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:19 AM
1

Fair enough. And anyway, legs and breasts are very different (still), and the poster is pretty much all about legs.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 05:13 AM
2

Ok, I think we're mostly in agreement on this, then, for some reason I thought you were calling me out on something.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:59 AM
-3

You realize that, based on your reasoning here, it logically follows that the poster is implying that male sexuality is the reason women are shamed for wearing revealing clothing, right? That's exactly why it happens, and why schools freak out if a girl's skirt is too short, or why Iran forces women to cover their hair. Society sometimes treats us as animals - and forces women to cover themselves up because apparently we can't control ourselves. And yes, that is deeply insulting to me as a man. …
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:56 AM
2

Sexuality is "extremely gendered" because women are viewed as the pinnacle of sexuality. In some ways, I suppose. Except that we don't want them to have too much sex, or something. And teachers freak out at them wearing shorts. Men and women dress differently, men to show off power, women to show off curves. If admitting that this actually happens is misogyny, then sign me up for a big ol' bowl of sexism. I am not disagreeing. What's your point?
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:48 AM
-2

I'm trying to understand why you brought this up, I guess. I just read through this comment chain, and if you're not saying that we should make our women cover up so that they're less distracting for our boys... I guess we're having a communication issue, I'm sorry.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:43 AM
0

That honestly doesn't support your point all that well, as I understand it. Or ricky251294's. This seems completely tangential and simply describes some of the mechanisms men and women use to evaluate each other.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:38 AM
-3

But it was a bad enough issue that you feel women should be forced to wear more conservative clothing?
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:31 AM
0

Sort of, and they're kind of related. You can say that expecting people to cover up their breasts is also prudery. What is and isn't considered a sexual body part changes with social mores. At some point, ankles were sexual parts - but if you were to crusade about covering them up now you'd be over-sexualizing them, making them out to be more sexual than they are. Basically, times changed, legs are normal now - and when you treat the thigh as a sexual body part you're over-sexualizing it.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:27 AM
0

That is incredibly subjective, and as SRSish as it sounds, sort of biotruthy. Are you saying you can't appreciate any sort of male aesthetics because you're a man? Something doesn't have to be sexual to be beautiful. In any case, it's weird to say that the female body is naturally 'sexy' and arousing. My girlfriend finds the male body naturally sexy and arousing too, as do gay men. It's just a matter of sexual orientation, really.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:22 AM
0

The poster doesn't claim any such thing - it merely points out that seeing women's thighs as indecent in this day and age is over-sexualizing what have become normal body parts (which you are still allowed to find attractive - hell I love women's backs, but they aren't considered sexual body parts like breasts and genitals).
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:10 AM
-4

You just said that pretty girls are an incredible distraction that leaves you unable to focus on academics, but this has nothing to do with self control? I'm frankly puzzled, because now it seems to me like you're the one blaming male sexuality.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 04:07 AM
0

Women can dress however they want and it effects no one else? Pretty much what I'm saying. I don't think we live in a sex-free world, but at the same time humans have free will, manners, ethics, etc and men aren't animals. Sometimes the stuff people wear frankly disturbs me, but I can always look elsewhere. A sexy girl will definitely distract me for a moment, but that's not her problem, it's mine.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:57 AM
1

Sexual attraction and over-sexualizing something are different things. You can still find legs attractive, without labeling showing them as indecent or slutty. Lots of women find arms sexually attractive, but we don't say that biceps are a sexualized body part and force people to cover them up. There is some context here - we consider breasts, butts, and genitals as 'sexualized' and make sure they're covered. Nudists think we're overly sexualizing them too, and from their perspective they're rig…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:53 AM
5

I'm a dude, and ten years ago I went to school in a California beach town. And then college. Pretty women can be distracting, but not to the point of not being able to control yourself and getting work done. And if it is such a problem, that's your personal problem to work on. Being sexually attracted to things is not an issue. But if you see a woman's thigh and can't control yourself - then you actually are over sexualizing something because in the 21st century legs are pretty normal. Even if y…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:47 AM
4

You wore a tie to class in college? You know, I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this issue, and that's ok.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:14 AM
11

I think that if you're a guy and you showed up to school in short shorts, you'd get the piss taken out of you, but by other guys. And nobody would give you detention for dressing slutty. Like it or not, the way we treat sexuality is extremely gendered - it's kind of shitty for both genders, but in very different ways. And also, things don't have to be uber-inclusive. It seems to be an issue for the girls that spoke up and made the flyer. They might only represent a tiny minority of the girls, th…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:10 AM
2

Happens sometimes, lol. I guess I just don't see this as a sex-negative issue. If the girls are catching a lot of harassment from the male student body and teachers about wearing shorts, that's not cool and I think their flyer was all right. Maybe they could have articulated it better... but they're high school students.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 03:02 AM
2

But if shorts are actually an issue at that school... then male students and teachers are over sexualizing normal female body parts. And should stop. This isn't sex negative. If anything saying that short shorts are fundamentally indecent or that boys can't control themselves is sex-negative.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:55 AM
-8

How is this blaming male sexuality? If male students at that school actually can't control themselves if girls wear shorts and aren't able to pay attention in class, that's a discipline issue, not a male sexuality issue (and they probably do need to learn not to over sexualize normal female body parts). If anything, trying to use that sort of behavior to regulate what young women can wear is blaming male sexuality and treating young men like animals.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:50 AM
1

Eh, shorts aren't a big deal. It's true that we can't tell if school is being reasonable without knowing more. That said, I've seen dress codes that limit skirts and shorts to below the knee, which is just ridiculous.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:38 AM
3

Do you seriously think that schools should be business casual or something? Christ, what the hell did you wear in high school? I practically lived in flip flops, shorts, and bad religion T's, not exactly board room material either. Kids don't dress in a professional manner. Because they're kids. Doing young person stuff.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:33 AM
7

I don't think anyone is saying that you can't find legs attractive. And some people really do wear shorts when it's hot just because it's hot. I guess I'm not seeing the sex-negative attitude in the flyer.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:30 AM
5

This is just bizarre... women find men aesthetically pleasing as well, you know. Anyway, what does it matter? People should still be able to wear shorts without catching flak.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:26 AM
1

Take the blame for wearing shorts? Um, ok?
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:24 AM
-1

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:23 AM
5

In this case I feel like it involves teachers reprimanding girls for wearing shorts and dresses, perhaps because they feel that they attract too much attention from the male students. Solution is to discipline the people who aren't paying attention, regardless of why, and let people wear the damn shorts.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:21 AM
5

This seems like it has more to do with a specific school's dress code or culture, not about that incident with the cop.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:19 AM
11

How is this sex-negative feminism? They're telling people to stop calling girls sluts for showing some leg. That's just common sense.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:17 AM
0

Although, the average Japanese 13 year old is sure as shit smarter than the average American or Canadian 13 year old. No, not really. And adults shouldn't be sleeping with 13 year olds, period. Ever.
/r/MensRights11/05/13 02:07 AM
6

I am really surprised by the seemingly widespread support for steroid use in /mr. I think it's a growing problem that points to chronic body image issues in young men. It's true that stuff like this has generally hit women harder in the past, but now both genders are often held up to unrealistic expectations. I mean, in the 80's Gi Joes had human proportions - you can't tell me that haven't dramatically changed the idea of what the male body should look like in the last few decades.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 06:39 PM
1

Wtf??
/r/MensRights26/04/13 12:31 AM
5

That's perfectly fine, but neither of those subs are OC heavy and mostly consist of stolen and professional pics. They are obviously going to have a different feel. And yes, girls in gw don't show their face because they're all hideous.
/r/TheRedPill22/04/13 11:21 PM
1

Bwahahaha - we're almost to Iranian 'women's hair releases rays that drive men insane' mantra here. Dude... man the fuck up.
/r/TheRedPill22/04/13 07:41 PM
11

That caused you to unsub? Lol. Why not just enjoy the tits? Omg some people are exhibitionists how horrible.
/r/TheRedPill22/04/13 07:20 PM
2

Good luck with your crusade.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:04 AM
1

Well ok, good luck with that. Like it or not, 40 years of usage made the term 'homophobia' mean what it does, and there isn't another term ready to take its place. Sometimes you just have to roll with these things - tbh I'm not sure what you seek to gain with narrowing down the definition.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:41 PM
1

It is what it is at this point, language policing isn't going to change it. It's like complaining that 'lame' is ableist. You're not wrong... but it's goddamn pointless. Languages have their own momentum, and your individual struggles against it will probably just result in you being poorly understood.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 09:52 PM
1

The term homophobia doesn't exactly refer to a classical phobia. Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.[1][2][3][4]
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:04 PM
1

No matter how dumb CH's rebuttals sound (calling people gay, etc) That's why I said textbook homophobia. Merely having a gender preference is fine.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 05:39 PM
2

In a professional setting, it can be highly inappropriate to compliment a woman on how she looks. It's very much a case by case type of thing, one of those 'how you do it' things. About what Obama did? Eh, probably shouldn't have said it, but also not worth kicking up a fuss over.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:47 PM
1

No worries, I worded things oddly.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:38 PM
1

I'm in no way saying that you're perpetuating anything. I mean, it's disingenuous for us as (MRAs) as a group to complain about gender preferences in that field, while turning around and insinuating that being touched by men is gay or icky. That makes us part of the problem. Sorry if it came across as an attack - I was trying to support your point.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 09:34 PM
5

Haven't you heard, we're all SJWs in here. Mensrights is just a massive false flag op.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 09:26 PM
5

We can't complain about men having a hard time in a field due to stigma... while turning around and perpetuating the stigma.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:08 PM
2

http://i.imgur.com/v9HsfXj.jpg
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:06 PM
5

The irony is that his behavior is the exact mirror of the behavior of the girls in the class who don't want to be massaged by an older man. And I agree, textbook homophobia. I myself tend to prefer female doctors, etc - not because I'm uncomfortable with men touching me, but because I perceive them as being more nurturing. But that's stupid, and as I'm getting older, I am starting to value competence and experience more.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:01 PM
8

You seriously need to chill the fuck out. Oh wait, I must be gay or something.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 07:56 PM
2

I have to say that it's pretty fucking interesting that USSR/Russia was at 88% compared to US 96% and the world average. In a way it supports the argument that culture counts for a lot - despite its extreme macho USSR always promoted STEM education for women and general equality in these matters, and this shows the results of that. And it's not like Russians don't take mathematics seriously. But yeah, massive discrepancy in math ability at the top level at this point. It's probable that men are …
/r/MensRights31/03/13 03:15 AM
13

Wow that is fucking heinous.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 12:04 AM
18

I wouldn't play the oppression Olympics, but I do agree that feminism is misandry. I think that right there in your statement there is a good reason why it's hard to say that all feminism is misandry. Some aspects of modern feminist movement can be described as misandric, just as some aspects of the MRA movement appear to be misogynistic. Neither have to be that way in principle.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 06:10 PM
1

Good luck buddy, therapy and medication are great tools. I'm having one of those years where everyone I know and me are having crippling mental issues. It gets better.
/r/seduction22/03/13 06:47 PM
1

I don't know, just the sense I picked up from your post. I don't really have any 'tactical' advice to give you, and I'm not really sure if /r/seduction is the place for this anyhow. But keep in mind that the 'i don't ever be vulnerable' attitude will keep you from having a great partnership with someone (which pretty much require some degree of one-itis). You're 27 and have never had a fulfilling relationship - maybe it's time? Something to talk over with your doc in any case. The 'physical attr…
/r/seduction22/03/13 06:37 PM
1

Anyone who has lived through a spring in a major city should be well aware of this effect. On a nice day it's like they put something in the water.
/r/seduction22/03/13 05:53 PM
3

I dont want to "need" anyone or make myself vulnerable for any girl (ever.) Are you sure? Honestly it kind of seems like you're craving a real relationship.
/r/seduction22/03/13 05:29 PM
15

Holy shit, the room comment is absurdly divaesque.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:18 AM
1

I honestly think you're misreading and misrepresenting this paper, but at this point I'm not really willing to take any more time. It's been informative though, thanks.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:45 AM
3

This is great - and maybe one of the first such examples? I hope it turns out well, without flak from, ahem, less egalitarian parties.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:44 AM
3

I have nothing but contempt for women. Bwahahaha. I call SRS troll.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:41 AM
1

Your conclusion cannot be made from that sentence. What's more, even it could it still doesn't support your original point ('she's asserting that the men were murdered in order to cause the women difficulties').
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:37 AM
2

It was centred around men doing certain jobs. Centred around men themselves is an assumption. How much familiarity with the culture do you have? My experience with Balkan Muslims points to a highly male-centered culture in the old school sense of things. Regardless, it's not her - the court itself labelled the local culture as patriarchal. She is calling what happened to the bosnian muslim women "gendered violence." "Gendered violence" whenever I've seen it used and as it's used here, refers onl…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:32 AM
2

I guess I have a hard time thinking of myself as IT as I spent a lot of my career doing hardware R&D and mucking with firmware :) Anyway, I think I see your point, but I also can understand why things are as they are. And, to be honest, in our profession six figure incomes with a bachelor's degree and a couple of years in the industry is just about the norm these days. It's hard to complain about that.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:02 AM
0

Ah, I think I found it - is this what you are talking about? Even though the women, children and elderly were still alive, the crime of genocide had been committed because, the Chamber ruled, ‘Bosnian Serb forces had to be aware of the catastrophic impact that the disappearance of two or three generations of men would have on the survival of a traditionally patriarchal society’ (2001, para 595). The ‘combination of those killings,’ the Chamber continued, ‘with the forcible transfer of the women,…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:46 AM
1

When she asserts--and I believe she is although the article is very poorly structured and meandering--that what happened to the Bosnian muslim women was "gendered violence", she's asserting that the men were murdered in order to cause the women difficulties. Where does she say anything of this kind? I seriously can't find anything of the sort. What happened was obviously an example of gendered violence - I mean, one of the genders was shot, and the other imprisoned. Both groups suffered violence…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:34 AM
0

The education involved, mostly. Compensation is mostly defined from replaceability and business value. The best IT professionals run their own businesses and are very well compensated (then again, so are the best doctors and lawyers). But the rank and file will probably always lag in wages behind rank and file lawyers and doctors - because you don't even really need a degree for many gigs. I'm sort of in the biz myself (software engineer - sometimes work on IT related stuff), don't think I'm loo…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:28 AM
6

Programming wasn't all that different then and now, it was just thought of as something akin to data entry. Most of programming has always been the relatively simple infrastructure stuff, and still is even now (LOB apps anyone?). Anyway, Lovelace is going back a bit far. We're talking about the era of women like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper The women of that generation in my family know Fortran and COBOL :)
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:23 AM
2

Some are paid more than some lawyers already :)
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:15 AM
1

This is a very focused academic piece, not a survey of the entire event or anything that pretends to paint the whole picture. Talking about the male victims is more or less irrelevant to the topic. Academic writing is like that, generally you don't get to put a ton of background information in there, it's expected to be known to the reader already. Unless I'm missing something this article is fairly specific and doesn't make wide-ranging conclusions that people seem to ascribe to it.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 11:31 PM
1

Where?
/r/MensRights19/03/13 11:25 PM
-2

Honestly, the things you quoted make sense. The particular nature of Bosnian Muslim society (which really is extremely male-dominated, and a decent illustration of patriarchy), probably did make things particularly rough on the survivors. As a social experiment, it's actually kind of interesting. Take a few thousand women from a culture that treats them as property, separate them from their owners/protectors and see how they fare. It's not surprising that they would have difficulties, and it mak…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 11:25 PM
6

This is actually sort of nuts. Glad that most women I've met in the industry have been cool.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 10:59 PM
11

This is actually very true, many early programmers were women and nobody seems to remember this. IT professionals should be earning more than the best doctors or lawyers Well, no dude, not really.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 10:54 PM
2

Surprising but true. And sad.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 05:40 PM
11

You know that most male-on-male rape is perpetrated by straight men, right?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 04:57 PM
2

Yeah, it's better not just not talk about it, right?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 07:06 AM
59

A woman's form of dress is remarkably unrelated to whether she will get raped or not. Being helplessly intoxicated, however, is always a very dangerous situation :(
/r/MensRights07/03/13 06:59 AM
1

I agree in situations where a kid has a realistic opportunity to fight back that he should, but fighting back only to have his ass beat might not be that helpful. I disagree. Getting your ass kicked is actually a pretty effective way at communicating that you're willing to fight. Tends to take the fun out of bullying for most people, win or lose.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 09:21 PM
2

I really don't see why violence is so looked down upon in this day and age. At the end of the day the whole of western society is ultimately predicated on violence. It's predicated on monopoly on legitimate violence by the state, actually, and rule of law. Problem with violence is that it is divorced from ethics - which is why we talk a lot about what is legitimate self defense and what isn't. And deescalating conflict using words is pretty much always preferable if it can be done.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 09:19 PM
2

I imagine it's hard to talk yourself out of difficult situations when you have a hard time communicating with other children. You might have been kidding, but fighting classes are a great idea for kids who have a hard time with boundaries and self confidence. The most effective deterrent for bullies is being willing to fight. Being great at it, or even winning, is secondary. And being able to defend himself isn't going to turn him into a violent sociopath. Oddly enough people who train and work …
/r/MensRights17/01/13 09:14 PM
2

There isn't exactly a shortage, and I think most male doms don't have a huge trouble finding partners. I don't. It's just more balanced than the male sub/female dom equation in most areas. And might be tilted in the other direction a little. That said, kinky dating always means a drastically restricted dating pool. Sorry, dude. There is also a huge discrepancy between the online scene and real world local scene - online, men seem to just outnumber women by a large margin, period.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 10:22 PM
2

As you can see in that article - even dominant women get fed up with it.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 06:40 PM
3

That is 100% true on the male dom/female sub side of things - but I'm not so sure that's how it works with the dominant girls. There is already an overabundance of male subs in the scene, no reason to try so hard to stake your turf.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 06:37 PM
9

This is not so much a mensrights issue, but something endemic to the kinky community. There is a massive, massive imbalance in terms of submissive men and dominant women. So you have this situation where male submissives have a hard time finding partners and often end up with tons of self esteem issues. Willingness to do just about anything (and not complain about it) comes as part of that. I'm going to snip a few things from an article I read on fetlife that I really liked. You can find it by g…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 06:05 PM
9

Hahahaha - seriously, go to /r/bdsmcommunity or something, they'll set you straight.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 05:47 PM
-1

I don't like guys who are caught up in proving their dominance. Those guys don't come across as confident at all; they just strike me as insecure (and obnoxious to boot). You don't develop a confident air out of trying to dominate other people. You develop a confident air out of not worrying about other people's judgments. But... but... but... You're in the wrong subreddit my lady - it's all about asserting dominance and being 'alpha' around here.
/r/seduction11/01/12 01:56 AM
1

Where do you get whale sperm?
/r/seduction11/01/12 12:14 AM
6

Plenty of people can handle a little DS in the bedroom without it affecting the relationship, or changing the way they view people. Also, bisexual and swinger parties don't mean someone is kinky, they mean someone is bisexual and likes swinger parties. Those things can be vanilla as fuck. This experience should show that she's most definitely not kinky, because she can't handle a fairly common fetish without wigging out and turning into a bitch. Actual kinky people understand that kink in the be…
/r/seduction10/01/12 08:08 PM
3

Doing kinky shit with vanilla girls is like running some kind of terrible gauntlet. Good luck dude. Some will freak out on you and not understand, be prepared.
/r/seduction10/01/12 08:03 PM
1

The fact that it's potentially permanent is the issue, nothing more.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 06:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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