TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

srasmus4 Archive

View 2 posts and 248 comments by srasmus4 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)
7

srasmus4/r/MensRights05/09/12 05:56 PM
4

srasmus4/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:23 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Did you miss the part where the NWP rejected it? Or that the original author of the ERA opposed it? (http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt6f59n89c&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text) It's almost like there are divisions within feminism or something.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:54 AM
-1

Women have their own problems that are hard to understand. That much isn't hard for me to wrap my head around. They have different equipment downstairs and have a different hormonal profile that creates situations where their strife is unique. But acting as if men don't also have problems is so infuriatingly ignorant. Ok, but like, it's a subreddit focussed on women. Doesn't it make sense that it would focus on women's problems. Do all the top posts need to include a disclaimer that men have pro…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:49 AM
1

There is a difference between talking about the issue and posing as another group of people. If a feminist group started a website called "a voice for males" and filled it with feminist stuff that's be fucked up too
/r/MensRights05/11/14 03:31 AM
12

it lacks adequate definitions of complexity and awareness
/r/MensRights16/03/14 02:00 AM
2

You keep shifting the goal posts. In you first post you argue that feminists consider being drafted a privilege that they have no desire to share with men I have shown that NOW oppose the draft wholeheartedly but admits that if it is unavoidable it has to be for both men & women. The you claim that feminism ignored the Draft in the 60's and 70's and didn't do anything about the issue then because there present day claim is facetious and they don't really care about helping men. So I showed that …
/r/MensRights02/11/13 09:38 PM
1

First of all a wide range of feminist organizations put a lot of effort into ending the actual draft during the Vietnam war. Since their primary position is that their shouldn't be a draft, and since their is no real possibility of a draft occurring again (policy makers learned how it turns public opinion against the sort of wars the U.S. has to fight), in their mind they've basically won so why keep fighting. Also when has the men's right's movement done anything other than talk. There's been o…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 06:08 PM
2

Feminism was quite active and vocal in the 1960s, when the draft was around. They said nothing about it then. Can you deny this? Yes, I can. Anyone who doesn't realize that second wave feminism was strongly connected with the student protests of the 60's and 70's is ignoring a lot of history. In addition to a lot of feminist involvement in many anti-war organizations that were not exclusively feminist there were a number of women's organizations that fought against the war. The Women's Internati…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 06:01 PM
2

BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrimination by the volunteer armed service…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:39 AM
1

That's what upvotes are for. Comments are for adding to the discussion
/r/MensRights01/11/13 11:02 PM
2

The problem is that the original claim made by typhon blue and the info-graphic posted on this subreddit was that 40% of all rapists were female. This statement was applauded and not challenged even though it was obviously a bad interpretation of the data.
/r/MensRights31/10/13 01:39 AM
6

And that having to do so makes him feel unmanly.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 01:22 AM
14

A new account named false throwaway. I'm sure this story is trustworthy.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:50 PM
1

It's a good thing those civil rights activists did the same thing. Making sure lynching, bombing and police brutality had stopped completely before engaging in any sort of public activism.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 12:04 AM
5

You are entitled to your opinion but I don't think simply because something is funny means it's harmless. A joke which makes a rape victim the butt of the joke simply for being a rape victim reinforces the notion that being a rape victim is a shameful thing. I'm not for censoring them legally and preventing a right to free speech, but I think protesting against such action and boycotting those who do so is legitimate. I would also like to make a distinction between jokes where the humor is in th…
/r/MensRights08/06/13 02:37 AM
1

On the SRS page if you look at the image in the post it's a screenshot of an AVFM post titled "Munib Sajjad, It's Your Turn in the Barrel". I think what they are getting at is that the phrase "your turn in the barrel" suggests that Munib Sajjad is going to be raped. Since the article generally condemns him as a "bigot" a literal reading of the title might suggest that the appropriate punishment for such bigotry is rape. The person in question is suggesting that it is hypocritical for a site whic…
/r/MensRights08/06/13 02:26 AM
-1

I think you're being overdramatic. Average child support is 430$/Month. Now that sucks to have to pay, but it's not going to end your life by any means and I think it's a little disrespectful to people who actually were/are slaves to call it slavery.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 11:14 PM
1

Looks like we found Pierce Hawthorne's reddit account
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:48 PM
3

You are legally allowed to criticize "the matriarchy" because you have protected free speech, in fact you are doing this thing you claim you are not allowed to do right now and no one is stopping you. People are legally allowed to voice their objections to your criticisms because they have legally protected free speech. Voltaire, if he actually said that, lived under a monarchy with strict censorship laws where there were actual legal penalties for criticizing the king. If you criticize somethin…
/r/MensRights14/04/13 05:08 PM
2

This presumes genetics rather than conditioning is the primary cause of variance in a modern world.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:02 AM
-3

1 chick took pictures, put it up on her public (and popular) blog and then celebrated when at least one of those guys got canned. The following quote is Adria Richards responding to the guy who was fired Hey, Thanks for speaking up, contributing your viewpoint on HN and not attacking me. I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively. I think the use of a public forum to report a problem th…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 08:26 PM
38

Yes, If you instantaneously remove 50% of a countries workforce odds are it's economy would collapse. Would this be any different if you removed a randomized 50% chunk rather than men specifically? I don't think so, I think loosing that many workers is devastating regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:28 PM
-1

Driving recklessly or poorly is a choice, having a body that requires more expensive medical care is not. I think there is a difference for discriminating based on the sorts of choices a demographic makes as opposed to the sorts of bodies they have.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 10:14 PM
13

It's urban dictionary, who gives a fuck.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 02:46 AM
1

Commenters on other sites tended to view it as humor . A subreddit that believes feminism is oppressing men might miss the joke when a feminist writes a humor column about actually doing so. Edit: I'm reading more sites and the reactions are more mixed. some of them accuse her of sexism for real. Some of them do a parody of the people accusing her of sexism. Some of them do a parody of the right wing gun nuts. Some people realize it's a joke but think it's in poor taste and disagree with her pol…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 02:31 AM
0

Wikipedia: Regina "Gina" Barreca is an American academic and humorist She has a humor column with Gene Weingarten in the Washington. Often her joke is to parody something she considers to be misogynist by arguing it herself but in a way that makes it look absurd, like Colbert does with conservatives. For example in this article she satirizes the idea that single women only vote based on their attraction to men by laying out exactly why romney is attractive. I don't think she's funny but this is …
/r/MensRights04/03/13 02:17 AM
-1

Or you know get pointed in the direction of the multiple posts linked to in the sidebar of /r/AskFeminists that discuss this point because it pops up so frequently. I think it's legitimate to argue with the points they present but to say they would ban it because they can't handle the truth when they have threads in the sidebar specifically devoted to discussing it is kind of ridiculous and the sort of ad hominem attack that should be avoided.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 07:50 AM
1

I think last time we actually forced our sons to fight for their lives there was quite a large opposition movement.
/r/MensRights28/01/13 11:27 PM
5

I don't need to make that point the picture does it for me just fine. The author can't bear to admit there might be a decent feminist so he/she pretends they are different movements when pretty much all WRA's would call themselves feminists and most feminist activists would call themselves WRA's. Instead of inventing another category that most people wouldn't see as separate from feminism to put any good feminists in wouldn't it be better to actually learn the categories used by feminists and ac…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 03:37 PM
18

It's almost like feminism can mean whateverthefuck people who profess subscription to its tenets want it to mean This is to a certain extent true of any ideology in that what it means is largely determined by the beliefs of the people who profess to be members of it. Modern liberal churches don't necessarily share the beliefs of 12th century catholic congregations but they both profess to be Christian. Whenever you have a large movement you have a lot of people with different beliefs all labelin…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:45 AM
8

But this is true of pretty much everything. True, you can always divide anything into smaller and smaller categories But this is true of pretty much everything. If we censored our opinions because of this, we (anyone) wouldn't be able to talk about any group of people at any point in time without wasting our time dealing with this rebuttal. I'm not arguing that subdividing these categories is always better, I'm saying that at this point feminism is sufficiently large that it deserves to be subdi…
/r/MensRights25/01/13 01:33 AM
351

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is widely considered to be a feminist and has won awards for her work as an editor on the radical feminist magazine Opzij. It's almost like feminism is a vast and complex set of ideas of which there are different subsections some of which are violently opposed to each other.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 10:50 PM
4

The current women soldiers in Iraq in Afghanistan are classified as having non combat roles. An IED does not give a shit what your role is and when you fight a Guerrilla war their isn't really an established front line to keep them away from. The point is that they don't receive recognition for being combatants even though in a war like this they are taking very similar risks as a lot of other soldiers.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:35 AM
5

Based off the wikipedia entry the distinction is that unfounded means that it is most likely false but not yet proven to be false. This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical fo…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:43 PM
3

The next step of the dialogue tends to be to ask if these tendencies are inherently biological or are a result of societal expectations. Do men take higher paying dangerous jobs because men are evolutionary predisposed to such work or because the culture says that they should or they are less valuable as men. Do women tend to take lower paying jobs in fields like education and health services because they are disposed to nurturing roles or because they are socialized to do so. Is it a combinatio…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 05:45 AM
8

While this may not be completely accurate wouldn't it be best to assume that the overall rate holds true for unknown killers so therefore of those 28.5% unknown 64% are male, which gives us 18.325% of then unknown killers are males. Then we have 82.6% committed by males and 17.4% committed by females. Not a flattering figure but not 98%.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 06:01 AM
5

There is no proposed law. The article he cites talks about the "Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence" and the "Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act", both of which are fictional. A simple Google search will show you that the only people even talking about either of those things are manosphere bloggers (though you can find scholarly articles on human robot relationships in general I can find no reference to any specific act). Edit: I did a little research and found out all this propose…
/r/MensRights17/01/13 05:03 AM
22

The fact that her own rejection is not enough is problematic to be sure. Whether or not the person is acting out of a respect for another man or a respect for the sanctity of a monogamous relationship probably comes down to the individual. A hypothetical situation in which she says "I have a girlfriend" instead would make this difference easier to discern as there would still be a relationship to honor but it would be a female significant other receiving the respect. My guess is that reactions w…
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:51 PM
2

Want an explanation of feminist ideas? Clearly the place to go is /r/MensRights and not, you know, /r/AskFeminists.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 08:15 PM
2

At that point I think I'd be more worried about the safety of the child than anything else.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 10:35 AM
16

If she is poorer it's estimated to be only 169,000$ which would entail a 6,700$ increase in cost of living yearly. While the average is surely skewed towards the poor it's still an average so the amount of money she would receive would actually be less than the 5,150 annually as the number is inflated by middle and upper-class families. Again no one gets rich off sperm jacking, they get a discount on the baby but they don't make money.
/r/MensRights27/12/12 07:26 AM
58

It should be noted that the cost of raising a child for a middle class family is estimated to be 235,000$ over 17 years so the woman still has to to come up with 12,000$ per year more than her current cost of living. If she is poorer it's estimated to be only 169,000$ which would entail a 6,700$ increase in cost of living yearly. Those estimates are for families not single parents. I don't know how increased government assistance and childcare costs for single parents would factor into this. Peo…
/r/MensRights26/12/12 11:17 PM
1

The violence goes both ways. There are cases of men explicitly targeting women and feminists in mass shootings such as the École Polytechnique massacre which killed 14 women and injured 10 others. The shooter claimed to be "fighting feminism" and published a list of 19 other feminists he would like killed. He was physically abused as a child. Anders Breivik wrote at length about how bad feminism was in his manifesto. Disturbed and violent people will do disturbed and violent things. To hold the …
/r/MensRights23/12/12 05:37 AM
1

On Reddit most people either recognized it was messed up or made pedo bear jokes, only counted one claim of "every boy's dream" towards the top. I'm reminded of this ridiculous article which basically says that the real issue in female on male sexual abuse in schools is that the media exaggerates it and makes men who don't have sex with their hot teachers feel inadequate. My purpose is not to deny that female teachers are sometimes sex offenders, nor that their victims are sometimes underage men…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 05:06 AM
33

To be fair they would say you guys do the same thing to feminists constantly
/r/MensRights13/12/12 09:31 PM
-1

Read these comments long enough and you'll see enough 'feminism is a hate movement stuff' to realize that if MR's is strongly anti-feminist to the point where bashing on feminism is often the majority of what it does.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 11:16 PM
4

Considering AVFM is actually currently trying to publicize the personal information of someone in order to "stop them" I doubt AVFM would win.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:37 AM
9

This is a hugely complex issue. I understand you are going to have an intense knee jerk reaction to the term I am about to use and I am going to ask you to bear with me, but this comment is a legit example of rape culture (this is the point where most people will downvote). Considering how often the term as a whole is misused let me be specific. I do not mean all men are rapists who are somehow using rape as a threat to hold women in submission. I do not mean our culture explicitly or implicitly…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 11:38 AM
4

I'd fight and die for that man's legal right to say that people who stay with abusers are pathetic but I'd never commend him for doing so. It does nothing except help him blow off steam to call victims of abuse pathetic. Domestic abuse is an extremely psychologically complex issue in which I have been given the impressiont hat many victims stay with their abuser because of the genuine belief that they to some extent deserve this. Whgile I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assum…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 10:46 AM
3

This is basically the definition of pandering. If you are critiquing a subreddit dedicated to opposing /r/MensRights on /r/MensRights what do you expect other than the community to tell you how right you are. If there is a general policy not to feed trolls there should also be a policy not to feed the people feed trolls and then tell everyone else how terrible the trolls really are.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 09:06 AM
13

An out of context Orwell quote? Thank you for single-handedly granting the Men's Right's movement intellectual legitimacy by the power of your deep and well developed arguments.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:35 AM
11

Immense Kudos to you for pointing out the uninformative nature of the article instead of blatantly pandering to the narrative most of this subreddit would find most attractive and yelling about how this man was falsely accused.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:24 AM
4

This article is so incredibly uninformative I wouldn't assume anything about the situation other than that he is formally charged with voyerism and that he used a cellphone to record a woman shopping. There is so little information I'm reluctant to assume anything whatsoever about the situation. It is possible he is unjustly accused and that this is an example of systematic injustice but until more information comes out we should refrain from interpreting the situation or else we make a knee jer…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 08:12 AM
2

Right cause people opposed to a movement have a vested interest in preventing it from doing things that will alienate the mainstream. Anti-MRA trolls in my mind would be much more interested in encouraging people to say ridiculous things so they can use them to discredit the movement, why would they want us to be "squeaky clean".
/r/MensRights09/12/12 05:09 AM
-6

Yeah it seems frustratingly low but if you make a stricter penalty how likely is she to admit it. Once we start talking serious jail time if she's lied the first time she's much more likely to keep lying and take the thing to court. Give her a minor penalty like this and she is much more likely to admit it.
/r/MensRights04/12/12 03:39 AM
0

I am so sorry about what happened to you and the insensitivity of the people around you, there are deep issues with the way our society as a whole treats domestic violence towards men. I do however have an issue with this statement. That's why I need a movement that addresses men's issues, and also why feminism isn't it, and can't be it. I go to a small college where the organization responsible for counseling victims of sexual assault consists mainly of people who would self identify as feminis…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 06:06 AM
6

I think the term has become so diluted it is relatively meaningless. There are so many differences within the movement and feminists claiming other feminists aren't true feminists and on top of that a whole load of fucking idiots who will just say anything and call themselves feminists without any real ideology. There are s till some large cohesive groups left but the term feminism is at this point so nebulous as to be almost completely meaningless. Self identifying as a feminist can have a huge…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 05:50 AM
1

I would think it would be all about demand. If there is more demand among women for women only swim times they should have more. If there is more demand among men for men only swim times they should have more. Since the pool has four different locations it would seem fairly easy to make it so that at least one of the pools is open to all genders at any given time.
/r/MensRights22/11/12 04:48 PM
-6

Wait hold on guys. Let's look at the last section of the Article where it talks about the troops to teachers section: "This is where former military personnel are offered bursaries for teacher training and a fast-track route if they lack degree-level qualifications." This is essentially giving men preferential treatment to make it easier for them to become teachers because there is a gender disparity. Whenever similar programs for women in the math and sciences come up I see indignant MRA"s outr…
/r/MensRights22/11/12 04:44 PM
1

The stat has meaning. It means women experience sexual assault far too often.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 06:40 PM
-2

I think it's wholly possible that people think certain crimes are normal. If you grow up in the inner city projects you may know drug dealing is illegal but it is acceptable within the rules of the society you live in. It's simply reductive to view all crime as being a willful disregard for societies rules.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:50 AM
17

Right cause clearly this girl attacked a mob of 15 men who then had no option but to grope her, strip her and burn her repeatedly with cigarettes out of self defense.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 06:47 AM
18

Society tells people not to rape but typically it portrays violent stranger rape when most rape is actually acquaintance rape. I know people who have taught classes on gender in prison to actual rapists who held the belief that if someone was being a tease or leading them on it was okay to rape them. The general idea was that there was some point at which she lost the right to refuse sex because she had come back to the room with them, promised the sex and than changed her mind. Or she had inten…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 04:07 AM
7

The law prohibits the amount of violence he is allowed to use in "chastisement" of his wife not in self defense. Furthermore if someone comes at you with a knife you are not going to stop and consider the legal ramifications of defending yourself, you are going to defend yourself. That is if an abused husband even can manage to use force against his abuser in the first place. In which case the amount of force he is legally allowed to use is irrelevant. This sounds more like turning men into scap…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 10:30 PM
3

It's still an interpretation. Knowing for sure requires direct experience of the people making the decisions which, by definition, historians do not have. I can say the Roman Empire fell because they just decided it wasn't worth fighting for any more because of the real estate market, but because I am not an Ancient Roman I can't know this for sure. By this argument we can never know anything about history for sure. I wouldn't even say that " direct experience of the people making the decisions"…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:32 AM
-1

The amount of violence men could visit on their wives was limited by law. The amount of violence women could visit on their husbands was unlimited and whatever amount she did visit upon him would be cause for him to be punished instead of her. Since he could only chastise her to a limited extent legally, what were his options? If she was willing to do more violence to him then he could legally respond with he could do nothing. Fights are not won by whoever can legally use the most force they are…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:00 AM
5

An interpretation from some one who's whole job is to make interpretations and is professionally certified to do so. In addition the fact that it has been peer reviewed implies that more than one person if not agreed with it found that it was argued adequately. If you've ever read a peer reviewed historical paper they don't get to just wildly speculate they have to provide a wide variety of sources and compelling evidence for why they make such an interpretation.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 04:16 AM
2

I did and I'll take a peer reviewed academic Journal over a GirlWritesWhat youtube video any day. "In post-Renaissance France and England, society ridiculed and humiliated husbands thought to be battered and/or dominated by their wives (Steinmetz, 1977-78). In France, for instance, a "battered" husband was trotted around town riding a donkey backwards while holding its tail. In England, "abused" husbands were strapped to a cart and paraded around town, all the while subjected to the people's der…
/r/MensRights12/11/12 01:45 AM
1

This published article in the Journal of Men's Studies states with regards to riding the donkey backwards that "Such "treatments" for these husbands arose out of the patriarchal ethos where a husband was expected to dominate his wife, making her, if the occasion arose, the proper target for necessary marital chastisement; not the other way around (Dobash & Dobash, 1979)" In some cases the abused husband may be physically larger and now knowing that his alternatives are beat his wife for beating …
/r/MensRights12/11/12 01:37 AM
2

Give us some proof that wives beating their husbands was both widespread and socially acceptable. One possible explanation for why there were no laws explicitly banning women beating their husbands is that it didn't happen enough for society to view it as a problem deserving specific legal attention. Just because there were no specific laws on something doesn't mean it wasn't punished under general laws for violence. The fact that they had to expressly outlaw it in the case of husband on wife im…
/r/MensRights11/11/12 10:12 PM
2

You provided no proof for your context only an interpretation of the fact that there was no explicit legal condemnation of wives "chastising" their husbands. Well I can play that game too. Society clearly believed that "If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty, nor dangerous violence shown" then "it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze" as such things were part of the " sanctity of the domestic circle". In modern day even studies which say that women are …
/r/MensRights11/11/12 10:06 PM
0

Wow this sure is a reputable historical journal.
/r/MensRights11/11/12 04:47 PM
6

Wait hold on 3 is a completely valid point for feminists to be making. If you look at different cultures around the globe gender roles vary, society does have a strong role in determining the differences between men and women.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 04:03 PM
5

This pisses me off. I think it's possible to give men positive messages without bashing women in the process, or at least portraying them with some degree of sophistication. I'm worried young men will get the impression that if women are choosy or require a lot from you it's because they are evil manipulative bitches who should be shunned rather than it being a relationship issue you can talk about.
/r/MensRights09/11/12 03:59 PM
2

It’s true that more men die on the jobs (though less men are sexually assaulted on the jobs), but this is not because of women but because of the (often male) boss—and the solution is strengthen trade union rights, another issue ignored by “men’s issues” clubs. wrong, the reason they die on the job is because they work in the death profession. and the reason they do that is because of discrimination in the educational system and the societies gender role that men are disposable and have to be th…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:15 PM
0

When male soldiers are sent to kill and die, they are sent by male generals and male presidents, not women No, the women just vote the warmongers into office and put "support our troops" stickers on their cars while blissfully pretending that war is like a video game that young men actually enjoy. except that happened before women had the vote and there are plenty of anti-war women. I don't think being pro or anti war is a gender issue. While men are the people on the battlefield I think in our …
/r/MensRights08/11/12 07:09 PM
1

citation needed
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:51 PM
8

He argues that men kill themselves for the reasons of "poverty ... sexuality, ability and race" whereas women kill themselves because of sexual abuse, slut shaming and misogony. The argument is not that women's reasons are better but that they are related to being women, while men's reasons are related to class and race rather than masculinity. Therefore it's not a gender issue in his book. He also adds that while men commit more suicides women attempt more suicides. I don't think he makes any o…
/r/MensRights08/11/12 06:46 PM
8

Well the argument is generally that women and children are both weak and helpless and unable to save themselves, therefore it is men's obligation to save them. Keep in mind that on ships other than the titanic this was not actually followed with studies showing that men had double the survival rate in shipwrecks than women and in the majority of cases the crew and captain saved themselves rather than giving up their lives for passengers.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:34 AM
1

"women and children first" was not maritime law or standard policy. The reason people think it was standard policy was because the captain of the Titanic, the only shipwreck people really remember nowadays, ordered it but in other cases it was not. In fact if you look at the articles which wikipedia cites you find studies which show that it was actually the opposite that happened. We went through a list of over 100 major maritime disasters spanning three centuries to see if we could find data on…
/r/MensRights07/11/12 06:31 AM
21

1) I'll just state the obvious and say.. once again feminism treats women like children who are completely incapable of rational thought. Saying someone's choices are not free is different than saying they are not capable of rational thought. The choices we make are influenced, to some extent, by the society we live in. Some feminists don't emphasize enough how society effects the choices of men, but when you have a gender binary system any time you have women being steered into lower paying fem…
/r/MensRights05/11/12 06:32 PM
-2

meh repost
/r/MensRights02/11/12 06:40 AM
2

I am fairly certain that what most proponents of social engineering actually propose is universal access to a certain minimum standard with regards to opportunity. It wouldn't take away good nutrition or education but instead provide a certain minimum standard that is available to everyone. If people have the freedom to ensure better opportunity for their child they also have the opportunity to ensure considerably worse opportunity for their child. Taken to the logical extreme someone who is the…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 03:36 AM
1

Man I love these posts that are questions about real life situations where all the OP really wants is a bunch of people he already knows he agrees with telling him he was right. If you honestly wanted to discuss a situation why take it to a board that obviously is going to side with you.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 07:07 AM
1

You really think equality of opportunity has been achieved? Are you saying this just on a gender level or do you think this is true for ethnic minorities and people coming from cultures of poverty as well? Could we have a little more discussion on what exactly constitutes equality of opportunity. Different groups within society based on class, gender, religion, race, culture tend to make similar choices as far as career, what accounts for this? Is it all biology or does society influence it as w…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:15 AM
1

Men and women, more so than any other way to divide adults, will tend to make different decisions regarding careers and education. Just to further the conversation: The fact that a huge sample size makes similar choices implies that there are factors influencing them. Is the fact that they are influenced by these factors entirely just. I'm sure you would find that certain racial groups make different choices in career and education, clearly there is more than individual preference at work? Is it…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:08 AM
1

Not necessarily my viewpoint here but the long term benefit of affirmative action is supposed to be that it destigmatizes a field for that gender. The theory is that if a field is dramatically male or female it discourages members of the opposite gender from joining even if it is something they are somewhat interested in and would be good at. Once you make the field less dominated by one gender (or race) than the other it should lead to more of the other gender feeling comfortable joining it.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 12:04 AM
5

bullshit liking wanting the right to vote?
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:50 PM
0

I don't think relationships require a dominant or submissive but it's fine id individual couples want to do it that way. What's not okay is the idea that because you are a woman you must be submissive or because you are a man you must be dominant. What gender roles always do is penalize people who don't fit into them and I find that problematic.
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:26 PM
1

Exactly there are plenty of cultural symbols of masculinity that have nothing to do with high testoseron levels. For example balding is usually seen as a sign of both age and fading masculinity yet the dihydrotestosterone causes hair follicles to shrink leading to balding
/r/MensRights28/10/12 07:23 PM
2

For patriarchy to work as an oppressive system of men being universally privileged and women being universally oppressed, wouldn't women have to be utterly useless to society and have nothing substantial to use as leverage? This is the flaw with your argument. It is possible to be denied the ability to use the "substantial" thing you have as leverage. Look at slavery. Slaves contributed tons of valuable labor to society but were not permitted to use that labor as leverage. Same thing with worker…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 02:05 AM
0

Get a a pre-nup and a good lawyer. My great-uncle helped found a very successful company, he divorced his wife when she got old and now she lives in a trailer park and he gets everyone fancy hotel rooms come family reunion. I'm not saying it's the norm but it can be done.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 10:16 PM
2

As an uncircumcised man either I am too or they're over hyping it. There is some sensation but nothing I would describe as a pleasure center even on the level of the head of the penis.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 04:49 PM
3

I think in the west it started mostly with the Israelites. Circumcision was a sign that they had made a pact with god. The Christians gave up on it early on. Naked exercise was a big part of certain ancient cultures and asking your followers to be circumcised essentially exposed publicly which was bad for members of a persecuted religion. It stayed primarily a jewish cultural ritual in Europe but became a mainstream practice in America as certain doctors believed it had healthy benefits. In euro…
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:58 AM
11

I mean what do you expect, that people interpret phrases literally and independent from their historical connotations? That's just not how language works. If you use a phrase historically associated with racism people are going to assume you are being racist.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 12:43 AM
0

My dad was a chem professor who regularly brought me on sampling trips and did his best to involve me in his lab. When I was in highschool he helped me get a very good job at another lab at his university. I have felt very supported if not actively pushed to be a scientist. However this doesn't have a whole lot to do with gender issues and neither do the experiences you are listing above. These are anecdotes about individual parent-child relationships not any meaningful argument about gender.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 03:46 AM
6

Instead of betting you could read it and find out...
/r/MensRights21/10/12 09:07 PM
11

r/masculism looks at men's issues through a feminist perspective, this subreddit is extremely anti-feminist. The sidebar has lots of links on why r/MenRights believes feminism is not the solution to mens rights and if you stick around long enough you will realize many commenters view feminism as a hate movement designed to deprive men of rights.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:15 PM
-7

But we need to show that women can be just as brutal as men and the appropriate way to do this is through tons of horrific news stories instead of any long term statistical studies.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 02:22 PM
1

Look I'm not going to defend Atheism+ but editing their urban dictionary page is about as petty as it gets. It makes MRM look like a circle jerk on the level of SRS instead of a genuine discussion of gender issues.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 02:52 AM
-1

I agree with you it would have been exploitative of them to have sex with her at this point and both jokes at the expense of rape victims and giving people roofies are terrible things. I was trying to say that because she was actually verbally inviting a man to have sex with her at a time she was unable to give consent, this should be considered different from having sex with someone when they did not give consent.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:24 AM
-2

Yeah there should be some sort of legal distinction between having sex with someone who is unable to consent and having sex with someone who did not consent. I think rape will always be a tricky legal issue simply because it comes down to figuring out whether or not someone made a verbal agreement. This means most nonviolent rape is usually going to be a case of he said she said (or he said he said or she said she said).
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:45 AM
0

Making themselves attractive
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:34 AM
16

I think it says something about the quality of discourse when you say that all men who support feminism are "surrendering reason, morality, surrendering the right to an identity as a human being, in favor of the consensus identity afforded to him by the group, based on his utility, his conformance, or his affectations of supplication to the preferred members of the group, such as women". I'm not saying there aren't some men out there defending feminism because they are dependent on female approv…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:31 AM
0

Only if the only way to get laid is to objectify women....
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:07 AM
2

To quote AVFM If a man walks into a nightclub, or a grocery store for that matter, and commands the sexual interest of a significant number of the females present, he indeed is elevated above other men in the minds of most people. He also likely has other qualities, like wealth, athletic prowess, or Adonis good looks, which make him enviable to a lot of other men. Holding him in higher regard is human, even if it is not equalitarian. If success with women is caused by praiseworthy traits, then l…
/r/MensRights15/10/12 04:00 AM
4

Sounds like sarcasm to me.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 03:31 AM
5

Even if premarital sex strongly correlates with cheating, if the promotion of female virginity existed solely to prevent infidelity why was a similar standard not applied to men? Male virginity is not and was not valued which by your argument it should have been, as men who have sex before marriage are similarly more likely to cheat. This wasn't seen as a problem for men but it was for women. Why? Because one of the main purpose of women in a lot of cultures was to produce suitable male heirs an…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:41 AM
2

maybe someone thinks he's trolling
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:18 AM
1

Wouldn't this explanation be equally true of men which would mean that this in't really a gender issue. If you want to argue that premarital sex on the part of either gender leads to less stable relationships that's fine I only have issues when you say having premarital sex somehow specifically devalues women.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 04:07 AM
3

Virgins are historically highly prized, and there's a good reason for this. Are you saying that female virgins were historically prized because they were inherently less likely to divorce their partner and more likely to form stable relationships. That makes little sense because for most of history (in the west) it's been pretty hard for a woman to get a divorce or support herself without a husband and the legal rights given to husbands often gave them considerable advantage over their wife. I t…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:29 AM
2

I was just wondering what you think causes this? Is it just a fact of female biology that women predisposed to have premarital sex are predisposed to have less steady relationships? Is it social, where only certain types of women are socialized to be willing to have premarital sex and those women are also socialized to have less stable relationships? I was also wondering if there were any similar studies done on the number of partners men had and how that effected marriage stability?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:18 AM
3

First of all even if some women emotionally dominate their husbands through submission making the head of the household masculine and legally recognized implies that all women are trading legal rights for a form of emotional manipulation some women exercise. I think there is an obvious problem with that.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 03:01 AM
3

I know people who have worked problems out and I know people who have stayed in unhappy relationships their whole life. Obviously you can error on both sides ending a marriage when it can still be salvaged or holding on to it when it's obviously wrong. But for lifetime commitment to be seen as something men get from marriage and not something that has to be earned and worked towards by both partners seems wrong to me.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 02:51 AM
8

He never uses any qualifiers around the word men he just says things like "Men looking to marry face the same kind of dilemma ancient merchants used to face. Feminists and their enablers have slowly shaved off the value of marriage for men". This definitely seems to be talking about men as whole
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:35 AM
5

I strongly disagree with some of what he wants out of marriage which is: Being the legally and socially recognized head of the household. An expectation of regular sex. Legal rights to children. Lifetime commitment. Being a "legally and socially recognized head of household implies" special legal rights for men and that the wife will generally be obedient or at least deferential. If couples want to live that way that's up to them but I think modern relationships don't have to have that as a defa…
/r/MensRights08/10/12 12:24 AM
1

I don't really think this explains the experiences of the vast majority of students nor does it explain gender differences.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:26 PM
6

Also it has strong religious significance for a historically persecuted minority which often makes people uncomfortable condemning it because it can seem anti-semitic.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 03:45 PM
-2

and cue the "feminism is the source of all men's problems comments"
/r/MensRights05/10/12 06:15 PM
0

I think most of the logic is fairly sound. The only argument against it would be that the difference in woman's health issues stems mostly from having different bodies that require more expensive treatment. Having to face these issues is not a choice made by women, with the exception of pregnancy which we don't exactly want to discourage. I would assume men get billed more for auto-insurance because men get in more accidents. To some extent that is because of the choice to take more risks. Shoul…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 06:11 PM
-2

The support for his argument comes entirely from an advert for a march of dimes bid for bachelors which describes "(A)n artist, a stock broker, a doctor, a former hydroplane racer, businessmen and even a retired diplomat" as "everyday guys". One could easily chalk this up to a charity trying to talk up their event while still making it seem approachable rather than women's expectations of men. I get that most people here will agree with his point but at least admit it's not argued very thoroughl…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 05:51 PM
4

Wait, so if we accept that women are naturally more nurturing wouldn't that mean that they should be given custody the majority of the time as they are simply genetically predisposed to raise children?
/r/MensRights05/10/12 05:20 PM
3

Wait haven't you seen the "look around you, everything you see was built by a man" thread or comment that pops up every now and then. It's not used routinely but it tends to pop up every now and then.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 03:06 PM
3

A major concern of contemporary feminism is the issue of "essentialism," i.e. the phenomenon of identifying certain traits as essential characteristics of femininity Interestingly MR's is really split on the issue of essentialism. While they will constantly argue against contemporary stereotypes and essentialism for men in the fields of fatherhood and sexual violence. In other areas they will argue it's existence for women. One of the main places this comes up is the wage gap. Studies have repea…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:49 PM
2

It is not anti-woman for that specific woman but it reflects general assumptions about what a woman's role is that can be problematic in other areas.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 02:20 PM
1

Well it would be interesting for a group which frequently argues that so many rape accusations are false to come up with a way raped women should handle the issue, especially in non-violent instances.
/r/MensRights01/10/12 11:58 PM
1

I think the cause for this in the west is genetic as you can have women who are genetically XY but female in all other aspects (except they are infertile) because the testerone receptors failed in utero. I don't think it's possible for men to be XX. This accounts for some differences. Another cause is in places where there is lots of war the men tend to die in larger numbers. In some asian and polyneisan countries there tend to be more men than women because having a son is considered very impor…
/r/MensRights01/10/12 06:24 PM
1

It said "tolerance for ambiguity" not the promotion of it.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 09:44 PM
-1

That's an issue that should be handled by the people who present circumcision as an AIDS deterrent. If the issue is that people could become misinformed about a policy then the solution would seem to be inform them better about that policy not reject the policy.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 07:05 AM
0

I think the loss of some but not all sexual enjoyment is not equivalent to the ability to function normally as a worker.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 07:04 AM
-8

While the arguments about consent apply equally to both the fact is FGM has very different consequences then circumcision. Because these consequences are typically less traumatic the author is recommending it is a deterrent towards aids in places where it is possible but other solutions are not.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 07:00 AM
-3

I would admit that this is equivalent to castration but no society has ever made castration the norm for men (obviously they would go extinct) while Type III FGM is the norm in parts of Africa. In a technical sense I may have misinterpreted the statement, but I feel the general sentiment which is expressed here often, still should be addressed.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:56 AM
-10

While people in florida have the right to complain about their terrible lives it would still be false to equate their heat to be as bad as Pluto's cold. They simply aren't the same.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:51 AM
-3

Except those cases of botched circumscisions are mistakes that do not happen to the majority of men. Type III FGM is actually the intent of those who perform it and while not done to every woman in africa is the norm in certain areas. I understand citing wikipedia is bad form but I'm in kind of a hurry so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation). The post I responded to equated the two and the article in question primarily is discussing male circumscision in places where condoms …
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:43 AM
-3

At what point did I ever argue anything approaching this. I said that while I am opposed to MGM we should recognize that it often has very different effects than FGM and saying they are the same is offensive to people who have undergone FGM and shows a certain degree of ignorance.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:38 AM
0

Right but if you look at the top posts that isn't the argument they are making, some people further down are but a lot of posts are guilty of everything he is describing.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:31 AM
-2

There is effective breast cancer therapy in the west, there is not effective aid treatments in rural africa which is where she is advocating male circumcision.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:26 AM
-5

Type III FGM involves the removal of all external genitalia and then the immobilization of the legs so that the vuvla scars shut, a matchstick size hole is left in this scar tissue for urination/menstruation. In order for men to penetrate their wife they generally have to cut a slit in the scar tissue which is the ripped progressively wider during the course of sex rendering sex rather painful for women. While the same arguments about lack of consent apply to both to say that male circumcision u…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:25 AM
1

It's like I always say "do not permanently fuck with your kid’s body without his or her consent" oh wait that's a quote from this article... It's almost like she's only arguing it in places where AIDS is an epidemic and condoms are not always available based on research which said that circumcision reduces the chance of getting AIDS by 70%. You can take issue with that research but it's utterly false to say she is denying men control over their bodies outside of instances where she feels it is a…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:17 AM
0

To quote the author: I am generally in favor of “do not permanently fuck with your kid’s body without his or her consent,” extending from circumcision to pierced ears. But when it’s a procedure that has been shown to have very few negative side effects but offers a 70% reduction in the likelihood that you will contract HIV? In places where the HIV rate is depressingly high, and where preventative tools like condoms may not always be readily available? She's advocating it only as a stopgap measur…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:14 AM
3

She expressly says that she is arguing this for "places where the HIV rate is depressingly high, and where preventative tools like condoms may not always be readily available". So comparisons to U.S. HIV rates are not particularly relevant. In addition the comparison to U.S. breast cancer rates don't really fit because there are treatments available for breast cancer in the U.S. but little successful treatment of AIDS in places where "preventative tools like condoms may not always be readily ava…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 06:06 AM
3

Chocobat gave a logical analysis of her post in which he concluded that her reasoning was sound but that it was based off of a false premise and therefore arrives at a wrong conclusion. Dude got downvoted below the threshold because he is actually trying to understand how her argument is flawed and not just reflexively bashing her for being feminist. I think it says something shameful about the quality of discourse that he gets downvoted simply for saying that a feminist is behaving with the thi…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:48 AM
-3

Wait hold on, I'm opposed to circumcision but it's nowhere near as bad as Type III FGM. This actually remove all external genitalia and seals the vagina shut leaving only a whole the size of a matchstick for urination and menstruation. When sex happens the vuvla is cut open with a knife so that they can fit the penis in. This makes sex quite painful. While circumcision is problematic it usually doesn't render sex incredibly painful, so I think it is entirely justified to say that in some places …
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:20 AM
3

Really, you're actually going to mock the idea that women are oppressed in a country where they are beaten for wearing makeup, only got the right to own property 50 years ago and honor killings of promiscuous daughters still take place.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 06:32 AM
1

Understand that one of the side effects of male expendability is that women are 65% of the population so any man who wants a wife generally has one while women who want a husband do not. Meaning you aren't likely to see a father in the same situation these women are in of having to both care for their children and work a backbreaking job. It would certainly be better if the argument was that single parents cannot work such a job, but I'm not going to oppose impoverished single mothers getting be…
/r/MensRights24/09/12 05:32 AM
1

Actually I think the issue is that the wages aren't enough to support themselves and their families. Also these people really have no choice, I would imagine that there job options are fairly limited considering how segregated men and women are in Iraq. These women work a shitty backbreaking job where you have to leave infant children at home in order to get the money to feed them. Anything the government does to help them is good in my book.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 05:18 AM
9

Yeah I mean look at gone wild, it's not like everyone who comments on those threads is instantly swamped by people shaming them for supporting the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 11:41 PM
4

Know your enemy Especially when the rest of the world gives your enemy a lot of intellectual authority so acting like you enemy's beliefs are so obviously false everyone should recognize it instantly alienates people.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 03:56 PM
1

I love all the in depth discussion about how male gender roles effect the relationship between straight and gay men. This deep analysis has completely replaced the constant attacks on feminism that fill most other comment threads. Glad to see we can all have a moment of honest self reflection rather than attacking people simply for critiquing us.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 04:42 AM
2

To be fair they viewed homosexuality as a political stance rather than a inherent characteristic which is a makes critiquing it still wrong but in a different way than most homophobes. Also considering the red stockings constantly critiqued NOW and considered even radical feminists to have not gone far enough in political engagement I think NAFALT is entirely appropriate here as they evidently considered themselves to be at odds with most other feminists.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 04:31 AM
-2

Why do they prioritize so differently in the field of employment. And is this entirely biological or is it perhaps brought on by a social pressure to fit a certain role.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:58 PM
-4

There is a raw wage gap in the U.S. I am being perfectly honest (though it is possible I did not emphasize it enough) that you can completely compensate for this raw wage gape by adjusting for enough variables. I am also saying that this means we are socializing women to take lower paying jobs, work part time and prioritize family over career. I would argue that anytime a large slice of the population makes similar choices this is caused by something and should not be attributed to coincidence. …
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:54 PM
-5

Any time you see a lot of individuals making the same choices you have to wonder if there maybe is a reason. Or do you think it's just pure coincidence that women choose lower paying jobs with such frequency it accounts for a 25% pay difference, cause the odds of that just happening randomly for a 30 year period have got to be pretty low.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:26 PM
-2

There are plenty of societies in which women herd animals and care for livestock. In Papua New Guinea women are primarily responsibly for crocodile farming (http://www.ifad.org/gender/thematic/livestock/live_2.htm) don't tell me female hormones dissuade women from working with livestock because there are plenty of societies listed where women are the primary caretakers of goats sheeps and yaks. Even if you are going to cling to the idea that women are predisposed to nurturing you can admit that …
/r/MensRights21/09/12 08:22 PM
1

I have to go now but I may watch that movie later. The obvious critique would be that a legally egalitarian society does not mean culturally egalitarian but I haven't seen the movie so I can't say if that is true. Also women in third world countries being more interested in male occupations is very interesting. I'll have to read that.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 07:40 PM
-1

I think radical feminism is actually like a separate field within scholarship with different definitions for terms. It's not just calling someone especially feminist it actually refers to a different set of concepts and ideas. It's like how black feminism doesn't refer to feminism done by black women, historically it refers to a different field in which oppression is seen as interrelated rather than additive. However because this is the internet mainstream means more what is represented on popul…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 07:35 PM
-3

Ok let me see if I properly understood the part of this video that was most relevant to the jobs debate. When feminists say that the wage debate is due to social conditioning they are saying that women lack the agency to make their own choices. Saying that women are being steered towards certain fields or being forced to prioritize family over career by a sexist society treats women as objects without agency. It is not empowering towards women to say that the choices they make are forced upon th…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 07:29 PM
-4

Free will is a complicated issue, but to say that a huge number of people making similar choices lacks any sort of cause is silly. The consequences of the choices we make our different. For a man choosing to work part time and raise children results in ridicule, for a woman it's seen as normal. It shouldn't be at all surprising that women choose this more than men. There's plenty of people educated to be veterinarians, but the overwhelming part of them are women. Very few of them will take the d…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:28 PM
-4

As the OP explained, it comes down to personal choice. In the household I grew up in, my mother made more than my father because she chose to become a public school teacher. My father chose to join the Army and later the Navy. His benefits are better, but his salary is lower Yes but what the raw wage gap shows is that women consistently make different choices from men in large enough numbers to imply that there is some factor influencing this. Unless you want to argue that a 25% difference in pa…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:12 PM
-20

The wage gap is still relevant not because it shows that women are being directly discriminated against but because it means that women are being socialized to take lower paying jobs for a variety of reasons. While individual choice is a factor the fact that there is a statistically significant difference across a huge sample size implies social and cultural factors influence peoples job decisions. In a truly gender egalitarian society there would not be a wage gap, even one not caused by direct…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 04:35 PM
0

I think it speaks poorly of the quality of discussion when attributing diversity to the opinions of a vast century long movement is essentially considered a logical fallacy.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 09:35 PM
1

I think people on reddit call out the no true scotsman fallacy too often. It's not really relevant to the point being made. He's trying to argue that bigotry is not essential to feminism by claiming bigots are not feminists. You correctly point out this is false some feminists are indeed bigots. Do either of these things have anything to do with the point that bigotry is not essential to feminism, not really.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 09:31 PM
5

That's probably the motivation for rejecting it. If you aren't considered capable of reason than you can either reject reason or prove yourself capable of it. It's unsurprising that both paths were taken.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 05:19 PM
3

Psychological tests for psychopaths are often very flawed. Many wall street bankers have scored higher on the tests then incarcerated psychopaths, the way the category is defined has often been seen as very flawed. This statistic doesn't really surprise me though, people who are tested for psychopathy are typically convicted criminals. Most convicted criminals are men.
/r/MensRights17/09/12 05:15 PM
5

I think it's ironic that you trivialize cultural inequality and then list a number of issues that are caused more by cultural inequality than systematic. While things like homelessness and alienation from children due to divorce seem linked to systemic factors, things like suicide, crime, drug abuse, dropping out of school seem to be strongly linked to cultural factors as well. Violence is culturally seen as an affirmation of masculinity, the government can throw all the money they want at that …
/r/MensRights11/09/12 07:53 PM
3

India has a very different culture from ours especially in the more rural communities. Let's do some research about the ways Indian law and culture functions with respect to marriage and occupation for women before we get all upset because it would be ridiculous in the west.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 07:43 PM
3

This concept has been bastardized and twisted by feminists who want to assert that if men have some privilege they have it all. I don't agree with this. Black feminism has evolved in the face of dealing with the fact that black women were oppressed by black men who were also oppressed. And that black women in turn oppressed homosexual women and men. It is all about understanding ways in which people can simultaneously be the oppressor and the oppressed. There are plenty of dumb people on the int…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 07:31 PM
1

In what way have I trolled? I am expecting people to argue against me because I'm not anti-feminist and this is a MR's site but my arguments are not calculated to provoke outrage. Are you upset that I have forced an off topic agenda into a thread where it wasn't relevant because I felt agreeing with aspects of the post that was criticized was within the scope of the discussion.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 03:29 AM
2

This doesn't disprove what I'm saying, it just says a similar responsibility falls on feminism. Just because you think they fail in certain aspects doesn't give MR's the right to do so.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 03:23 AM
1

Why aren't promiscuous women also seen as callous and cruel? Because that's not what the study that was posted found. Also because casual sex is seen as benefiting men so a woman who gives it to men is not seen as hurting them. And only self-destructive idiots seek out something that is damaging to them, yes. The crucial word in the sentence you quoted was "seen", because it reflects perception rather than reality. Again the point of feminist protests is that women should not be looked down upon…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 03:13 AM
1

This doesn't answer the question. You're saying that men's bodies defiling women means men are symbolically lower then women. I'm saying women's bodies are considered defiled because they have been rendered useless to men, meaning that women are lower because they only have value based on men's use for them. Even if rape here refers to consensual sex outside of marriage, if the woman was not rendered useless to all other men why would he be required to marry her. Further there is no provision fo…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 03:03 AM
1

Regardless of all sex tainting everyone involved, a woman was the mother of God, meaning that the one human being who came closest to God did so via conception, gestation, lactation--processes only preformed by women's bodies. Women's bodies thus provide women a connection to the divine. Not so for men's. Right which is why priests were all men and the women who devoted their lives to god were forbidden from engaging in any of the things that you just described as giving them a connection to the…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 02:42 AM
1

That sentence contained the words "the point of feminist campaigns" which as far as I know are not to try to change the ways men are hurt by societal constructs about sexuality. Traditionally it has been seen as a proof of masculinity to be able to have a lot of sex so while one could argue that those who don't live up to it are hurt by it, men who engage in sexuality are often seen as better than men who do not. This study provides an interesting perspective on that, though not one which is par…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 02:04 AM
1

If women were the only people contaminated by sex why were monks required to be chaste? Is it perhaps because all sex was tainting to everyone involved from a religious perspective? While there is a lot of theology on this part pretty much everything I've read focuses on the pleasure of sex rather than penises alone. Mary is pure because she has never had sex, jesus is pure because his birth did not involve sex. There would be no way to have a pure birth with a man involved without making god th…
/r/MensRights11/09/12 12:14 AM
-10

I think this subreddit is often too focused on being anti-feminism to the point where it hurts men's rights. Too often feminism is critiqued based on what MRA's assume it's intentions to be while works of feminist scholarship are ignored. Even if MR's is set on completely rejecting feminism it should be aware of the fact that to a lot of people feminism adequately explains a lot of women's lived experience and a lot of the ways women were treated historically. MR's needs to develop into a compre…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 11:58 PM
2

Actually the whole point of feminist campaigns is to recognize that sexuality does hurt women due to societal constructs but that we should change those constructs so that it doesn't.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 11:43 PM
1

Jesus was born without sin because Mary hadn't been defiled by sex period. Sexuality of any sort was seen as worldly and both monks and nuns engaged in celibacy (nominally). However the whole virginity is valuable for what it provides men goes back to the old testament. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never …
/r/MensRights10/09/12 11:26 PM
2

The only reasonable argument is that someone who sacrifices career opportunity in order to raise children with the understanding that they will be provided with a certain quality of life in return deserves some sort of compensation if they are divorced, especially if it is later in life when any sort of job prospects for her are thin. The current models is based on old sexist beliefs that women are economically dependent on men and the language in it should obviously be changed to be gender neut…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 11:05 PM
2

In the "nigger-lover" example you are implying that a white person is betraying their race by having sex with something typically inferior to them. You are using racism to damage a white person but it is not racism against white people. You are clearly making the case that Slut shaming is therefore anti-male in a similar way. I think you are making a false assumption with the following statement and that this leads to you missing out on a crucial difference between the two. all male sexuality is…
/r/MensRights10/09/12 10:01 PM
0

Dawkins wrote a letter from her perspective to the women of the third world in which he said that first worl womens troubles were much bigger then third world women's. A number of people found it to be in bad form.
/r/MensRights10/09/12 08:59 PM
13

He seems to be arguing for some sort of universal standard of female attractiveness which for anyone who has ever studies anthropology is just silly. Early hunter gatherer societies often favored fat women over skinny one's and of the few hunter gatherer societies which remain many still do. There simply are huge differences in what different groups find attractive If feminists find some smidgen of peer-bypassed evidence tucked away somewhere in a private school’s gender studies program that, fo…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 11:18 PM
22

From the perspective of rad fem's yes
/r/MensRights09/09/12 10:26 PM
9

Now I know some (most) of you looking at this pic felt a blood pressure rise or, at the least, a stirring of disgust. That’s perfectly natural. Seeing women of your race (or tribe, or family) bang an outsider alpha male interloper, even going so far as adopting his cultural swagger and betraying their very essence as members of your shared tribe, and feeling emotions that would scandalize polite society, is a primal reaction that is evolved in all humans and has therefore likely served a benefic…
/r/MensRights09/09/12 10:18 PM
1

Because men have traditionally been measured by how much they make and being a deeply involved dad often requires flexible or limited work hours which generally means less pay. She's saying we need to get away from masculinity being defined based off of being the primary provider because in the near future there will be a large number of couples in which the woman is the primary breadwinner and in our current conception of masculinity this would be emasculating.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 10:03 PM
1

I'm guessing from the tone of this is what you really want is a bunch of self congratulatory statements about how everyone else is bigoted and the Men's right's movement is not at all flawed in how it presents itself to outsiders. What really should be happening here is that you ask yourself honestly why people outside the movement consider it a joke and what you could actually do to change that other than just say what you're saying louder. Posts like this betray an unsettling lack of self exam…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:43 PM
0

Yes but people who are not incarcerated due to mental problems but who have committed violent crimes don't get to go free. The mental hospitals they go to tend to be secure facilities they are not allowed to leave until a medical professional has judged them no longer a danger.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 09:23 PM
2

If it can be demonstrated by a medical professional to a jury that they are no longer dangers to society and that their crimes were a result of a psychological disorder then yes. Also typically psychological treatment for people who have committed violent crimes usually takes place in secure facilities, so it's not like those people would be walking around on their own free to do whatever.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 09:19 PM
1

This could be extended to most criminal behavior. Everything from chemicals in the brain to learned behaviors may give the answer you're looking for. Could be poor impulse control, it could just be someone who gets off on it because it's the ultimate criminalized violation of another human being. There won't be any one answer. Feminists have made lengthy arguments about how cultural understandings effect the reasons men rape and why this is specifically traumatic to women in a way other crimes a…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 08:47 PM
-3

right, because no man has ever successfully pleaded insanity
/r/MensRights05/09/12 05:12 PM
1

True but the distinction is still important because it means she should be treated psychologically rather than incarcerated. I do not know if her acquittal meant she was allowed to simply walk free or was compelled to undergo certain forms of therapy.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 05:09 PM
9

The stat itself is not a lie, the interpretation of it is often flawed. It means women tend to work in lower paying fields because they spend time raising children. The gap is due to gender norms rather than individual bias.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 05:38 AM
5

No, pay gap is largely accounted for by women working in lower paying fields. When jobs are divided into sufficiently small fields the pay gap shrinks to .08. This means women tend to take jobs that pay less. Many of these are traditionally feminine fields, but others are part time or have flexible hours to facilitate childcare. The pay gap does not mean that there is individual discrimination but rather that society tells women they are more valuable as mothers than as workers and tells men the…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 05:35 AM
0

Cultural Anthropology don't care, it'll just be all "Biology and Culture co-determine each other".
/r/MensRights05/09/12 05:18 AM
7

I just find this a logically unsound argument. I think people are capable of understanding and analyzing the identity of groups they are not themselves members of. Atheists have legitimate critiques and understandings of religions even though they are defined by opposition to them. Anthropologists produce nuanced and detailed studies of cultures they are not apart of that are incomplete but do help to bridge gaps. I doubt anyone could give a flawless definition of masculinity in our society but …
/r/MensRights05/09/12 05:09 AM
3

I think this both a case of sexism and the judicial system favoring those who enforce it over those who have violated it. The court made an extremely sexist and illogical ruling because they were probably looking for any good reason to side with the guard.
/r/MensRights05/09/12 04:56 AM
1

It's completely true that women make 77% of what men make but there are factors which have been explained in depth by other posters which account for this. This doesn't mean it's an insignificant statistic and should be dismissed. What this primarily shows is that women tend to take jobs which earn less mainly because they are either traditionally feminine occupations or they give them the time and flexibility to be able to do most of the work of raising children. These are people making choices…
/r/MensRights05/09/12 04:52 AM
2

If he actually links to the stats you should at least read the sources before assuming his claim is false. A 1997 study from the Bureau of Justice says the following Federal statistical series obtaining data on arrested or convicted persons - Uniform Crime Reports, National Judicial Reporting Program, and National Corrections Reporting Program-- show a remarkable similarity in the characteristics of those categorized as rapists: 99 in 100 are male, 6 in 10 are white, and the average age is the e…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 06:26 PM
2

This is a good article but it's more related to gender egalitarianism than it is Men's rights
/r/MensRights03/09/12 03:31 AM
1

My question is why do so many feminists insist that it is a discredit to women to be a stay at home mother, or teach, or whatever traditionally feminine job you care to name? Feminism is a diverse field with a huge history. Enlightenment era feminists felt that avoiding child rearing was the only way for a woman to attain equality. Many more modern feminists feel child rearing is fine it just tends to be undervalued by society and needs to be a role afforded more status. Others would say its fin…
/r/MensRights03/09/12 01:56 AM
1

Simply doing dangerous jobs accounts for only a small fraction of the wage gap. When you compare people working within the same field the wage gap shrink to 0.08%. This means women are simply more prevalent in part time jobs and jobs that pay less. The two suggested reasons for this are that traditionally female jobs pay less and that women tend to work part time so they have time to raise children. It is equal pay for equal work but attributing individual choice to being solely responsible for …
/r/MensRights02/09/12 11:23 PM
1

He's right, the focus is solely on white men's privilege in discussions of privilege. White men sure do have privilege but it's the only type of privilege that tends to be explicitly identified.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:29 PM
1

Yeah cause things were so great for Blacks under Jim Crow, what with the lynching, the chain gangs and the inability to vote. Glad the civil war freed blacks from basically being an exploitable labor force under the control of southern plantation owners. Not saying the Civil War didn't improve things but it didn't give blacks the political power the miners had.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:26 PM
1

In the 1960's rather then in the 1890's. Miners had the privilege to fight their battles and they eventually won, Blacks didn't even get the privilege to start fighting until much later. Eventually they evened out, but at the time of the photo the white miners collectively had more power than black field hands.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:21 PM
2

Are you implying they have unrealistic expectations of men or that having lots of sex means no good man would ever want to marry them?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:09 PM
0

Eternal because it's vulnerability not victim-hood. Vulnerability only implies the possibility of becoming a victim not that it's a foregone conclusion. But yes, she's being sloppy culture changes, women may not always be the primary victims of slut shaming. While there are male victims of slut shaming gender stereotypes generally say having hook-up sex proves a man is good and that a woman is bad. It's why male rape victims aren't taken seriously, it's assumed having sex is always a good thing.…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 09:07 PM
3

1) MRA's believe feminism purposefully appropriates terms initially describing this (rape culture) and trivializes it out of spite for men and the desire to make rape issues all about them. Feminists would argue their critiques of patriarchy explain why men are reluctant to open up rape and that abolishing the patriarchy would lead to more men seeking counseling. 2) Feminist would argue they do not, simply that being white hetero male gives people privilege in certain areas and it is harder for …
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:57 PM
1

All* MRA's are antifeminist, not all anti-feminists are MRA's *there may be some exceptions.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:22 PM
2

There is no retreating from the hookup culture to an earlier age, when a young man showed up at the front door with a box of chocolates for his sweetheart, and her father eyed him warily. Even the women most frustrated by the hookup culture don’t really want that. The hookup culture is too bound up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young woman in 2012—the freedom, the confidence, the knowledge that you can always depend on yourself. The only option is what Hannah’s friends always tel…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:10 PM
0

I actually read it all through until that point. When you pair up the words "eternal" and "vulnerability" you can't ignore that it paints women as victims. Except for when you follow it with an example of a woman negotiating an incident in which she is vulnerable to slut shaming in a way that prevents her from becoming a victim.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:05 PM
0

Coal companies treated them like shit and the debt stuff is definitely a part of that. But they had the ability to go on strike and while they faced violent measure from coal companies they had some public support and won in the long run. What do you think would have happened to any black field hand who tried to organize a strike?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:25 PM
3

They had shitty conditions sure, but I'd rather have that then slavery or Jim crow. This is evidenced by the fact that blacks were often used as strike breakers in miner strikes because they were willing to take the job as it was good by their standards and it would incite the white miners to violence against them which made the coal companies look good. The point is the mines treated them like shit, but they still had more privilege than non-white males.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 06:22 PM
5

That's just called having a shit mother
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:51 PM
1

Would you agree with the argument that women and men should be socialized so that parenthood is a shared burden and doesn't solely cut into women's working hours?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:49 PM
1

What she's actually talking about is how women are vulnerable socially when it comes to hookup culture, due to slut shaming. The example which follows the quote you used is of a woman whose friends leaked pictures of her having sex with 13 athletes, but she had captioned them so instead of her being humiliated it became comedy. What the vulnerability is being manipulated to gain is not economic or legal advantage but rather comedy which helps women overcome potential victimization. For example: …
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:44 PM
1

I think there is so little information available to us we should simply sit this one out and let the police do their job rather than jump to conclusions.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:04 PM
-5

Is he honestly suggesting the eradication of men? Not really, he's doing a little thought experiment on whether or not men are strictly necessary from a biological perspective and whether or not there are utilitarian reasons to keep men around. I don't see the part where he concludes men are subhuman, he says that statistically they are less healthy and more violent then women and that women do a good job of raising children on their own.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:24 AM
0

I should have used the word society instead. I apologize for being sloppy. I think I over react sometimes because I too often see the "Individual men don't oppress women=women not oppressed" logic popping up.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:04 AM
0

Voting rights were extended in one state, women could vote in a total of 4 states and in 1806 they actually lost the right to vote in New Jersey which they had possessed since 1776. Still seems like oppression to me. I don't feel the comparisons to Jim Crow are particularly relevant. Simply pointing out other people had it worse doesn't make what happened to women right. Also Black men legally had the vote since 1870 and were being kept from using it via vigilante action. I'm not saying blacks h…
/r/MensRights27/08/12 04:02 AM
2

They're also working on making synthetic sperm from women's stem cells, so this will cut both way eventually.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 07:23 PM
1

The appendix is pretty unnecessary but we still have those. I don't actually disagree with you I just think it's bad logic to assume that everything that exists naturally has a purpose and will continue to exist.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 07:22 PM
1

There are a few "genius" sperm banks but actually qualifying is mostly about family health history and the ability to get a high sperm-count while masturbating, which is difficult.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 07:19 PM
1

No, for most of human history women worked very hard on farms in textile mills and being the gatherer in hunter-gatherer societies. Also women have typically raised the children who go on to become the men you claim have built everything. Raising children doesn't generate wealth but it does instill the next generation with the knowledge of how to function in society and frees up the men to go build everything.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 07:17 PM
1

This is simply an unintelligent view of human history. The whole idea of women not working is a relatively recent one. Anthropological studies have shown that many hunter gather tribes typically get around half their calories from food that is gathered rather than hunted. On a farm everyone works, while there is a division of labor women produce the clothes and cook the food. In the 1800's women and children worked the textile mills that clothed America. In modern times we became wealthy enough …
/r/MensRights26/08/12 07:11 PM
5

He's saying that the presence of actual men isn't necessary. There are scientist who are working to produce synthetic sperm from women which would allow lesbian couple to impregnate each other. Technology may render men biologically unnecessary, though it would probably eventually do the same thing to women by producing synthetic eggs, but that's much further down the line.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:58 PM
2

I think it's kind of an oversimplification to say that if you don't form a separatist group you aren't being persecuted. Many women felt they were being persecuted and worked against it from within their own culture, it's why we have feminism. Also while a narrative of female oppression won't work if applied to all of human history (few narratives do) there certainly was legal and social discrimination against women in the recent American (and British) past which shouldn't be ignored.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:47 PM
1

This is sad.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:27 PM
1

Well maybe women mostly invented things in the area of textiles because their culturally assigned role was to work in textiles. It might have a lot to do with usually not being educated as much or in the same way as men. I don't think you're arguing that women are actually intellectually inferior to men so maybe look at the societies in which most of the inventions came from and see if they were environments which would have been conducive to female inventors.
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:27 PM
3

One particular historical example I like to point to is women's suffrage in the western U.S. First place in the U.S. for women to vote was Wyoming Territory. No women were involved in the decision-making process and there was no suffrage movement in the territory demanding it. It was a decision made entirely by male politicians who thought it would attract more families to Wyoming (obviously, women must've had some power within families). I heard that one of the main reasons this was done was th…
/r/MensRights26/08/12 06:17 PM
1

Centuries isn't all of history. While I may not be intentionally engaged in trying to give whites a leg up on blacks, I still have a leg up. She's wrong, in that women are often complicit in their own oppression, but men have had certain advantages.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 02:15 PM
4

Men may not worry as much about who they sit next to on the bus, but it's not because they are substantially less at risk of being harassed or "creeped on". Maybe it has something to do with the culture constantly telling them, "Dudes have nothing to worry about!" while hollering at women, "OMG! You could be raped at any moment!" Or worse that by setting up the idea that only women can be victims, becoming a perpetrator means you can't possibly be feminine and thus must be masculine. Which means…
/r/MensRights21/08/12 02:12 PM
-7

I actually find this offensive. If I knew someone who had been raped, or had been groped randomly at some point I would be suspicious around drunk people and people who make me feel uncomfortable. To suggest that she's crazy based on her being overly cautious is kind of insulting and a cheap and easy way to just disregard her point (which can be done easily enough by arguing against it).
/r/MensRights21/08/12 02:08 PM
8

Check out that Max guy in the comments. He may be too feminist for you guys but he's way smarter then everyone there. Also this gem from Meghan. Men don’t think twice about where they sit on the bus based on the possibility that they might get sexually harassed or assaulted. That isn’t a generalization. Guys I think she's just an idiot. I almost feel bad about having a whole thread bashing her after reading her stuff.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 01:25 PM
2

Those players tend to be talented and not on teams were the coach is just starting and needs to show he's in charge. It's less about the stigma of domestic abuse and more about Chad Johnson becoming more of a distraction than a contributor on the football field.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:59 PM
2

The team letting him go makes a lot of sense. I follow football avidly and the dolphins are already pretty much a joke. The hottest quarterback on the free agent market who wasn't Peyton Manning, Matt Flynn, decided to go into a 3 way QB competition in Seattle where he may not even play then take a deal with the dolphins where he would have been a clear cut starter. Joe Philbin is a new head coach, he has to flex his muscles and change the reputation of the team so good players will want to play…
/r/MensRights20/08/12 06:56 PM
4

If anything, promoting the idea that men shouldn't judge women for being promiscuous is the real misandry. I think there are different ways to judge a women for being promiscuous. It's fine to be worried they someone who you know has had many sexual partners may give you an STD and you should use protection and communicate with them about that. Secondly it's fine to be worried about infidelity, it makes sense that in both genders people who tend to have lots of partners rather than long term mon…
/r/MensRights19/08/12 11:44 PM
6

It may never be changed in western society because of our history and culture but it isn't human nature by any means. Some hunter gatherer tribes simply have no concept of virginity. The !Kung people often begin having sex at an extremely young age, often actually before puberty. You could explain to them what virgin means as a word but it still wouldn't be a concept that had any real power in their society because there are very few people who haven't had sex as small children.
/r/MensRights19/08/12 11:30 PM
3

I think being transgender is currently classified as a mental illness but this may soon change. Our society tends to classify whatever it thinks of as abnormal as a mental illness, for example homosexuality was a mental illness for a long time. Almost every society believes genders act like they were "born to act" even though different societies often have very different conceptions of what is normal for those genders. The greeks thought pederasty was natural for men and boys and we consider it …
/r/MensRights13/08/12 03:33 AM
1

I did NOT claim that those people were feminists. They certainly are enemies - enemies of empathy and compassion and therefore humanity. Stop the straw man fallacies. You did not but the video did. This is wrong and that is the point I have been trying to make. Take a glance at what has typically had to happen in order for people to liberate themselves from oppressive forces. Today's generation of people in the West take their freedom for granted and don't realize how hard of a struggle it was t…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 03:23 AM
1

I never disputed that. I'm asking you to supply examples to support your claim that something comparable happens with the sexes reversed. Which I don't need to do because my point is that claiming that shit-people belong to your ideological opposition with no evidence other than them being shit people is wrong. Even if there was absolutely no where on the web where anyone had ever said that they thought someone deserved rape, the point would still stand. This video is not a perfect example becau…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 09:14 PM
0

but I think it would be nice if male rape victims could talk about their experiences and not get called weak or pussy-whipped or a liar. I think this is another side of slut shaming. We have a very binary gender system in which women and men are often viewed as opposites. So if we shame women who have a lot of sex, we praise men who have a lot of sex. Which means men who complain that they have sex are being bad men and are discredited. I'm not sure if getting rid of slut shaming would fix this …
/r/MensRights12/08/12 09:17 AM
1

With people's real names and going unchallenged? Please show us some examples. And they must all be assuming that she did something to deserve being beaten almost to death. My point is not that it's okay for the people in the post to say those things, those people were fucked up pieces of shit and I made that clear. What I had a problem with was him labeling those people as feminists based on the evidence that they were being sexist against men. If feminist did the same thing with something like…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 09:11 AM
-3

Right but I think parts of this subreddit often uses the loudest dumbest parts of feminism as an excuse to ignore the totality of it. In this case the narrator of the video (who was for the most part awesome) said people who used stereotypes opposed by many feminists groups were feminists. These people didn't identify as feminists and didn't use feminist ideas but he called them feminists because Mr's wants to discount feminism. I think large portions of both MR's and feminism tend to have the v…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 08:00 AM
0

Those weren't feminists they were just pieces of human shit, the two can overlap but don't necessarily equate. Look, there are plenty of places on the web where a story of a guy beating his cheating wife or raping someone who had dressed revealingly would lead to applause. Those are shitty horrible fucked up places. Now if someone said that the people in there were MRA's, because MR's is really about being male centric you guys would be pissed. It is appalling that this was done on Facebook wher…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 06:29 AM
16

Maybe I just live with more progressive people but where I come from most people would just view it as a cute naked baby and don't really have a problem with very young children being naked. If the children were older then they would get pissed off.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 05:46 AM
2

Blacks were and in some cases still are an exploitable controllable labor force even after slavery was legally abolished. The fact that it was still hard for them to vote in the south even up into the 1960's shows that a society can thrive by treating large percentages of their population like shit. African cultures that practice female circumcision have been around for a very long time and they actually fuse the vagina mostly shut and then cut it open again for sex and childbirth resulting in h…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 05:32 AM
-1

Why is it that "most women want to have and raise kids"? The fact that women giving up their career to do so accounts for a 20% difference in wages should imply that this is not just a few women randomly choosing family over careers but a larger trend. Women are taught that it is their job to do the unpaid work of raising children and mens job to do the work of providing money for the family. In an equal society both men and women would have the option to decide in their relationship how to spli…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 07:22 AM
0

What the video shows is that women's pay is not due to "plain and simple discrimination" but rather societal factors. If women make up a larger percentage of the college population then men why are they taking lower paying jobs? Why is it women who have to take flexible jobs so they can care for their kids rather than men? Child custody laws favor women because it's assumed women are primary caretakers. Women make less money because they tend to have to spend time doing the unpaid work of caring…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 12:28 AM
1

What the study shows is that the raw gender gap of 20.4% is not due to discrimination on the part of individual employers but is accounted for by a number of factors. I. Occupation Women and men tend to have fairly similar pay within the same fields with some exceptions. Using detailed categories for different fields accounts for a large percentage of the wage gap, which would suggest that the raw wage gap is high because women tend to work in lower paying fields. II Human Capital Women have bee…
/r/MensRights10/08/12 12:03 AM
2

Interestingly there is an intersection between those two movements, black feminists. First wave Feminism had some conflicts with the abolitionist movement which meant that African American women have developed a lot of their own separate feminist theory. Black Feminism doesn't have the same presence in the public consciousness as classical feminism but it is becoming integrated into mainstream feminism because 2nd wave feminism was largely developed from the perspective of white housewives. It t…
/r/MensRights09/08/12 06:20 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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