TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

stopsayingfaggot Archive

View 0 posts and 769 comments by stopsayingfaggot on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-4

The very next sentence mentions a male victim by name. No other victims were named because those names weren't released to the press yet at the time the Atlantic article was published.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 02:09 AM
-1

Citation needed.
/r/MensRights02/06/14 03:09 AM
1

Those with the most motive, who benefit the most are the most likely culprits. What motive? Who is benefitting? Culprit to what crime? Again with the vague and nebulous assertions that are too meaningless to be argued or rebutted. Why don't you just say exactly what you mean? That is likely because nobody is willing reproduce on command years of social media barrage such as Facebook posts attesting, "This is why you never leave the father alone with the baby," or the unending assault on men in g…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 09:51 AM
1

I have no interest in participating, so here's the two ways you could convince me that my idea is incorrect: Demonstrate how somebody other than radical feminists have promoted any idea whatsoever that would make having changing stations in the men's restroom seem like a bad idea. Demonstrate any motive whatsoever for removing changing stations from the men's restroom but not the women's restroom, other than disenfranchising men as parents. If you can not demonstrate either of these then I can o…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 07:47 AM
0

I probably know more about both feminism and the men's rights movement than you do. I know the MRM well enough to understand that MRAs constantly blame feminism for various instances of perceived mistreatment against men, but rarely identify exactly who these feminists are or what they've done. Case in point, here's the current top non-stickied post in /r/mensrights: some boy is expelled and somehow, based on no evidence or explanation whatsoever, this is the fault of feminists. Again, specifica…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:43 PM
1

Do you people not know how to use Google? Pittsgrove Township man gets probation after plea deal in child sexual molestation case A Pittsgrove Township man facing first-degree child molestation charges was sentenced to three years probation Tuesday morning after accepting a plea deal for a lesser charge in Superior Court here. Louis J. Vasile IV, 46, of Buck Road in Pittsgrove, accepted a plea deal for a lesser charge of fourth-degree child abuse. His original charges included first-degree aggra…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 04:39 PM
0

And what have men's rights activists done? Said mean things about feminists on the internet And in one stroke you've demonstrated how completely pointless and ineffectual the men's rights movement is. There are single, individual feminists that have done more to help men than the entire men's rights movement combined.
/r/MensRights25/05/14 07:13 AM
1

What exactly is it that you think happened in your community that caused changing stations to disappear from men's public restrooms? Now that I wish I could answer. All of those stations disappeared around the same time, city-wide. That's too coordinated to be coincidence, so something must have prompted it. Unfortunately, nobody is being told why men are apparently not allowed to change diapers anymore. What I can see is the continued reinforcement of a local culture that holds traditional gend…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 06:56 AM
1

We seem to be talking past each other. Why does your second paragraph address this topic within the constraints of my locale and recent times, while your first paragraph stretches the topic over all the western world and all time? Because you indicated that feminism was responsible for the perception that childcare is a mother's job. My point is that this is impossible, since that perception was prevalent long before before feminism existed. My second paragraph addressed your vague and unsubstan…
/r/MensRights25/05/14 05:40 AM
-1

Searching for "plea deal probation" in Google News gets me plenty of links. Here are a handful: Ross man accused of attacking gay man gets probation in plea dea A Ross man accused of attacking a gay man outside a Lawrenceville bar will spend three months on probation, an Allegheny County judge ruled Tuesday. Bieber buddy Lil Za gets probation in drug-possession plea deal Lil Za, who was arrested on suspicion of drug possession while cops were searching his friend Justin Bieber's house in mid-Jan…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 09:27 PM
1

There's a general perception in this state that it's a mother's role to care for children and that allowing or enabling a father to do so is somehow wrong. The expectation that childcare is the mother's role has been prevalent for centuries, going back possibly as far as the dawn of human history. Feminists didn't invent the concept, and if anything, they've worked to diminish the practice by fighting to expand the role of women beyond homemaking and childcare, and arguing for paid paternity lea…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 09:14 PM
-1

But this was a plea deal. And there was a penalty - custody and probation. So what you describe wouldn't be a similar arrangement at all. In any case, there are thousands of instances of men getting away with heinous crimes without punishment, or with a slap on the wrist. Do you really need me to Google that for you?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 03:52 PM
3

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the point.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 08:57 AM
0

How exactly is it the fault of feminists that your local hospital doesn't have changing stations in men's restrooms?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:38 AM
5

Thoughts? My thought is that men would be better served by serious activism, scholarship, and discourse about important issues that actually affect men. Not pointless rhetorical strategizing and clumsy attempts at one-upmanship with hypothetical feminists that won't ever change anything or lead to anything useful.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:37 AM
-6

Pussy Pass. Or maybe she got a reduced sentence in exchange for pleading guilty? Because that's the whole point of a plea deal. Do you think men don't also benefit from similar arrangements?
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:22 AM
4

Additionally I've never heard of these extreme kinds of abuse coming out of womens prisons. That's because you've never bothered to look. You just lazily and baselessly assume that bad things that happen to men don't also happen to women. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/texas-rape-camp_n_3459920.html A recently filed lawsuit alleges that a Texas sheriff's office ran a "rape camp" at a county jail, where numerous male guards repeatedly raped and humiliated female inmates over an extended…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 06:18 PM
-2

Yes. In so far as it's possible for a secret vigilante organization comprising a loose collection of anonymous groups and individuals lacking any rigid organization or hierarchy to have anything resembling an official policy, then yes it was the policy of the KKK to threaten and murder black people and their supporters with the aim of restoring white supremacy. It was actually more than just their policy, it was basically the entire purpose of the organization.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 07:38 AM
-2

Do you believe that policies need to be written down and openly expressed by an organization or movement for it to count? ... uh, do you know what a policy is? Here's the description from Wikipedia: A policy is a principle or protocol to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. Policies are generally adopted by the Board of or senior governance body within an organization whereas procedures or protocols would…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 06:52 AM
-2

Even granting for the sake of argument that a single sentence taken out of context from an entire book that Dworkin wrote can be reasonably interpreted to mean that she thinks all men are rapists or that all intercourse is rape (and ignoring the fact that she rejected these interpretations explicitly), that doesn't explain how Dworkin enabled the assault and blackmail that /u/alcockell endured. That Dworkin was even brought up at all just demonstrates that MRA tendency to blame feminists blindly…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 06:38 AM
-1

Yeah you're not even making an argument. Are you insinuating that Dworkin was an authority in the UK, and if so do you have evidence of that? How is it relevant that Dworkin and Daly were key names in the 70s? Which is all beside the point in any case. You said that feminist policies were responsible for your assailants blackmailing you. What policies exactly, and how were feminists responsible for those policies? What did Dworkin, Daly, or any other feminist do in the 70s that led to that black…
/r/MensRights23/05/14 05:30 AM
-2

First, memes are not policies. Second, Dworkin was an American feminist, and had no direct influence over British rape laws. And third, care to quote where she said that "All men are rapists"?
/r/MensRights23/05/14 04:15 AM
1

According to feminist the amount of rape on GoT is too much and trivializes rape making it common and unrealisitc. Citation? Please link to a single feminist making this argument.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 03:45 AM
-2

I was sexually abused by girls in 1984 - due to feminist policies at the time, my assailants silenced me by blackmailing me that if I attempted to report the incident - they would cry rape - and I would be seen legally as the perp.. even though I was the victim. What did feminist policies have to do with your assailants' blackmail? What policies specifically are you referring to? Because rape has been defined as a male-on-female crime since biblical times, long before feminism existed.
/r/MensRights23/05/14 03:33 AM
-1

Oh, puh-lease! They admit they forced him out: "Accordingly, we asked this staffer to permanently and immediately resign from their position, and they agreed." And: ". . . allowing this staffer to continue his affiliation with Bwog would have tacitly endorsed a rape culture we so firmly stand against." There's only one reasonable way to read that. Of course they forced him out. But they did it by asking him to resign, not by firing him as you said. The two have different legal and social implica…
/r/MensRights16/05/14 03:18 PM
1

Did you even read their statement? It wasn't what we're told. They said that "On May 7, allegations that a member of our staff had violated Columbia University’s Gender Based Misconduct policy were brought to our attention by an anonymous tip." Would you care to highlight what part of that sentence refers to writing on a bathroom wall?
/r/MensRights16/05/14 10:24 AM
-1

A few things: You repeatedly state, including in your title, that the staffer was fired. They weren't; the editors asked the staffer to resign and they agreed. A subtle but important distinction. You said that: We assume that the fired staffer's name was scribbled on some bathroom wall by some unidentified woman using a toilet. While this by itself is a reasonable assumption given what's happening at the school and their own reference to the bathroom lists later in the statement, it's unreasonab…
/r/MensRights16/05/14 06:49 AM
1

If someone were to declare that feminism is their enemy, it would not follow that women are their enemy. Agreed, but since I never made that argument, I don't see how it's relevant.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 03:24 AM
1

... so what? Unless you're willing to argue that feminist women don't exist, my point still stands.
/r/MensRights15/05/14 07:57 AM
-2

Regardless, clearly MRAs would say to a woman they're the reason they're MRAs.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 06:44 PM
-3

They wouldn't say to a woman, "You are the reason" Are you freaking kidding me? The men's rights movement exists primarily to oppose and counter feminism. This subreddit is filled daily with dozens of posts criticizing feminists, and saying, in essence, that the existence and behavior of those feminists is what drives them to become MRAs. It's the reason this subreddit was created in the first place.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 05:56 PM
2

Here are tons of examples.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 08:50 AM
1

and even contradicts the statistically possible conclusion from this data: that 40% of the measured rapes were committed by women. Even this isn't a valid conclusion that can be inferred from the data, because there isn't a 1-to-1 correspondence between victims and rapes. A victim can be raped multiple times by perpetrators of one or both genders. The only statistical conclusions you can make from a study of the gender distribution of rape victims are about, well, the gender distribution of rape…
/r/MensRights21/02/14 06:34 PM
0

Your style of disingenuous argument is why these issues are contentious Says the person who's responded to me with literally nothing but unsubstantiated accusations and insults.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:52 AM
1

That's cute. You were the one defending Elan's writing as satire before I even entered the thread, and you're the one who just accused me of making strawman arguments, but when I challenge you on these or any other points, I'm just "re-muddy[ing] the waters". You've been continually making a whole host of logically indefensible and self-contradictory arguments, and I rebutted each of them with direct evidence and quotations. All these comments later, not once have you responded in turn with an a…
/r/MensRights06/01/14 04:07 AM
0

Name one instance of a strawman argument I've made in this thread. Just one instance where I imputed someone to be saying something that they didn't actually say. State what that person actually said and meant, and then quote me where I claim they said or meant something different. I dare you.
/r/MensRights06/01/14 03:40 AM
0

Nice twisting of figurative speech and trying to change the subject from this woman's objectionable article. I'm merely responding directly to arguments that you have made. So if anyone changed the subject it's you. Your word twisting and stawmen are deplorable, and typical of the ideologically blinded and bigoted. Alternatively you could just be stupid. You're the one who's been demonstrated to be arguing no less than three mutually exclusive assertions all at once. So I don't see how I'm the o…
/r/MensRights06/01/14 01:44 AM
0

So your position is that there's no such thing as satire in gender issues, but Elam's statements were satire and to suggest otherwise is absurd (even though Elam himself said otherwise), yet interpreting something as satire is subjective? And then I'm the one arguing in bad faith? How do you not fall over from cognitive dissonance?
/r/MensRights05/01/14 05:57 PM
1

This no such thing as satire when gender is involved. Your very next comment: I am not a particular fan of Elam, but what he wrote is self evidently satire. To suggest otherwise is absurd. And then we have Paul Elam's explicit clarification of what was and wasn't satire, regarding an exhortation for men to "beat the living shit" out of "violent bitch[es]", i.e. "grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall": [Stupid alert. For those too challenged to recognize satire, I spell it o…
/r/MensRights05/01/14 03:34 AM
0

"It is already illegal to sack a woman because she is pregnant, or on maternity leave, but we want to go further than that. We want to create a fairer society that gives parents the flexibility to choose how they share care for their child in the first year after birth. You label this as though it was about both genders, yet if you read it properly you will see that the second half carries on from the first. It describes an inequality that affects women, then goes on to state a way to solve it. …
/r/MensRights30/11/13 10:24 PM
0

Here's the quote I was referring to, from the Prime Minister: Mr Clegg said the current "Edwardian" rules stopped parents from "taking the decisions" that best suited their own needs and those of their children. "Women deserve the right to pursue their goals and not feel they have to choose between having a successful career or having a baby," he said. "They should be supported by their employers, rather than being made to feel less employable or under pressure to take unchallenging jobs. "It is…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 09:49 PM
2

This is a direct quote from our Prime Minister. How much of that reasoning was to do with fathers, and how much was to do with womens' work rights? Do fathers not sound like an afterthought to you? Three out of the five quoted paragraphs included fathers, so no, not an afterthought at all? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I (in this instance) anti-feminism. To be honest I don't care what beliefs or labels these people hold, but they sure like helping women out, don't they? A policy that hel…
/r/MensRights30/11/13 09:08 PM
10

So based on this single six-paragraph article, you know for a fact that the government had no pro-father motivation for instituting shared parental leave? The article that ends with this sentence? Just as women's roles and expectations have changed beyond recognition over recent decades, it is high time to allow men the flexibility to challenge the stereotypes about their own. It's posts like this that demonstrate that MRAs like you care more about bashing feminists than actually doing anything …
/r/MensRights30/11/13 07:30 AM
-7

So schools shouldn't punish students for plagiarism either, if they haven't been charged or convicted?
/r/MensRights30/11/13 07:22 AM
-4

You: No one says you have to like or agree with TRP... simply that MR is not the thought police of the MRM, and frankly, unless we're as bad as feminists, we shouldn't try to be. We also aren't the arbiters of what is the right social attitude, or who belongs in the MRM. You a month ago: You chose to become part of a society-damaging hate movement after it had done damage and promoted hatred throughout the first world, and if you're as well-read as you claim, you made that choice knowing how hat…
/r/MensRights23/11/13 12:23 AM
0

I'm simply throwing your words right back at you. I've made literally zero mention of my feelings or what I believe to be right and good. That you're responding with baseless strawman arguments and personal insults only underscores your hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 08:39 PM
-2

So political lobbying is the arbitrary threshold past which movements are required to police their members. MRAs don't need to denounce /r/theredpill, because they're ineffectual in changing society anyway. There's no need to denounce radical elements of your movement so long as they don't actually do anything, because apparently speech and ideas don't matter. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 05:41 PM
4

You one month ago: That's projection on your part. You chose to become part of a society-damaging hate movement after it had done damage and promoted hatred throughout the first world, and if you're as well-read as you claim, you made that choice knowing how hateful and dishonest the movement's leadership is, which means that you've chosen to knowingly support a label that lends credence to the groups exhibiting that behavior. You refuse to admit to the flaws in your movement and do anything abo…
/r/MensRights22/11/13 06:25 AM
-2

How the hell was the hate directed against her "[not] really all that bad"?? Her Wikipedia article was vandalized with pornographic images and references. She was emailed drawings of her being raped by video game characters. People tried to hack her social network accounts, and her website was subjected to a DDoS attack. Somebody even made a video game where players could punch her face until it was beaten and bloody. How many threats of violence, rape, and death does someone need to receive bef…
/r/MensRights15/11/13 12:07 AM
3

Oh good grief, no it's not. Even if it were true that 40% of sexual violence against men is committed by women, this isn't remotely the same as saying that 40% of rapists are women.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:09 PM
-4

Let's see all of those men's rights protests Michael Kimmel and Hugo Schwyzer (who is pro-male-genital-mutilation, by the way) have set up. A better question: where are all those men's rights protests that MRAs have set up?
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:52 AM
0

Marilyn French. Andrea Dworkin. Do I win a prize? French made that assertion through a fictional character. Dworkin said no such thing, and specifically disavowed the idea. No you don't get a prize. That's nothing compared to the amount of men who would comply if the government ordered them to turn in their Jewish neighbors tomorrow. A lot of people aren't good. So what? Irrelevant deflection. And nobody ordered all of those men (American, South African, Chinese, Indian, or whatever) to rape. Th…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:48 PM
-2

Yet, feminists seem to never be interested in teaching/protesting/addressing any of the problems that face men. False. Leave it up to a feminist to pretend a word with "normal" in it, doesn't mean "normal". Normal means normal. It just doesn't mean that many or most men rape. If rape is "common", wouldn't that mean it's "normal" and that many/most men do it? If rape is "common", then yes, it's "normal". But it doesn't follow that many/most men do it. It could mean that only a few men (or women) …
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:27 PM
-5

Just insert your hated group of choice and tie a social ill to them Like how you blame male rape on women? or a lack of your preferred group's oversight over their culture/behaviour/activities/thoughts. I invite you to quote where I mentioned anything at all about oversight, of or by any race, ethnicity, or gender. Also you've exaggerated the stats about how many men rape. It's 4% are serial 2% not serial. I guess you really wanted to squeeze out that 10% number. First of all, if 4% are serial r…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 06:13 AM
-3

That rape of men or boys by women is normalized doesn't mean that rape (of boys, girls, women, or men) by men isn't. That male rape is correlated with prior victimization by women doesn't mean that female rape is the primary way that men become rapists. And your baseless imputation of racism on my argument is just lazy, stupid, and dishonest. EDIT to add: I'm well aware that childhood sexual abuse of men is common, even in the US. Fortunately, "feminist ideologues" like David Lisak are actually …
/r/MensRights15/08/13 05:26 AM
-5

First, the insight that most men would not rape is not new to feminists. I'm not aware of any feminists that say otherwise. Second, Lisak found that about 5% of men have committed rape, and 3% committed serial rape. Those are certainly tiny minorities of men, but they still amount to a fucking lot of men. Third, Lisak's findings are only based on the US. Other cultures can be more permissive of rape - about one in four South African men admit to committing rape, as do one in five Chinese men, an…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:57 AM
0

And the rest that followed does not demonstrate anything quantitatively or in terms of gender incidence. It is much the same for the Card paper. WTF? You're either lying or an idiot - the Card paper is nothing but an extended quantitative analysis of this very question. From the conclusions of that paper: In contrast to prior reviews showing that boys enact more direct aggression than girls (Hyde, 1984; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), our results (replicating those of Archer, 2004) generally demonstra…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 08:09 PM
0

Gender differences in overall levels of relational aggression were not observed; You did a C and P of that. Did you read it? Yes, and it supports my argument completely; why do you think I copy-pasted it? If gender differences were not observed, then relational aggression is a problem for boys as well as girls. What the hell is your point exactly?
/r/MensRights13/08/13 08:05 PM
0

Agreed with blueoak on this. If you can't/won't fully disclose, it makes your representing the position of anyone else completely suspect. I'll PM you the same email screenshot that I PM-ed blueoak. It's a screen capture of the email conversation my friend had with the author, and forwarded to me. I note that neither you, nor wiki, who both claim that relational aggression is gender symmetric, cite research proving it. Then you're not paying attention, because in the very abstract of the paper t…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 07:22 PM
1

I'm PM-ing you a screenshot of the email conversation that my friend forwarded to me. You can decide for yourself if it's authentic and if I represented her response correctly.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 07:18 PM
4

I asked a friend who's an academic to email one of the cited authors (not Diana Davison, the author of the AVfM article, but one of the authors of the paper that Davison repeatedly quotes and cites). I don't have permission to post the entire reply, but they basically said that: the data was badly misrepresented, relational aggression is not a "female" problem since boys and girls engage in it at similar levels, the perception that it's a female form of aggression likely arises from the fact tha…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:23 PM
-4

David Lisak, PhD, is our first 1in6 Canada Advisory committee member! Oh look, another feminist doing something concrete to help men, while MRAs do nothing but complain on the internet!
/r/MensRights13/08/13 03:58 AM
-5

Women (not just some, many, or most, but apparently all women) are obnoxious cunts? There isn’t a man alive who has been meaner to a woman than women are? Men are objects by which women measure themselves on the "scale of cunthood"? And you're agreeing with this tripe? Seriously!? I'm actually hoping that this "relational aggression" concept is just a badly executed satirical parallel to the patriarchal models that feminists use. Because I'd rather believe that this article is satire rather than…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 03:49 AM
1

That's correct, we can't make any strong inferences about the number of perpetrators or rapes for the 12-month period by using the lifetime data. My point is simply that, given the lifetime data for number of perpetrators per victim, it cannot be safely assumed that the number of rapes per victim within the 12-month period are the same for the two genders. The assumptions used in the infographic cannot be justified, and therefore the primary claim being made, as expressed in the title, is worthl…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:56 PM
1

Why are the numbers so high for that study? That may be my fault, I meant that male and female rape victims, not men and women, were raped multiple times on average. Put that way, the numbers don't seem as high. What questions were asked and what answers led to a rape classification? The questions they used are on page 4.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:43 PM
1

Even this is still wrong. For one thing, as /u/soulcakeduck already explained at length, you can't apply the lifetime statistics for the gender ratio of perpetrators to the 12-month statistics for victims. For another, you're assuming that both male and female victims were raped only once within the 12-month period, or that the two genders were raped an equal number of times on average. In fact, studies have shown that men and women are male and female victims were raped multiple times a year on…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:22 AM
1

For what it's worth, I sympathize with your frustration, and I admire your tenacity in explaining her errors. I had my own conversation with typhonblue today, and the number of glaring errors she made - in how science and statistics work, in the way she'd represent the studies being discussed, even in basic grad school-level math - were just embarrassing. That her instinctive response is to impute shenanigans or vote brigading to any study or critic that disagrees with her preconceptions makes i…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 07:05 AM
0

.2% of women(16) reported being raped by penetration in the last year by an intimate partner. Ah okay, I didn't catch that you had made that distinction.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 05:12 AM
2

Why not report it and indicate the "high standard of error?" This is common practice in the sciences. For example, from Wikipedia: The survey with the lower relative standard error has a more precise measurement since there is less variance around the mean. In fact, data organizations often set reliability standards that their data must reach before publication. For example, the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics typically does not report an estimate if the relative standard error exceed…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:49 AM
2

Not reporting results because of a high standard error rate is the opposite of arbitrary.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 12:37 AM
1

Please quote or link where I suggest such a thing.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 12:11 AM
2

However I realize now that we're arguing at cross purposes. The number you are citing is men raped via penetration by an intimate in the last year. This is a categorically different number than men raped via penetration by anyone in the last year. That number is the one we're arguing about and the NVAWS found men to be 1/4 of the victims of rape via penetration. What? Now I'm really confused, because I'm merely citing the numbers that you originally cited. I'm using the same data that you pointe…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 12:07 AM
4

Eh, fiction is littered with images of attractive bald men.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:07 PM
0

The main hypothesis used by anti-MRAs to explain the huge discrepancy between the 12-month and lifetime rate in men is that male rape victims tend to be raped by the same woman throughout their lives. Which anti-MRAs say this? Could you cite a source? How would the logic even work? Even if men are raped by the same woman throughout their lives, how would that result in more female victims than male victims being reported in lifetime statistics, when compared to 12-month statistics? If you assume…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:56 PM
4

By "forced envelopment" I simply mean "made to penetrate" - I'm referring to the data in Table 2.2 as shown in the infographic. Sorry if that was confusing. As for your confusion regarding the bolded text, I believe what the authors were referring to are unsuccessful attempts at forcing a victim to penetrate. By saying "it did not happen" they don't mean that they didn't observe it in the study; the authors are referring to penetration that didn't happen despite the perpetrators' efforts. Your c…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:46 PM
1

I don't know who or what you're arguing against, but it's clearly not me or anything I've posted on this thread. I have made exactly zero claims here about what causes the discrepancy between the 12-month and lifetime data. I don't know what causes the discrepancy. I can't understand why you keep harping on that point, when it has nothing at all to do with the argument that I'm making.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:08 PM
1

I'm not disputing that it happens. That's obvious. I'm disputing that that fact sufficiently explains the discrepancy. Your hypothesis is that it does. Once again, it's not. I'm not asserting nor have I ever asserted that the existence or prevalence of repeat victimizations accounts for the discrepancy between the lifetime and 12-month data. You're arguing against a straw man.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 09:30 PM
1

a victim can be raped multiple times by different people even within a 12-month period (e.g. gang rape) That is one of the hypotheses you presented to explain the discrepancy. That's not a hypothesis, it's a fact. For example: Because some rape victims experienced more than one rape in the 12 months preceding the survey, the incidence of rape (number of separate victimizations) exceeded the prevalence of rape (number of rape victims). Specifically, women who were raped in the previous 12 months …
/r/MensRights04/08/13 08:38 PM
1

That doesn't make any sense. The NVAWS found .3% of women and .1% of men were raped by penetration. If it "failed to get enough male respondents" then the rate of female respondents was hardly that much better. And the second survey only found .2% of women were raped by penetration. Assuming similar results, as you have, that would mean .05% of men raped by penetration. Which would be 400, not 8. You would sound more credible if you actually read the studies you're citing, or at least knew basic…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 08:08 PM
2

Only 8 men out of 8,000 reported being raped by penetration in the last 12 months. That number is so small as to be statistically suspect, as the authors themselves note. Both studies failed to get enough male respondents in their 12-month data to draw any firm conclusions, the 1999 study just decided to include that data in their table anyway.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 07:43 PM
–

That's exactly the same data as shown here: http://imgur.com/35aadUn (page 14, exhibit 4) See the footnote: relative standard error exceeds 30%. Also, the results show that about 1/4 of victims are male, not 1/3.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 07:30 PM
–

No idea what you're talking about. They didn't even get enough male victims in that sample to report: http://imgur.com/mGpyZGE (Taken from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf) Further the * indicates that they have no data; it indicates nothing about what the data could be. Again, allow me to redirect your attention to the lifetime data.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 07:16 PM
–

Actually, there are other statistics that cover that. All this report says is that it didn't report on that category of sexual abuse. Uh, what? This report absolutely did report on that category, just look at the lifetime data. The reality is that they cooked the books to avoid their previous finding that men were 1/3 of the victims of forcible penetration. Citation needed.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 06:44 PM
–

Great explanation, at least someone on this subreddit is speaking out against the abuse of statistics. Allow me to add that applying the lifetime data for the gender ratio of perpetrators isn't just invalid, it's selective. The same lifetime data shows that about 1.58M men have been raped by penetration, compared to 5.45M that have been raped by forced envelopment; and that 93.3% of the former reported male perpetrators. All of these male perpetrators are selectively ignored in the infographic, …
/r/MensRights04/08/13 06:22 PM
–

What on earth are you going on about? What hypothesis? I never mentioned the lifetime numbers, much less asserted that they were better. My point is simply that the central claim being made in the infographic rests on faulty assumptions. I didn't put forth any competing hypothesis.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:57 PM
0

It clearly spells out in the infographic that it is a) giving the percentage of rape perpetrators by gender and not the percentage of rapists by gender And yet the title of the infographic is "40% of rapists in the United States outside of prison are female".
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:30 AM
–

If you're going to disregard any statistic, it should be the lifetime number because it's the most likely to be completely inaccurate. Going by that logic, one would conclude that men aren't raped by penetration to any significant degree.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:17 AM
–

This is incredibly bad logic. The infographic is assuming without justification that a one-to-one correspondence exists between victims and perpetrators, which isn't justified given that a) a victim can be raped multiple times by different people even within a 12-month period (e.g. gang rape), and b) a perpetrator can rape multiple victims (and we know that this is in fact the norm). It's fundamentally inappropriate to make statistical claims about perpetrators in a study that was focused on vic…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:53 AM
3

Stephen Colbert on this guy: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/379605/march-31-2011/difference-makers---roy-den-hollander
/r/MensRights02/08/13 09:02 PM
0

A paywall is what you use to prevent your debate opponent from finding out the material doesn't say what you claim it says. If others can't actually read it, all they have is your (arguably questionable) word. Right, because I control which papers are put behind paywalls. God forbid that you actually pay a little money or use a library to learn about the arguments you're summarily dismissing. And you do realize I already posted the text of the entire paper for you to read, right? No, Koss used s…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 01:18 AM
-1

To show that I actually read the paper, here is the text in its entirety: === Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and Validity Mary P. Koss and Christine A. Gidycz Kent State University Abstract Many rape studies use judicial records or crisis center files to recruit research participants. Recent studies, however, have suggested that reported rape rates greatly underestimate the number of rapes that occur each year, that the conviction rate for rape is low, and that few victims utilize rape c…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 10:14 PM
0

You keep citing stubs that don't lead to actual articles without penetrating a paywall, and making claims that aren't backed up by the actual text of the item you're citing. TIL that a paywall invalidates the content of an article. What you linked to doesn't show that Koss got positive evidence that the results were accurate - it shows that Koss approved of her own methods, and therefore assumed them to be correct. Koss validated her methodology by using interviews to determine if self-reports f…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 10:04 PM
0

You realize you just made my point - you're arguing that the Koss question is supported by the question you offered, but it leaves room for an even wider interpretation than you're attributing to "disabled." No, because the question used by Schwartz and Leggett leaves less room for interpretation than the question you offered. A respondent can judge whether or not they "were so intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs that [they] could not stop it or object" without having to parse…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:04 PM
0

Here, you're trying way too hard. That's just hilarious - treating being more specific as ambiguous when you're arguing in favor of the use of a question which is ambiguous specifically because it's not specific enough. What counts as disabled? Slurred speech? Lowered inhibitions? Inability to walk straight? Drowsiness? Nausea? Difficulty concentrating? Being "high"? Impaired coordination? I read that study - it's horse shit, because of the methods used. Not only is the question still too ambigu…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 08:04 PM
–

Better would be "Has any person ever subjected you to sexual intercourse that you didn't want, but which you were unable to stop or object to because you were disabled by drug or alcohol intoxication?" I would argue that this wording is no better, and in fact probably worse, because "disabled" is an ambiguous term that's widely open to interpretation. In any case, the question I quoted was used in this study to specifically address the criticism made against the question that Koss used. And it u…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 07:28 PM
–

The contention is that: "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" is poorly worded and counts women who weren't raped but merely regretted having sex. Would you say that the question: "Have you engaged in sexual intercourse when you didn't want to but were so intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or drugs that you could not stop it or object?" is correctly worded and would yield the desired results?
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:31 PM
1

In what sense is raising a child as a single mother not taking responsibility for one's sexual behavior? Particularly when compared to a "financial abortion"?
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:14 PM
1

I'm not committed to the claim that the women-as-gatekeepers is completely socially constructed; in fact I never made that claim. I'm willing to grant that biologically reality may possibly have contributed to the emergence of that dynamic. That doesn't mean it isn't a regressive, sexist dynamic that needs to change.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:02 PM
0

If you don't think that your child enthusiastically hugging a foreign adult that you've never met justifies concern, I don't know what else to say.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 05:16 AM
1

Is your argument that because women carry the greater economic cost/risk of reproduction, they should also carry the moral burden of men's sexual behavior? Because if not, then I don't see how your argument is relevant.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 05:09 AM
0

What victim-blaming? I never stated nor implied that the OP did anything wrong. And I don't believe he did anything wrong. But neither is the mother necessarily wrong to show concern that her son was hugging an adult that she had never met.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 04:53 AM
5

She made the choice to have a child with a poor-quality man. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and since they are throwing out sex to poor-quality men, good quality-men become poor-quality men to get the sex. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/693099-making-women-the-sexual-gatekeepers-and-telling-men-they-just “Making women the sexual gatekeepers and telling men they just can't help themselves not only drives home the point that women's sexuality is unnatural, but also sets up a disturbing dynamic…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 04:45 AM
-2

Is it common for those kids to hug you, or other teachers (male and/or female)? If it doesn't often happen then the mother is perfectly justified in finding it "weird". She's the mother after all, it's her job to be concerned about the relationships her son is forming with other people (especially adults); and it's not like she was rude to you or accused you outright of being a child molester. If hugging is a common occurrence there then she's the one who's being weird for finding it weird. Does…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 04:31 AM
6

Because women and mothers (are) never: made pregnant by rape, abandoned by their partners, forced to leave their partners because of rape or domestic violence, have no access to (or education regarding) birth control or abortion, prevented by their families or religions from accessing birth control or having abortions, subject to laws and policies that limit their reproductive choices, unable to find worthy people willing to adopt their children, unwilling to abandon their children to an unknowa…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 04:06 AM
-7

You're just assuming without any evidence whatsoever that the women are somehow guilty. (I thought this sub was against false accusations?) In fact the police are still investigating the role of those women, and whether or not they may have been victims as well. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9178043 Police tell us four women also lived in the duplex. They aren't certain of the women's mental capabilities, and whether they were aware of what was going on. One person was …
/r/MensRights20/07/13 05:15 AM
3

Has he contacted organizations like 1in6.org and malesurvivor.org? He might also want to check out The Bristlecone Project.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 02:23 AM
2

I actually apologized twice in this thread, because there is no rule about posting anything about a 'woman's right to choose' or however they phrase it; at least not a clear cut rule. Yes, there is: all arguments/discussions/materials that question or challenge the validity/necessity of abortion rights are strictly prohibited. The right to bodily integrity and autonomy is considered axiomatic.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 11:23 PM
-1

This is ridiculously sloppy work. As you can see, men are twice as likely to be a victim of any given crime than women. Your title references rape hysteria, yet you include other violent crimes? Which the sources you cite indicate happen at a rate orders of magnitude less than sexual assault? Now, it doesn't matter WHO commits the crime, that line of discourse is victim blaming. What matters is that men are twice as likely to be victims of crime than women and very little is being done to combat…
/r/MensRights16/07/13 07:01 PM
57

Whoever made this doesn't know how pie charts are supposed to be used.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 05:00 AM
9

Seriously? You couldn't take five minutes to do a bit of googling first before you posted this?
/r/MensRights14/07/13 06:52 PM
8

One part leaps out to me as worthy of comment/criticism. You write: You are related to twice as many women as you are men. The vast disparity in genetic ancestry leaves much to speculation, but at the very least it provides evidence that whatever social dynamics were in place benefited the average woman's likelihood to reproduce, and thereby in the eyes of genetics to have any worth or value at all, at least twice as much as the average man. It would appear that an estimated 80% of the female po…
/r/MensRights11/05/13 08:14 AM
-2

TIL mother = babysitter.
/r/MensRights13/04/13 02:51 AM
0

Again, since you seem blind to the facts, he offered her a fair deal at $5,400/mth. How is that not compensating her? She would have gotten that for life. When did I say that wasn't fair? I did acknowledge that she deserves her share of the blame. As it is, $1000 is too much to pay someone for life. It didn't work out. That's a subjective judgement. He used to make $250,000 a year when they started divorce proceedings, and she supported him and helped raise his children for nearly twenty years t…
/r/MensRights13/04/13 02:21 AM
-4

You apparently don't understand the meaning of the word "combine". And not that it's relevant, but there was no mention in the article of servants. By your logic, the richer the husband, the less in alimony the wife deserves upon divorce. And every housewife should spend a marriage nurturing a career (negating the very concept of "housewife"), just in case her husband divorces her. In your world, a wife is apparently nothing more than a glorified servant/babysitter that can be fired via divorce …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 02:14 AM
-7

You completely lack a moral compass. He is a human being, not a piece of property. Not wanting to give someone money is NOT trying to destroy somebody. Trying to TAKE an exortionate amount of money from someone is trying to destroy them. I'm the one lacking a moral compass? The wife gave up a career to support her husband and help raise his children. His career would never have gotten to where it was without her help. Anybody who says she deserves nothing because he was the one earning the money…
/r/MensRights13/04/13 01:39 AM
-6

It's like you didn't read the article. It was the judge that handed down the decision for him to pay $1500 a month. He wanted to pay $0 by then. The husband's own words: "Frankly I don't give a crap if she settles or not," he had written. "I'd rather see her waste even more money. Like she made me do for these past four years."
/r/MensRights13/04/13 01:05 AM
-3

However, I would say the fundemental issue here was that the wife had no costs associated with continuing the fight and he did, as he had to pay for her lawyer. That's a fundemental conflict of interest in my opinion. He eventually had to represent himself and go scorched earth to defend himself. That really is a failure of the system. That's actually a really great point. From the wife's point of view, for as long as her husband was paying her lawyer's bills, she had every incentive to drag it …
/r/MensRights13/04/13 12:33 AM
-13

Maybe she "started it" (or at least her lawyers did), but by the end he was engaging in exactly the same obstructive and self-destructive behavior (e.g. offering $0, filling endless motions, violating court orders). He clearly wasn't willing to come down to reality and negotiate either, at least not in the later stages of the battle. His actions weren't those of a man defending his assets, but rather those of a man trying to destroy his enemy at all costs. I'm not trying to take the wife's side …
/r/MensRights12/04/13 11:36 PM
-18

She got greedy, she thought she could play the system, her lawyer was a scumbag too, but at the end of the day she thought she could do better and went with it. At the end of the day her position in life is her fault. From the article it's clear that there's plenty of blame to go around, the husband and his lawyers included. He "won" (by getting alimony reduced to $1500) only in the most superficial sense, since he depleted his wealth, damaged his livelihood, and made himself miserable to achiev…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 10:56 PM
1

Prove that my points are irrelevant, don't just say it. Gladly. You claim that I'm saying feminism is the answer to men's issues, hence your challenge that I prove this assertion. However, I never said that feminism is the answer to men's issues. Proof: I never made this claim in my comment above, or elsewhere in my comment history. Therefore, your challenge is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 10:07 PM
-1

That's cute, another MRA who thinks they can assign me homework. What happens if I don't, do I get an F?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 09:40 PM
4

You're in a Divorce Law class and you've never heard of alimony before? You don't understand one of the concepts taught in that class, so you're asking reddit for an explanation?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 08:24 PM
-4

Race has been more important than gender in college admissions for decades now. And again, your argument rests on assuming that "women" = "white women" = "feminist", as if black women didn't exist or feminists don't care what happens to them. What evidence do you have that feminists only want white women to benefit? Have you really never heard of black feminism? Transnational feminism? Postcolonial feminism?
/r/MensRights12/04/13 06:04 PM
28

What neither the author nor any of you realized is that Suzy Lee Weiss, the author of the quoted Wall Street Journal article, was being sarcastic. She was actually satirizing and lampooning the sense of entitlement that some high school students have regarding their college applications: To those kids who by age 14 got their doctorate, cured a disease, or discovered a guilt-free brownie recipe: My parents make me watch your "60 Minutes" segments, and they've clipped your newspaper articles for m…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 05:52 PM
-11

It doesn't. MRAs see "white woman complaining" and they automatically think "feminist", even when there's no mention of feminism whatsoever.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 05:45 PM
-8

Except that there's nothing in the article to suggest that those students were feminists; your entire argument rests on lazily equating "white middle-class female" with "feminist". Even if those girls identified as feminists, they're frickin' high school students, hardly representative of feminist scholars, activists, and writers that make up the movement. I've never heard of anything to suggest that actual feminists are upset by what's being described in the article.
/r/MensRights12/04/13 05:42 PM
3

If I may chime in on this conversation: First, the claim is that 25% of college women surveyed had experienced rape or attempted rape. Second, these determinations aren't made simply by asking "Have you ever had sex when you didn't really want to"; that's just ridiculous. And third, defining rape to include only those instances where both people were aware that one of them was trying to stop sexual activity eliminates cases where the victim was incapacitated, unconscious, under threat, or undera…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 12:33 AM
1

Before anything else, I'm glad you took the effort to do some reading, and brought up the example of Lisak rather than the discredited work of Kanin or McDonnell. The other 75 have no evidence to make a judgement either way. So, if you take that at face value, that means that 6/25, or 24% of rape accusations could be considered to be false, assuming that the 75% of rape accusations with no evidence were distributed in the same way. I can see how this logic can be tempting, but frankly there's no…
/r/MensRights12/04/13 12:20 AM
7

Discussions surrounding rape already use terms like date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, gray rape, attempted rape, prison rape, war rape, gang rape, and statutory rape; not to mention sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual predation, and sexual coercion. These things already are being discussed and understood, primarily by feminists I might add.
/r/MensRights11/04/13 09:49 AM
1

To get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Gender_aspects_of_abuse The relationship between gender and domestic violence is a controversial topic. There continues to be debate about the rates at which each gender is subjected to domestic violence. Reasons for mixed findings include the limitations of existing survey tools (e.g., conflict tactics scale) to measure all relevant aspects of domestic violence and the use of disparate samples in studies.[129] Furthermore, sourc…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 10:25 PM
1

Adding to that, the University of Glasgow has separate male and female students' unions, both of which admit both men and women as full members. It's a historical quirk stemming from how the university used to implement, and subsequently deal with, sex segregation and gender discrimination in the past.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 10:03 PM
1

This discussion is starting to get repetitive, so I'll just cut to the chase. You seem convinced that the men's rights movement resembles a healthy movement that's on pace to achieve its goals using the tools and strategies that it's adopted. Whereas I believe that the MRM, by virtue of its collective inaction and intellectual incuriosity, is perpetuating its own irrelevance. Clearly you're not convinced by my arguments to this effect, finding that it's "confused" and "runs recklessly over a who…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 09:11 PM
0

This is exactly why I refuse to have further discussions with you, you're more interested in throwing accusations at me than exchanging ideas and arguments. Not to mention you seen to be stalking my comments now in a vendetta to discredit me. And by the way, I mentioned and linked to my earlier comment and put it in a quote block, so you're not announcing to everyone anything they don't already know.
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:26 PM
2

And some resources targeted specifically to male childhood sexual abuse: http://www.amazon.com/Boys-Healing-Child-Sexual-Abuse/dp/B003MZU3A2 http://www.amazon.com/Victims-No-Longer-Classic-Recovering/dp/006053026X/ref=pd_cp_mov_0 http://www.amazon.com/Abused-Boys-Neglected-Victims-Sexual/dp/0449906299/ref=pd_cp_mov_1 http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Betrayal-Taking-Charge-Boyhood/dp/0471619108/ref=pd_cp_mov_2 http://www.amazon.com/When-Man-You-Love-Abused/dp/0825433533/ref=pd_cp_mov_3
/r/MensRights10/04/13 06:15 AM
2

Since the OP didn't provide a link: http://goodmenproject.com/press/on-tom-matlack-and-the-good-men-project/ The post that might have precipitated this (pure speculation): http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/whats-a-guy-to-do/
/r/MensRights10/04/13 03:52 AM
1

What surprises me is that, according to Judge_Jackass's quote above, Warren Farrell cited McDowell's research in his famous book. If true, that's pretty disappointing. I've never read Farrell's work and don't have any strong opinions about him, but from the descriptions of him that I'd read both on this subreddit and elsewhere, he's always seemed to be a sensible and competent writer and activist, and one of the few good things the MRM has going for it. I don't want to draw hasty conclusions fro…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 02:41 AM
0

That list of questions developed by a psychologist probably refers to the infamous McDowell checklist, the same McDowell that Farrell is claimed to reference in his book. I've discussed the validity of McDowell's research before: McDowell's research simply isn't credible. For one thing, his study wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal; as your quoted source notes, it only references "(McDowell, 1985)" which presumably refers to the citation: McDowell, C. P. (1985). False allegations. Forens…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 01:49 AM
1

So, the date in France shifts significantly, in the rest of the world, not so much. Sure, if by "significantly" you mean well over half a century. And you must not have noticed how the author described the term "feminism" as having appeared in "Belgian French, Spanish, Italian, German, Greek, and Russian published sources", not to mention Argentina and the US by the late 1890s. The quoted author may have focused on historical feminism in France (an earlier version of the article was titled "Towa…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 01:30 AM
1

I've been getting into discussions about this issue here lately. I find that this is a good starting point for reviewing the relevant research, since it's written for laymen, fairly non-technical, and discusses many of the relevant challenges for both scientists and police investigators dealing with false rape claims. Long story short, about 2-8% of rapes/sexual assaults reported to the authorities can be shown to be false. Out of 5,651 prosecutions for rape, 35 were found to have made false cla…
/r/MensRights10/04/13 12:06 AM
2

Which feminists say that having a breast preference is misogyny? Which feminists say that having penis preferences is okay? Can you cite a source for either claim, so that the discussion can be centered on something specific?
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:42 PM
0

I can see you're determined to interpret Rosenberg's article in the worst possible light. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:06 PM
1

This is a great example of how debating with MRAs forces me to learn more about feminism. The term "feminism", in the sense of "advocacy for women's rights", originated in 1895. While it's true that first-wave feminists often referred to themselves as women's rights activists or suffragettes, the term "feminist" was used as well in that time period, referring both to scholarship and activism: As my own research on France developed, I became interested in the early history of the word feminisme. …
/r/MensRights09/04/13 10:34 PM
-1

Yeah, I don't buy that at all. I did a quick google image search and found HIV/AIDS awareness ads that target get men, gay black men, gay south asian men, and black men. None of them seem remotely offensive to me. http://imgur.com/a/WPLqN
/r/MensRights09/04/13 09:09 PM
0

The phrasing is a little crude and the analogy is a bit stretched, but in essence yes, I'd approve of a campaign like that. In fact I'm pretty sure a number of safe sex campaigns do exist that target gay men. HIV is a problem that disproportionately affects gay men, and it's foolish to ignore that for the sake of treating people equally to avoid hurt feelings.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:10 PM
1

but then including writings by first wave feminists which could not possibly be overtly feminist. It's special pleading. I replied to you earlier that I'm willing to exclude first wave feminists for the sake of discussion. It's suspicious to say the least that you'd continue to make this argument. I actually can't think of a political idea that hasn't done this, successful or otherwise. Political idea ≠ political movement. And the strategy I was referring to wasn't merely opposing a political id…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:42 PM
-1

http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Core-Values/men-can-stop-rapes-core-values.html View Men Positively We believe all men have the capacity and desire to play a positive role in creating communities free from violence. As part of this belief, we assert that it is essential to approach men as potential allies rather than only as potential perpetrators. Further, in order for men to have empathy for themselves and women, we all must embrace and be comfortable with the full range of emotion in men that i…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:30 PM
1

So it is pretty clear to me that when Alyssa Rosenberg writes that Louie can't navigate a blind date with grace she is talking about Louie being unable to navigate the one blind date which Louie has with Melissa Leo's character in that episode - a blind date which ends with Melissa Leo's character raping Louie. I think you're the one grasping at straws. The blind date ended with that event, but it didn't begin in that way. That scene was preceded by earlier events in their blind date which I'm a…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:21 PM
1

I included a link to the complete chapter so people could read her full text and complete argument. Good for you that you did. Actually I'd already read it at least a couple of weeks before. The existence of other parts does not diminish the objectionabillity of the parts I quoted. I disagree. For example, you indicated that Gavey sees male victims merely as a means to an end for feminism, completely glossing over the fact that she elaborated on the importance of addressing the needs of male vic…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:41 PM
1

You need to decide whether you're talking about branding or the history of ideas, In this context I'm more interested in branding, if only because it's the only way we can safely attribute a work to the efforts of one movement or the other. In previous discussions I've had here, while marshaling evidence for the claim that feminists care about men's issues too, I avoided works that could easily have been written by a feminist (by my interpretation), or contained ideas that undoubtedly traced bac…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:10 PM
0

To be perfectly frank, I don't think a substantive reply to this will be worth the effort on my part. Nothing you just said is really relevant to the discussion I'm interested in having, and more to the point, my last discussion with you was disappointingly unconstructive.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 11:49 AM
2

Of course, the same is true on the other end of the scale, but rarely do we compete to be the worst. So does that explain the glass cellar?
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:56 AM
1

I think these quotes from that same chapter are equally salient: In this chapter I critically review this literature on the sexual coercion of men by women, and consider how we might represent and make sense of such phenomena. How should we theorize the possibilities of women sexually coercing and/or raping men, and the implications such understandings might have for the politics of rape? My interest in these questions is spurred by two virtually opposite kinds of interests and concerns. In the …
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:26 AM
1

No first wave feminism was labelled as such except by 2nd wave feminists--the first to adopt the label in a serious way. But second-wave feminism inherited the ideas and movement infrastructure of first-wave feminism, and are legitimate inheritors of its legacy. In any case I'm not interested in debating this, we can agree just for the sake of argument that only second-wave feminism and onwards counts. I think my point still stands. But similarly, there is plenty of work on men's rights that doe…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:11 AM
1

You are characterizing any work, published in any fashion, by anyone who could be considered even remotely aligned with feminism, as "feminist scholarship," I would define feminist scholarship as scholarship accomplished by people who openly identify as feminist, scholarship that is labeled by their authors or publishers as feminist, or any other scholarship that heavily draws from explicitly feminist ideas, principles, authors, and works in an approving or non-critical way (so explicitly anti-f…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:39 AM
0

You're speaking from the perspective of the respective movements but as an individual you have accomplished as little for your movement as the average poster here has for Men's Rights Yes, I'm speaking from the perspective of the entire movements and not just individuals. And with respect, you have absolutely no idea what I've accomplished for my movement. Nor is that any of your business. It seems that you're saying Feminism is the answer to Men's issues Since that most certainly is not what I'…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:56 AM
1

And gay rights. And civil rights.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 01:03 AM
1

Why should we assume that Rosenberg takes a man's right to say "no" to a woman as seriously as she takes a woman's right to refuse a man, when her original article makes it overwhelmingly clear that she doesn't? At the end of the day, you're going to have your interpretation of Rosenberg's words, and I'm going to have mine; neither of us can read her mind and I don't think either of us plan to email her for clarification. If you interpret the original article to mean that she values a woman's ri…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:48 AM
2

I think there's a misconception here that constructive debate necessarily means that both sides have to be polite, or that compromise or agreement are likely or even possible (I personally suffer no delusion that I'll convert any of you). I'm a feminist and I've had a number of debates on this subreddit that I'd consider to have been constructive, at least on my end. However heated and antagonistic they may have been, and however much I doubt that minds were changed to any significant degree on …
/r/MensRights08/04/13 11:44 PM
1

"Give in to demands" isnt' a term which excludes consent. We'll have to differ on that one. But it is a term that excludes enthusiastic or affirmative consent, the standard feminists advocate for healty, consensual sexual activity. But fine, agree to disagree. I am sorry, but describing that scene as Louie not being able to navigate a blind date with grace is just plain disturbing. That scene wasn't described that way; the entire episode was (I'm assuming; I only watched the clip that you linked…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 09:35 PM
2

Ha! Fair enough, that did sound concern troll-y. But hey it's your movement, if you really think the best way to get infant male circumcision banned is to blame feminists, go right ahead.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:40 PM
13

First, I don't know how you can interpret "give in to her demands" to mean that Rosenberg thinks C.K. "consented", in the sense that feminists use that term regarding sex and rape. If an extortionist threatens to release incriminating photos of a politician unless that politician gives in to his demands for money, that's criminal coercion, not consent. But more to the point, Rosenberg elaborated on that scene here: http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/07/06/512082/date-rape-and-last-nights-louie…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 10:44 AM
1

You'd be wrong. Where do you think the concept of the 'mother hen' comes from? I had to look up the meaning of mother hen, I found: "A person who fusses over others in an overprotective manner", "a person who attends to the welfare of others, esp. one who is fussily protective.", or "a person who cares for the needs of others (especially in an overprotective or interfering way)". Irritating perhaps, but not really what I'd think of as toxic. But what, do you think men who beat the shit out of so…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 08:16 AM
-1

Heartiste? Seriously? It's more about pick-up artistry than the MRM, and it's blatantly sexist. It doesn't exactly reflect well on your movement to endorse that blog.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:39 AM
3

Objectifying someone and checking them out aren't really the same thing (and that applies to both genders). But other than that, and the No True Scotsman-ing, as a feminist I pretty much agree.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:24 AM
1

Go to any woman and ask them how they're expected to manipulate the social chain to curry favour with peers? "You manipulated the social chain! Good job!" Nope. I don't see it. In what world do you live in where this is not toxic? In this world. Simply being stupid or uncreative or unambitious imposes on no one. It injures no one. It infringes on no one's rights. It isn't violent. It isn't hateful. But you're asserting the majority are? No, I'm not. Boys are also taught that men are intelligent,…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:18 AM
0

Case in point.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:49 AM
1

Yeah, I don't buy that argument at all. The toxic behaviors and stereotypes that have been applied to men (aggressive, violent, stoic, etc.) are and have been encouraged by society, and hailed as normative. Go to any man who exists in "thug" or "gang" urban cultures and ask them how they're expected to prove their worth to their peers. Look at how violent action heroes are portrayed and popularized in media (e.g. Rambo, 300). Look at how men are punished for being "sissies" or "pussy-whipped", a…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:48 AM
0

Feminists support male circumcision , and are against any efforts to ban infant circumcision. NOW protested the measure proposed in San Francisco to make circumcision illegal to perform on a child under 18. Any evidence for this? I did a bit of googling, and couldn't find anything to verify this claim. More to the point, why is your movement obsessed with blaming everything on feminists? There are many forces arrayed in favor of keeping male circumcision legal, including parts of the medical com…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:59 AM
1

Those are certainly stereotypes that people have about women (and pretty negative stereotypes at that), but not ones I'd particularly associate with normative femininity. Perhaps the last three, and "pious" might count as well instead of "overly-religious"; since women who have demonstrated intelligence, creativity (outside of domestic pursuits) or ambition have often been discouraged from doing so in the past. Women who show themselves to be manipulative, catty or susceptible to in-group bias (…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:13 AM
1

It varies across cultures of course, but basically, people have conceived of femininity as demure, passive, submissive, beautiful, obedient, chaste, fertile, soft, etc. I wouldn't describe those as toxic, but they can certainly be harmful to and restrictive for both women and men.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 12:10 AM
2

Sorry. Link fixed.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 11:25 PM
1

It's possible if the unconscious person explicitly consents to the sex before they fall asleep or pass out. Like when a couple has an understanding that it's okay for one to wake up the other by performing oral sex on them.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 10:58 PM
-5

Its based on this 1987 paper published by Mary Koss[1] . I strongly encourage you to read it. As someone who's defended the Koss paper here in the past, and accepts the validity of its overall claims (while accepting that the paper does have some minor flaws), I can't agree enough with this recommendation. It's annoying having to debunk the many misrepresentations of this study for people who never even bothered to read it.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:59 AM
0

So, I've learned Feminists think anyone who's had sex after drinking has been raped, but how does this work exactly? First, it would help if you cite exactly which feminists said this or believe this. Second, while I don't deny that there are probably feminists that have said something to this effect, this rather simplistic definition of rape isn't one that feminists typically believe in or advocate. You would have a better understanding of the feminist position on alcohol and rape if you asked …
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:20 AM
0

How would you describe "traditional masculinity"?
/r/MensRights07/04/13 09:11 AM
-2

framing masculinity as 'toxic' The term "toxic masculinity" doesn't mean that masculinity is inherently toxic, it refers to socially-constructed attitudes that define masculinity in toxic ways, i.e. aggressive, violent, stoic, controlling, dominant, superior, etc. This is in contrast to healthy masculinity, an alternative description of masculinity that feminists believe men are fully capable of embodying, and that will help to address the problems of women AND men. Feminists did not create the …
/r/MensRights07/04/13 08:42 AM
-2

You clearly discounted the validity of McDowell (which by definition would mean it is unscholarly, no?). The McDowell study is absolutely unscholarly, but you indicated that I was making that charge regarding the book chapter you quoted. You really can't reproach me for fulfilling a very plainly worded request. But I can reproach you for assigning me homework (including a paper I provided to you), imposing rules and requirements on my response, and even giving a deadline. You don't seem to reali…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 07:42 AM
-2

What a shame, I thought you would be more interested in having a real discussion and presenting actual arguments and evidence, rather than play silly gotcha games or assign me homework and deadlines. I don't know how you missed the point that the McDonnell study, far from being published in a peer-reviewed journal, doesn't appear to have been published at all. And I'm confused as to why you're asking me to read and comment on the same paper by Rumney that I had provided to you in the first place…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 06:21 AM
6

I went home and looked up homeless shelters in my area and they were all for women and children. Not even one for males. That's depressing, and also really weird. I pulled up a list of 11 homeless shelters in my city. One was women only, one was for families only, one welcomed everyone but specified that women and children were their specialty, three were for men only, and the rest didn't specify. I don't know if this pattern is typical.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:53 AM
-1

Men shouldn't have to sit around and wait for feminists to "get to it". As I said, I'm all for having MRAs actually address men's issues. Take rape - MRAs (rightly) love to complain that being forced to penetrate isn't included in official definitions. Has any MRA done anything about this, beyond harass people on Twitter, or launch online petitions that go nowhere? Again, there are groups all over the US and Canada that are organizing and rallying for men's rights. If you think that all that goe…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:21 AM
1

These aren't controversial or unusual claims; this aspect of human trafficking has been understood for years. However people might argue about its prevalence in the US or what exactly counts as sexual trafficking, the idea that it includes people who are sold and coerced into forced prostitution isn't in dispute.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:11 AM
-1

At this point, a review of the literature is in order. A review of the literature has been accomplished. The editors of that book can be forgiven for not knowing this - the reviews were published after their handbook was released in 2004. A decent one for laymen is here, a more detailed and technical one is here. It's true that the rate of false rape reports is difficult to estimate, and the true value can't be known with certainty. But a number of studies - the ones that were implemented with m…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 04:05 AM
0

If it's rape when a woman does it to a man, then it's rape when a man does it to a woman.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 02:43 AM
1

Since feminists are not prioritizing the needs and issues of men equally to women's, you have just justified the existence of the MRM. Well duh, of course they're not. Feminism is absolutely focused more on women's issues than men's. That doesn't mean feminism is anti-male, and it definitely doesn't mean that the MRM has justified it's own existence (by actually working to address men's issues instead of just complaining about feminists on reddit).
/r/MensRights07/04/13 12:44 AM
-1

In other words, it's the job of feminists to start and do the work of MRAs for them. They're bad because all they did was help, and they did it too long ago. Feminist should always prioritize the needs and issues of men equally or above those of women.
/r/MensRights07/04/13 12:17 AM
2

Sources? :) Regarding the draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights#Military_conscription In 1971 in the United States, draft resisters initiated a class-action suit alleging that male-only conscription violated men's rights to equal protection under the US constitution. When the case, Rostker v. Goldberg, reached the Supreme Court in 1981, they were supported by a men's rights group and multiple women's groups, including the National Organization for Women. (Italics mine). And on a rel…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:26 PM
3

I would personally love to see MRAs do more to actually work on men's issues, beyond complain about feminists on reddit.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 11:02 PM
1

Relevant story: The divorce from hell, the battle for alimony and emptied pockets
/r/MensRights06/04/13 10:18 PM
1

I'd love to see actual stats on false rape accusations. My guess it either happens or is threatened way more than anyone knows. I recently got into a lengthy discussion regarding this very issue. Long story short, about 2-8% of rapes/sexual assaults reported to the authorities can be shown to be false. We have no studies regarding threats of false rape accusations, as far as I know.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 09:19 PM
1

It's just an idea I had, I don't know why you seem eager to pick a fight with me today. Well, sorry to disappoint but I'm not in a particularly argumentative mood at the moment. Here's a puppy if it will make you feel better: http://i.imgur.com/l6P6FvG
/r/MensRights06/04/13 07:38 AM
2

If nobody minds, I'll just take this chance to drop this link about "the divorce from hell". It's an interesting story about how messed up the divorce process can really get, and how the people involved can all contribute to make things even worse. http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/the-divorce-from-hell-the-battle-for-alimony-and-emptied-pockets/2112875
/r/MensRights06/04/13 05:31 AM
0

A few comments and clarifications: Shouldn't the last sentence in the third paragraph ("When I woke up in the morning...") be moved to the end of the second paragraph? In paragraph seven, "As my attorney and I were sitting at the SSFPD's office, getting ready to talk to the attorney", don't you mean detective? This is pure, uninformed, non-expert speculation, but I suspect the reason you were eliminated as a suspect is that the police had no way to move forward with the investigation without you…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 05:22 AM
2

The rape page of the biggest and most prestigious university in my area is fully inclusive (not quite the same thing as gender-neutral), and specifically mentions not only male rape myths, but rape of men by women.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 02:35 AM
-1

I'd like to comment a bit further on something else /u/Bluebeard27 said in that thread (italics mine): Women are told often that they're not allowed to drink because of the inevitable rapists. It's often harmless individual instances like Brad's. The individual instance may not be victim blaming, but it's contributing to an overarching phenomena of women being told over and over and over again they're not allowed to drink, especially in instances when men are, and contributing to the general imp…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 01:59 AM
-1

Now. What does the slave trade have to do with sex work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking Sexual trafficking includes coercing a migrant into a sexual act as a condition of allowing or arranging the migration. Sexual trafficking uses physical or sexual coercion, deception, abuse of power and bondage incurred through forced debt. Trafficked women and children, for instance, are often promised work in the domestic or service industry, but instead are sometimes taken to brothels where…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 12:40 AM
1

A collared shirt is what passes for the minimum level of propriety or formality in that particular business environment. There's nothing wrong with setting similar standards for women; it's just that what counts as formal is more ambiguous, given the more varied styles of women's clothing. It would be perfectly acceptable to require women to not wear skirts below a certain length, or require that they wear a work blouse. Your comparison is flawed because there's nothing necessarily work-appropri…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:38 PM
0

Do you not know what human trafficking is?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:22 PM
-1

He said "nice looking sweater", not "professional-looking sweater". And frankly I'm wondering what the latter would even look like, and why it can't just be worn over a collared shirt.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:15 PM
-2

Saying "you must dress in formal / semi-formal / business attire", whatever that means for women, is completely ok.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:12 PM
0

And where does all this helpful rape prevention advice end? In telling women not to go out at night? To not go out alone? To not be around strangers? To not make eye contact with strangers? To not smile at strangers? To not dress provocatively in public? To not accept drinks from strangers? To not go to high-crime areas? To not go to bars alone? To not go to or stay at bars after a certain hour? To not go to certain bars? To not show weakness or vulnerability in public? To not watch their bevera…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 11:09 PM
-3

Yeah, I can't relate with that level of whininess.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:04 PM
0

TIL wearing a collared shirt is oppressive.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:02 PM
2

There are plenty of women's blouses that don't have a collar yet maintain a degree of professionalism. Also, why not just wear a sweater over your shirt?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 09:06 PM
32

Misleading post title, the article is about how it's wrong to compliment a woman's looks in a professional setting.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 09:04 PM
1

And so your proposed response isn't to talk more or do something about female-on-male violence, but instead to denigrate any effort to address male-on-female violence? Yeah, I don't see how that helps anyone.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 02:42 PM
21

And possibly the worst part was that while the women in the thread supported the victim and spoke out against these kinds of double-standards, the men in the thread perpetuated them. To be honest, this doesn't surprise me much at all, although of course I share your disgust. It's long been known that men are more likely to buy into male rape myths than women. (Source)
/r/MensRights05/04/13 01:06 PM
1

Apexuality explains the glass cellar, and that alone puts it ahead of patriarchy theory in it's ability to accurately explain societal phenomena. Eh, to me it raises more questions than answers: Which specific individuals in real life are examples of apexuals, and which aren't? How can you tell? Am I an apexual? On the one hand, I care about my status within a hierarchy, but on the other hand, I also cherish my relationships with other male-bodied individuals, and I identify as male. How can I t…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 12:52 PM
2

Good grief, of course it's a parody. The bonus items didn't convince you? Or "Retarded"? (No social justice warrior would use that term.) Not even "Manly Tears"?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 10:56 AM
1

Maybe it's because, instead of offering anything constructive to address female-on-male violence, all you did was criticize an attempt to address male-on-female violence.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 09:33 AM
1

How is it hard to understand that it fits to a T the situation described in the question? Because using force to engage in foreplay against a partner's resistance isn't the same as using force to engage in sexual intercourse against a partner's resistance. Really, if you can't see how that describes the situation I mentioned, there is no further need to cater to this particular part of our argument, we'll never come to agreement. For once we agree. The difference is that we end this with peer-re…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:54 AM
1

Just because it's something we talk about, that doesn't mean we're giving up. What makes you think that's what we're doing? Because that's all I see on this subreddit: complaining about feminists. And from what I understand, this subreddit is the largest online hub for MRAs to gather and discuss men's issues. If all feminist spaces are safe spaces for women's issues then how can we possibly rely on feminism to help with men's issues? Except that they're not all spaces dedicated to women's issues…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 12:50 AM
1

How do you justify the actions of feminists at the university of toronto? Does that not qualify as feminists trying to keep us out of academia? What about people tearing down MRA posters on college campuses? What about the backlash that comes when we ask for men's support centers? Broadly speaking, I don't justify or defend those actions. And I'm particularly embarrassed and appalled by the ones in Toronto. But MRAs can't just stop at "the feminists aren't letting us!" and give up there. As I po…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 11:04 PM
0

I'm definitely not an MRA, so I'm not really the target for this question. But this has been bugging me for a while, so I'm going to answer it anyway: I think what holds your movement back the most is that, collectively, you don't seem to have any real interest in either scholarship or activism. Take the former. Feminist scholarship has commented on virtually all aspects of law, history, religion, and culture; and feminists have made significant contributions to virtually all of the social scien…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 09:49 PM
0

Really? Frankly, it sounds like a huge steaming load of unsubstantiated crap.
/r/MensRights04/04/13 11:25 AM
0

That's sexist and idiotic. Women being homemakers and housewives among the non-elite classes is a relatively modern invention brought about by the industrial revolution and the centralization of agriculture. Throughout agricultural history women have been doing backbreaking work just like the men, in the farmhouse if not out in the fields. Sometimes they even had it worse, as we can see in less modern societies today: http://arachnid.biosci.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Readings/Diamond_WorstMistake.p…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:40 AM
2

The idea that women should be treated like princesses isn't a reversal of classical sexism, in the sense that it's not new and doesn't result from a modern reversal or undoing of female subservience to men. It's probably just as ancient, and is just the other side of the same sexist coin. They're both based on medieval notions of chivalry, that women are weak and dainty, to be protected and put on a pedestal, and the man who could best demonstrate the ability to protect a woman's virtue (i.e. he…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 04:08 AM
0

I'm not an MRA, but yeah, frankly you came across as misogynist: Well I am angry, I just got out of yet another relationship that ended because the girl was a cunt. Nearly every girl I interact with pulls shit that I wouldn't do in 100 years. I can never think of anything fun or flirty to say. I have a few times I think but they didn't respond either way. Like I said, most girls are incredibly boring and full of themselves, and it's hard to think of anything witty to really say. They [women] are…
/r/MensRights04/04/13 03:36 AM
2

Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man
/r/MensRights04/04/13 02:23 AM
1

I see you are determined to be obtuse. I'll use small words, then. Man and women are necking and petting. Man tries to get woman to lie down. Woman resists (doesn't cooperate), but still kisses man. Man becomes more pressing, pushing woman down (this is force). Woman stops the kissing and says "No". Man says "OK" and stops. Nice try, but still no. "Sexual intercourse" is defined as penis-in-vagina, not "necking and petting". And actually no it's not a nice try, it's a ridiculous stretch you just…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:33 PM
1

I commented there a tiny handful of times the last few days, on a whim, compared to hundreds of comments here. And for the same reason: there were interesting conversations to be had regarding feminism and the MRM. You'll see my comments there tend to be contrarian as well.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 07:46 PM
3

I think you didn't really read the article: The man apparently told the six-year-old he knew the child's parents and that "I should take you to them". He even apparently said he would give the child lollies on the way. A well-intentioned stranger wouldn't claim to know the parents.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 10:02 AM
0

There is absolutely no implication at all that men are "brave" or "valorous" in facing their illness, quite the opposite in fact - "man flu" portrays men as weaklings and cowards and I believe it actually originated in the feminist press here. But that's exactly what the writer is saying! My discomfort with the term stems from the way it intersects with ways we allow men to talk about their illnesses – or don’t. By “we” I mean a sexist, patriarchal society which continually polices people’s gend…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:35 PM
-1

Exactly. I'm extremely confused by all the comments here. Half the people are ridiculing this person for discussing a trivial issue, the other half are pointing out that it's really men that are pressured to go to "man up" when sick. Meanwhile some people are blaming feminists for popularizing the term itself. It's like nobody actually read the article..
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:33 PM
-1

No, you did not. You dumped a wiki page full of studies on me, declared they proved something (no idea what though....maybe that 'you're right' or something?) and strutted away. Oh dear god just read the fucking paper: In contrast, when more methodologically rigorous research has been conducted, estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%. For example, in a multi-site study of eight U.S. communities involved in the “Making a Difference” (or “MAD”) Project, data we…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 10:55 PM
0

Aside from it being policy, of course. Oh, well if it's policy! Because police neeever ignore policy. But hey, all those Feminists arguing women NEVER lie about rape aren't inserting anything at all...nope. That's why scientists need to make an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION to test those claims, not just assume the police did it for them correctly. THAT'S HOW SCIENCE WORKS. Feminists have REPEATEDLY stymied attempts to study this objectively, instead preferring to quote 'statistics' and make bald asserti…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 10:45 PM
-1

A Law being manipulated so that men have a harder time defending themselves? An investigative tool that might 'intimidate' women into telling the truth?!!? That's right, you got us. The US Department of Justice AND the International Association of Chiefs of Police are both secretly controlled by the all-mighty feminist matriarchy. Mwahahaha! Let me restate, just so people know what your position ACTUALLY is, is that even when police are BARRED from inserting their own opinion into the process: T…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 08:23 PM
1

It depends on your point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_and_feminism
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:42 PM
-1

In short, these cases are declared false only because the complainant admitted they are false. Oh good god, you can't read, can you? Yes, the complainants "admitted they are false" (which is quoted in my comment), based entirely on the police department's say-so, after subjecting them to an intimidation tactic so unethical it's now outlawed in many states! You really want to base your claim on illegal police procedures that were subjected to zero independent verification? What a joke.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:33 PM
1

This can be used to describe situations where heavy petting (trying to get the girl to lie down while kissing and fondling reciprocatingly) is finally stopped by the woman saying stop. Dear god that's dumb. You're really determined to twist these questions to mean what they plainly don't mean. You say the man stopped when the woman told him to. How the hell is that using physical force if they did not cooperate? To other MRAs reading this thread, do any of you agree that this is a reasonable int…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:17 PM
1

I'm confused, how is the story going to be used? What's the nature of the experiment? How is it going to determine the relationship between victim gender and perpetrator sentencing? It sounds like this is something that can be determined by going through public records and doing statistical hypothesis testing.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:41 PM
2

Exactly. I googled "feminism circumcision". Every link I could find written by a feminism expressed opposition to male circumcision: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/16oqw2/what_is_the_feminist_stance_on_male_circumcision/ http://community.feministing.com/2010/06/04/feminism-and-male-circumcision/ http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/about/circumcision/ http://barreloforanges.com/2013/03/06/circumcision-is-a-feminist-cause/ http://thefeministmystique.blogspot.com/2012/07/german-court…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:33 PM
1

Fair enough, but I'm having trouble imagining how a constricted space forcing someone into a specific position could be reasonably construed as nonverbal consent to having a penis inserted into their vagina (as opposed to simply not having a lot of room to maneuver).
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:25 PM
0

these studies' questions are ambiguous enough to conflate attempted sex and actual rape attempts Here are the questions used in the Lisak study: Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate? Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they wer…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 03:11 PM
1

No study in the history of science has ever utilized a sample that's truly representative of all men, or all women. The best that researchers can do is sample a sufficiently large number of people with appropriately diverse demographic characteristics, and be cautious in interpreting the results and making inferences, particularly regarding populations that weren't directly represented. Hence the value of having multiple studies using different samples: one can compare the results from different…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 02:17 PM
0

Haven't we been over this? Koss's study sampled over 3,000 women (and nearly 3,000 men), and the sampling was designed to be representative of college students across the entire US. Her survey used behaviorally-specific yes-no questions, and were subjected to extensive validity and reliability testing to ensure that they were getting meaningful and accurate results. In fact that survey is perhaps considered the most reliable of its type, and various modifications and improvements of it are used …
/r/MensRights02/04/13 01:40 PM
2

TIL you can't get raped in a truck.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 11:35 AM
-1

Good grief, feminists have been trying to determine the actual prevalence of rape for literally decades. See my reply to Xuixien, and also this discussion of those papers. There have been many other studies before that, going back at least to Koss's pioneering research in the 80s; her finding then was that around 8% of college men surveyed admitted to rapes and attempted rape, from a sample size of nearly 3,000.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:41 AM
0

I get that you're exaggerating (or at least I hope you are), but the number of men who rape is much higher than you think. According to one study, 6% of college men were found to have engaged in rape or attempted rape, in a manner consistent with legal definitions, by their own admission. Another study found that it was 13%. In other countries it can even be worse: in a survey in South Africa, fully 28% of men admitted to raping a woman or girl, and 3% said they had raped a man or boy (it's not …
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:23 AM
4

Tumblr cites this paper for the claim. The paper in turn cites "The Facts About Kids and Media (2004)" (bottom of page 14). But the list of references contains no such entry, and a google search reveals no such document. This is just amazingly bad scholarship.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:13 AM
-2

Well yes, obviously what the jury thinks matters. Why do you think I asked about what they probably think?
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:07 AM
-2

Okay fair enough. But I was speaking specifically to the issue of whether Arias will be acquitted or convicted.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:54 AM
-4

It doesn't matter if "too many people" believe her, all that matters is what the judge and jury think. You said she had clearly lied and contradicted herself multiple times on the stand - do you think this has been obvious to the jury? Do you think she'd appear credible to 12 people who have been paying close attention to the beginning, rather than a person who just sees a few headlines or newscasts? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious; I haven't really been paying attention to the case.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:38 AM
2

Now, if you plan on making more 'arguments', have the fucking courtesy to actually lay out your arguments. Gladly! Although this is fairly hypocritical from someone who did little more than throw insults and assert that feminists are necessarily wrong. You didn't even bother to show evidence that the cited authors were feminists - you disagreed with them, so they must be! Additionally, ALL of your 'evidence' refuting Kanin is simply a collection of statistics gathered from Police departments, no…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 04:25 AM
1

I had no idea South Africa was such a safe place for women.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 02:50 AM
1

The prevalence of unreported rapes is estimated from anonymous surveys. In that context false reports are unlikely, because the respondents have no reason to lie.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 02:45 AM
0

Yes, I knew all along that they're feminists. My point is that caricaturing all feminists as man-hating (or self-hating, if they're men) is absurd. This is a journal dedicated to addressing men's issues; by itself it may have already done more to help men in concrete ways than the men's rights movement ever has. There's no evidence that they just want to "feminize men, because male behavior is bad".
/r/MensRights02/04/13 02:26 AM
0

About 1 in 5 male victims is injured. Other studies indicate that among women victims, 76% were assaulted by an intimate partner as were 18% of male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). [...] The National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; 2000) estimated that women’s rates of reporting physical assault (26.7%) and stalking (51.9%) to law enforcement were fractions of the total incidents that occurred. This significant under-reporting is likely to be similar or greater for mal…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 02:22 AM
0

Sigh. Sorry if you misunderstood, but I was merely responding to CrossHook's complaint that the Facebook post was minimizing the victimization of men by putting the focus on women. My point was that according to that logic, no one could ever talk about women if men were the primary victims of a particular issue or event.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 02:03 PM
1

I'm glad you pointed this all out, because these are exactly the weaknesses of self-report surveys that Koss addressed in her pioneering work. Her research back in the 1980s showed that merely asking people if they were raped (or sexually assaulted, or whatever) leads to severe underreporting of real instances of victimization, because many victims are reluctant to label their experience in the same way. She advocated instead the use of behaviorally specific, yes-no questions in her surveys that…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 02:00 PM
-1

Cute, but no. It was the Facebook post the OP highlighted that was talking about the "womenz". And that happened on Facebook, not an online space dedicated to men's issues.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:40 PM
-2

So any time something really horrible happens to men, no one is allowed to talk about how it also affects women. Got it. /s I don't really want to defend a rather stupidly written Facebook post, but there are good critiques and bad critiques.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:14 PM
1

Haha thanks. It's nice to have a fan. :P
/r/MensRights01/04/13 01:10 PM
0

You mean like this one, where the author tries to expose and debunk the myths that cause male victims of rape to be invisible and marginalized? Or this one, where they investigate how exposure to idealized media portrayals of men's bodies can affect how men feel about their own bodies? Or this one, where they examine which study and learning strategies might best help men to catch up with women in higher education?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 12:21 PM
-3

http://www.division51.org/aboutus/whoweare.htm Division 51 believes aspects of traditional gender roles are restrictive in nature and often lead to negative consequences and unhealthy interactions for many individuals and society. SPSMM endeavors to point out constrictive conceptions of masculinity that have inhibited men's development, reduced men's capacity to form meaningful relationships, and contributed to the oppression of others. SPSMM supports the empowerment of all persons and believes …
/r/MensRights01/04/13 11:29 AM
2

You must be new to reddit. I'm a feminist and even I think that SRS is a terrible subreddit full of angry, self-righteous lunatics stewing in their own victimhood and bigotry. Seriously, don't ever engage with any of the people there. Nothing good ever comes out of it. If you want to learn more: /r/SRSsucks (read the sidebar)
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:21 AM
0

particularly those associated with men's mental health and well-being, and how (in medical language) psychosocial forces shape the experiences of men I don't have any advice on starting an organization, but if you want to learn more about this topic, this journal might be of some help.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 09:07 AM
1

The 2% 'stat' doesn't exist ANYWHERE but in Susan Brownmiller's book "Against Our Will". Uh, no. The 8% referenced is not a study, but is the FBI's reported 'unfounded accusation' rate (which is, quite simply, Rape cases referred to the FBI by local police, that cannot be substantiated enough to go to trial. Again, no. Eugene Kanin did a series of studies (in fact, the only actual studies ever done - compiling flawed statistics is not a study - and those studies give a range of between 45 and 85…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 08:13 AM
0

However, if a survey asked victims whether they reported their assault, and the extrapolated number of reported assaults from the survey was close to the actual number of claims made to the police, that would imply that most reported cases are true. Have studies shown this? Not that I'm aware of, and I'm guessing this has never been done. Prevalence is already quite difficult to measure, plus to make an accurate comparison the survey sample has to accurately represent both the police jurisdictio…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 06:36 AM
2

I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you saying that sexual victimization surveys suffer from the flaw that the people being interviewed might not understand what is being asked of them? That if you ask different people questions like "Have you been raped", "Have you been sexually assaulted", "Have you been date-raped", etc., you might get different, inconsistent, or unreliable responses?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 06:06 AM
2

I'm not sure that distinction makes much difference.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:21 AM
-2

So you disagree with my statement that women have some power, and refute it by saying that in some places, women have as much power as men?
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:19 AM
4

What you're describing is called the "miscommunication model" of rape; other models you might be interested in reading about include the "victim precipitation model" and the "social-structural model". Regarding the former, while yes, it's a plausible account and probably does happen sometimes, it probably happens less often than you might think. Long story short, men (and women) are generally quite capable of comprehending reluctance and refusals, even when the word "no" isn't explicitly used. A…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 05:16 AM
-3

Your debate seems to be an argument about definitions; you have one and she has another. Ultimately the discussion is futile; there's no way to prove or disprove that a definition is right or wrong. But for what it's worth, I'm a feminist and I differ from a lot of others in that I think your definition is often the more useful one. While it's critical not to overlook the importance of institutional power in understanding how discrimination manifests and is perpetuated, and her definition is use…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:55 AM
-40

Sorry, but I'm too smart for a few quotes taken out of context. Sorry to derail a bit, but I wish you'd tell that to all your fellow MRAs that love to quote misandric statements by radical feminists.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:15 AM
-3

Okay, I get what you're saying and I understand why this annoys you. But: Farmers committing suicide is not "killing married guys", so your title is wrong. The writer labeled all of this suicide as genocide, which is pretty much the worst crime ever in this history of mankind. So they're not exactly diminishing the victimization of those farmers. EDIT to add: If anything they're exaggerating it.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 04:12 AM
1

I address that here.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:58 AM
2

I addressed this in a large edit to my comment above, before I read it.
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:52 AM
4

A "not guilty" verdict doesn't literally mean that the defendant didn't commit the crime. It just means that there's insufficient evidence to prove that they did; and unfortunately this is often the case when it comes to rape. That's the nature of a system in which suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty - guilty men go free to avoid having innocent people go to jail. /u/PierceHarlan of COTWA will have a lot to say about how this principle can get corrupted in rape cases, and to some …
/r/MensRights01/04/13 03:07 AM
3

While various studies differ in their methodologies, generally speaking in the most rigorous ones, 2-8% refers to the proportion of rapes/sexual assaults that were reported to and investigated by authorities, and later found to be false. So yes, from what I understand (please correct me if I'm mistaken) they should include those that don't make it to trial, as well as those found not guilty. What they don't include are false accusations that were never reported to the authorities in the first pl…
/r/MensRights01/04/13 02:28 AM
4

Does anyone have some reading material they could link to me/knowledge they could impart on the methods using to determine both the alleged perpetrator's and alleged victim's credibility when gathering data on rape statistics? http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/6/1152.abstract
/r/MensRights31/03/13 11:33 PM
0

Actually I think that writer raises a very good point. Contrary to your description that they were merely "men who responded to the request for consensual sex" and that the "young woman who actually placed the ad, asked for money for sex", what actually happened, at least as The Stir describes it, is that: Reportedly Gullickson placed her ad on Craigslist, which asked for a man to kidnap her in a ski mask, force her into a car, bind her with duct tape, rape her, and then drop her off where she'd…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 11:15 PM
1

First, I've never come across a single MRA that has demonstrated even the slightest idea of who MacKinnon or Daly or French are or what they've contributed to feminism, beyond repeatedly bringing up a few cherry-picked quotes. Second, any feminist that denounces those people as anti-feminist or non-feminist just gets accused of No True Scotsman-ing. Third, there's already been plenty of argument and dissent within feminism for decades, and plenty of critiques of the more radical excesses of its …
/r/MensRights31/03/13 09:59 PM
2

It's 2% of the 100 that are reported, not 2% of all 1000 rapes. The infographic is really badly designed.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 06:14 AM
2

Oh, this infographic again. I'm a feminist that's more concerned about rape than false rape accusations, and even I think this graph hurts more than it helps. The link you posted already explains some of the reasons why, and even the original creators, the Enliven Project, has discussed its flaws. If you want to have a good discussion about the prevalence of false rape accusations (or false reports), it's better to go to the original source for the statistic. Enliven cites this document by David…
/r/MensRights31/03/13 06:12 AM
1

As of this moment, among the top 25 posts in /r/mensrights, 12 have the word "feminist" or "feminism" in the title, while among the top 25 posts in /r/feminism, 2 have the phrase "men's rights" (none have "MRA" or "MRM"). And among the top 50 posts, the numbers are 22 and (still) 2 respectively. Projection much?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 02:56 AM
0

The men's rights movement wants to discredit and destroy feminism. How is it not a feminist issue?
/r/MensRights31/03/13 02:46 AM
1

A feminist publishing in a pro-feminist journal arguing to dispel the myth that women can't rape men has nothing to do with organized feminism's policy to exclude envelopment and misinform the public about rape. Right. Keep telling yourself that.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 12:20 AM
1

That study was not funded by feminism, it is not in a feminist publication. Seriously, you're just embarrassing yourself. The paper was published in a journal called "Psychology of Men and Masculinity". Now check out this Wikipedia article: As a relatively new field of study, men's studies was formed largely in response to, and as a critique of, an emerging men's rights movement—itself a response to privileges brought to women by feminist political action—and as such, has been taught in academic…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 11:46 PM
1

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-rape/ One limitation of a purely performative account of consent is that it does not take into account the context in which the relevant behavior or utterance occurs. For instance, if a woman says “yes” or even feigns sexual enthusiasm in order to keep a knife-wielding attacker from becoming angry and hurting or killing her, it would be absurd to regard her behavior or utterance as consent (or at least as meaningful consent). The question is what other …
/r/MensRights30/03/13 11:21 PM
1

See, I knew you didn't bother to read the links I posted. Here is proof that the authors are feminist.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 11:20 PM
1

I now understand what you mean by "organized feminism". It means "anyone who works on rape prevalence statistics, whether or not they identify as feminist." So if a feminist publishes an article in a highly-trafficked blog or news outlet that labels envelopment as rape, it doesn't count. If a feminist studies male sexual victimization by women, but adheres to a legal definition of rape, or uses less loaded or more precise language like "non-consensual sex", "sexual assault", or even "have interc…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 10:40 PM
-1

That is the new definition that the FBI is using. It was the FBI that changed the definition, and the FBI that is ultimately responsible. Here's the actual letter that feminist organizations sent to the FBI: Dear [FBI Director Robert Mueller / Attorney General Eric Holder], I was shocked to learn that the FBI uses an archaic definition of rape (“The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will”) to gather statistics for the Uniform Crime Report. This definition, drafted more than 8…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 04:47 AM
-1

1 in 6 is not funded by feminism. Feminism never funds Liask to research male victims of women. I never said it did. But Lisak is a feminist (or at least has published feminist scholarship), and is on the board of directors for an organization that gives support to male victims of sexual assault, including those that were victimized by women. You didn't read your sources, feminists talking about men raping men, and male rape, is not feminism recognising envelopment as rape. *Slaps forehead Let m…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 04:34 AM
-1

Since you replied within 15 minutes and managed to completely ignore the reference to female perpetrators acting on male victims in every single one of those links*, it's obvious you didn't bother to read them. *Except the one on Lisak, which is to show that he's a feminist; it's 1in6.org that addresses male victims of female perpetrators.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 04:02 AM
-1

Proof that all feminist organizations don't recognize envelopment as rape? I've seen no such thing, and you haven't shown any, as dragonsandgoblins pointed out. Tell me, what's the difference between "individual feminists" and "organized feminist"? Does the Women's Media Center count as a feminist organization? Does Nicola Gavey count as an organized feminist? Do Jessica Turchik and Katie Edwards count as organized feminists? Do the editors and writers of this book count as organized feminists? …
/r/MensRights30/03/13 03:38 AM
1

All them say it doesn't exist outside of penetration, none of them recognise envelopment as rape That's a pretty bold, and as dragonsandgoblins correctly points out, completely unsubstantiated, claim to make, given that in the past I've already pointed out to you literally dozens of examples of feminists discussing rape of men by women, including some that specifically label envelopment as rape. I'm wondering how you define "feminist organization".
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:05 AM
1

Even granting for the sake of argument that that's all true, that's not a criticism against this march or these slogans (besides the first one), it's a criticism against the lack of similar ad campaigns and rallies and slogans targeting women. It's not a reason to think that these slogans (again, beside the first one) are sickening, factually incorrect, or inappropriate, as the OP claimed. All males are rapists, unless they are very explicitly trained not to rape. No, this is one particular mess…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 12:09 AM
1

And you can get this through body language. Which is how almost all human communication is done. Well yes, I know that. Look, I've got a serious question for you: how often do you think women get enthusiastic consent from men in the form of vocalization? If you're asking for a percentage, I have no idea. Pretty often I imagine. Men say things like "let's fuck" or "that's so hot" or "yeah keep doing that", right? I'm pretty sure I've vocalized some sort of enthusiastic consent almost every time I…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 11:53 PM
1

The idea that "men can't be raped" is one of the most classic and entrenched rape myths in existence. Here's a relatively recent literature review discussing the nature, prevalence, causes, and effects of rape myths regarding male victims: The invisibility and marginalization of male sexual assault is largely because of the perpetuation of rape myths (Kassing, Beesley, & Frey, 2005; Rando, Rogers, & Brittan-Powell, 1998), which have been commonly defined as “prejudicial, stereotyped or false bel…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 10:49 PM
0

10 - Yes, but this is a rally called "Men's March Against Sexual Assault". The people holding the signs are men. The slogan begins with "This man...". The man's agency is already assumed. So it only makes sense for the slogan to address what the man does. I mean, how would you reword it - "This man gives and obtains enthusiastic consent..."? It sound silly. The "every X minute" ones - there's nothing in those slogans to indicate that those rapes refer only to female victims. 13 and 14 (I think y…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:48 PM
2

When have I derailed the conversation from issues that affect men to issues that affect women? I always try to respond directly and on-topic to a point being made by someone else.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:34 PM
1

And that survey isn't claiming all sexual coercion is rape, unlike feminist surveys, its measuring rates of sexual coercion and is calling it sexual coercion, its not even calling physical force rape. You're the one who responded to a post about rape by talking about rape culture and "rape being gendered", and then quoting a paper that wasn't about rape. This survey may not be claiming that sexual coercion is rape, but you were certainly implying it. I see what you did there, trying to say that …
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:28 PM
1

You're the same feminist who quotes the 1 in 4 statistic from the bullshit study by Mary Koss, and here you are trying to claim that "pressuring him with verbal arguments" is a broad definition for sexual coercion? That's exactly my point. If the Koss study is guilty of inflating statistics, then by the same standards this one is too.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 09:16 PM
-1

http://i.imgur.com/VoiSvdX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/iJJjgGx.jpg (Source)
/r/MensRights29/03/13 12:18 PM
3

Rates of sexually aggressive behaviors among women vary from one segment of the United States to another, but the evidence presented here shows that as many as 7% of women self-report the use of physical force to obtain sex, 40% self-report sexual coercion, and over 50% self-report initiating sexual contact with a man while his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol (Anderson, 1998). Yeah, this is a very misleading sentence. First, the cited paper concludes that only up to 29% of women self-r…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 10:34 AM
2

Aside from the first one, what's wrong with those slogans?
/r/MensRights29/03/13 08:44 AM
6

What facts did you bombard her with? What was/were the main argument(s) that you wanted to get across? How did the class and teacher react? You're not really giving us any details here. EDIT: Removed a duplicated sentence.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 08:37 AM
1

Well a lot of MRAs certainly think this; you can see it from the most upvoted comments. And yes there was enough information to know what the guy should have done - the same thing everyone should do when having sex: get affirmative or enthusiastic consent.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 07:09 AM
1

She could get physically violent, make accusations, spread rumors, stalk him, etc. I suppose if he genuinely feared her doing that, then that justifies him leaving her the way he did. But I think it's a stretch to imagine that she's liable to do any of that just because she lied about taking the pill. And it certainly wasn't going to happen at that moment, when she was weak from surgery and painkillers. And from a strictly pragmatic view, I think the OP actually made that sort of retaliation mor…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 05:23 AM
2

I'm cautiously intrigued by this idea.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 04:35 AM
1

I know exactly what you mean; I'm a feminist that comments here fairly frequently, and that's happened to me on several occasions. themountaingoat is right; if you wait even just a day or two it will end up being a one-on-one discussion. It also helps to just ignore the angrier or less constructive replies.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 04:31 AM
0

Even granting, strictly for the sake of argument, that feminists downplay abuse by women, that doesn't actually disprove the idea that abusive relationships are about gaining and maintaining power or control. I was actually careful to phrase my argument in a gender-neutral way to avoid digressions into feminism vs MRA gender politics and oppression olympics. And I know perfectly well that women can hold power over men (see this comment for example). But if you look at their examples of behavior …
/r/MensRights29/03/13 04:21 AM
1

Check out the comments in this thread. 16 year-old girl makes out with a 19 year-old boy, a friend of her brother. She says she doesn't want to go all the way, he ignores that and has sex with her anyway. She never said stop because she was too afraid. Most of the comments lambast the girl for not saying no and assuming the guy should be able to read her mind. Few point out that the guy should have been more considerate of her feelings, or made sure that she changed her mind and consented.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 03:29 AM
2

Who said women aren't part of the problem? Certainly not me. By the way, it's funny that even in the link you provide, the idea is labeled as "pre-feminist". So even that helps to prove my point.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:59 AM
1

Riiight.. it's always the fault of feminists. And if not them, it's the fault of women who aren't listening to them. Because hey, it's not like there's an entire industry that teaches men to treat women as sexual gatekeepers.
/r/MensRights29/03/13 02:33 AM
-1

Um, no; I actually had no idea we'd argued before. I reply to a lot of comments from a lot of people, and I don't pay much attention to usernames. There's nothing exceptional about the first link that I posted. Feminists have been arguing for years that it's wrong to treat women as the gatekeepers of sex. That they also talk about patriarchy and rape culture has little to do with it. I don't know how common it is for MRAs to espouse the idea of sex as something women have and men want. But here …
/r/MensRights28/03/13 10:44 PM
-3

Good grief, feminists have already been decrying this idea for decades, you just haven't been paying attention. If anything it's MRAs that spout this sort of bullshit.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 09:45 PM
0

There were comments trying to argue that the man was unjustly entrapped by the police. That sounds like a defense to me.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 09:23 PM
1

She's NOT a good person; no "good person" would ever do what she just did. This is common behavior for rapists - in public they behave in ways that people ordinarily recognize as "good" or "nice" or "friendly" - but it's often a mask to conceal predatory behavior. I realize it's difficult and you risk being ridiculed or disbelieved, but I hope you find yourself able to report this incident. Make no mistake - this person is a predator, she knew what she was doing, and she'll repeat her crime if s…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 06:22 AM
0

Okay, let's examine this more carefully - let me know where you disagree: Abusive relationships are generally built on an asymmetry in power. For example, the US Office on Violence Against Women defines domestic violence as a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner". Abusive behavior can manifest as physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse. Generally speaking, the reason why it's ad…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 05:12 AM
1

I've shown evidence that, at least historically in some cultures, men were allowed to have sex outside of marriage while women were discouraged or punished for the same. All you can say, outside of the personal attacks, is that my evidence "proves nothing", "I don't believe this", "I see no compelling evidence", "Wikipedia counts as nothing". You say I'm determined to see women as victims regardless of facts, but between the two of us I'm the only one who's attempted to present any facts. And th…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 04:12 AM
1

You're actively ignoring my points and creating your own argument to argue against. You're not making a very clear point, and whatever point you're making has no substantiation whatsoever. You just seem to be saying that women didn't need their equivalent of concubines and mistresses because they can get sex for free, and from there you're alleging without evidence that such affairs are similarly condoned. I've given evidence to the contrary - norms and laws regarding adultery and cuckoldry crea…
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:13 AM
1

Condoned? I think you'd be hard pressed to prove any of that. Actually it's not hard to prove at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistress_(lover) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubine You're comparing the condoning of female Mistresses and concubines, (which did exist), to the lack of a male counter-part and then inferring that this lack thereof means that females were looked down upon solely to cheat. Well, yeah. The point is that historically speaking (and to a lesser extent still true toda…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:36 PM
-2

Um, no? Here's the definition of sexual abuse in Wikipedia: Sexual abuse, also referred to as molestation, is the forcing of undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another. When that force is immediate, of short duration, or infrequent, it is called sexual assault. The offender is referred to as a sexual abuser or (often pejoratively) molester. The term also covers any behavior by any adult towards a child to stimulate either the adult or child sexually. When the victim is younger than the…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:19 PM
-1

First, Munoz was arrested for traveling to meet the girl with presumed intent, not for a direct attempt. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here by "presumed" vs "direct" attempt, but generally speaking, it's a crime either way, since it was an attempt to have sex with a 13 year-old girl. Let me quote the part that describes the arrest: Police on two occasions arranged to drop off the panties for Munoz at a specific location, at a Merced park. Both times, police watched Munoz show up and pick up…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 11:12 PM
0

Right, because the wife's identity was subsumed within her husband's: As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep a salary for herself. If a wife was permitted to work, under the laws of coverture she was required to relinquish her wages to her husband. In certain c…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:28 PM
0

There is no description in the story which gives details as to how the situation got from "at first" to "but then." This conversation has not been divulged. There is no indication as to whether the police prompting begun with the initial contact (which again, was not initiated by Munoz) or whether he picked up the officer's suggestive note and stupidly ran with it. The only thing known for sure is that an officer contacted an man offering to buy panties and pretended to be a 13 year old. None of…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:22 PM
-1

How would that work? Man and woman are in a one-year relationship; woman makes a lot of money, man is poor. Man desperately wants a child (and child support?), so he pokes holes in his condoms. Woman gets pregnant. Woman finds out what the man did, and doesn't want a child, so she gets an abortion. Then after getting home from the abortion, she shuts the door on the man's face and doesn't speak to him again? It's not equivalent - the man did nothing to reverse his actions and preserve the relati…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:10 PM
1

But my point isn't merely that mistresses and concubines existed, but that they were condoned in a lot of cultures.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:54 PM
-1

Ever heard the old "1 in 4 women will be raped" bullshit? Came from Mary Koss, who defined "rape victim" so broadly that even the women that she concluded were victims told her that they weren't. Impressive, three misrepresentations in two sentences. First, the claim is that 1 in 4 college women surveyed experienced rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. Second, her definition of "rape victim" was based on the legal definition of rape in the state in which the research was conducted. And thir…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 12:16 PM
3

Thanks, that's very informative. I'd also like to add that the woman pleaded no contest, which suggests that a plea bargain may have been arranged that got her a light sentence.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:23 AM
-9

Sadly this is a forum where women are the enemy and whenever she does something wrong all actions of the male involved are instantly forgiven. Exactly. In the comment thread for the top post at the moment, people are trying to defend a man who was caught trying to have sex with a 13 year-old girl, because a completely unrelated woman received a lighter sentence for a similar crime.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 10:18 AM
4

we don't know whether this was an instance where the guy would ever have sought out this type of interaction with a kid According to the article, it's quite clear that he did in fact seek out "this type of interaction with a kid" (and let's not mince words; he was looking to rape a child). I'm not filling in a gap in the story, it was plainly stated in black and white: At first, Munoz requested panties from the girl's mother -- but then requested panties from the girl herself. The investigation …
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:23 AM
3

That's not the same thing at all. In that case it's the cop coming up with the idea of getting high on coke. Here, the cop was merely offering to sell girl's panties (perfectly legal as far as I know). According to the article it was the defendant who came up with the suggestion of illegal activity. At first, Munoz requested panties from the girl's mother -- but then requested panties from the girl herself. The investigation progressed into a month-long conversation on Yahoo! Messenger and email…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:08 AM
-1

May I ask what's wrong with Wikipedia's description? Also, some advice: if you want to learn more about feminism don't ask internet antifeminists. They're not going to give you a fair or well-informed answer.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:56 AM
1

Look, I agree that this was probably a scam, or at best incredibly frivolous; and I'm glad she got called out on it. But if this is what you consider an example of how men's rights activism works... that doesn't really reflect well on your movement. All you did was expose a hoax that exploited feminism. Did you actually address any men's issues? Maybe increase awareness of how men experience rape or domestic violence? Or bring equality to the enforcement of divorce, child custody, or alimony law…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:45 AM
-5

My contention is that someone who thinks patriarchy is just "gender roles" (and more so someone who thinks it refers to an evil conspiracy of men) isn't paying attention to how feminists describe patriarchy. So if you're going to argue that this is how "a good number of feminists" define it, you should be prepared to cite at least one feminist doing so. I mean, I can completely understand if you're not inclined to dig through your browsing history to look for an example, and I'm not calling you …
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:30 AM
-6

I've seen a good number of feminists use this definition with so many words. Citation please? EDIT to add: Patriarchy is a statement about power, dominance, or authority; so ignoring the definitions that make reference to these is just silly.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:15 AM
-15

You're a coward for not breaking up with her. She had no more leverage or power over you - you're rich, she's poor and just went through a physically and emotionally difficult experience. You could have confronted her about how you felt manipulated and lied to, or even tried to end things amicably if you wanted. You risk nothing by breaking up with her; in fact it might even help prevent unwanted drama (stalking, retaliation) down the road. But instead you just lied and ran away.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:13 AM
-13

It's just calling "current gender roles" by a different name, one that evokes visions of an evil conspiracy of men trying to keep the women down. Anybody who thinks this is what patriarchy actually means just isn't paying attention to what feminists actually have to say about patriarchy. I agree with a lot of the things you said, but not this.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 02:59 AM
2

"Cuckold historically referred to a husband with an adulterous wife and is still often used in with this meaning. From the 1990s, the term has also been widely used to refer to a sexual fetish in which the fetishist is stimulated by their committed partner choosing to have sex with someone else."
/r/MensRights27/03/13 02:44 AM
2

When you write a draft of your rebuttal maybe you could post it here on /r/mensrights for comments? I'd be interested in reading it.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 01:48 AM
2

I think that historically, there's been less of a stigma against men cheating on their wives. Mistresses and concubines were common, and to some degree condoned, in many cultures. Nor is it unheard of these days for rich and powerful men, including married ones, to patronize high-class escort services (i.e. prostitution rings). And a few studies have shown that men have extramarital sex at higher rates than women, although that doesn't necessarily indicate that it's more accepted. Meanwhile it w…
/r/MensRights27/03/13 01:25 AM
0

RAINN cites the Justice Department National Crime Victimization Survey 2006-2010. Wikipedia cites the 2000 Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Feel free to read and critique.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 10:05 PM
2

Now, first of all, I question the validity of a few claims that the author has made: one, that jurors will let a rapist go because a rape victim was wearing a mini skirt (I'd like to see statistics on this) The sentiment is pretty common. While the specific case of jurors and mini skirts might be pretty rare, it's not unheard of for judges, lawyers, other authority figures, and the general public to excuse rapists and blame victims because of what the victim was wearing. More examples: http://st…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 09:44 PM
0

I'm not going to base my opinion on the entire discourse of feminism on domestic violence based on two (clearly biased) papers. I'm not remotely qualified to assess them; I don't have the expertise to judge if the authors are being honest or accurate in their claims. I admit it looks bad, and if it's true the authors responsible should be ashamed. But ideological blind spots are common in academia, while deliberate conspiracies to conceal evidence are next to nonexistent. Anyway you're moving th…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:58 AM
14

In all forms of media.. books, TV, games and movies, violence and murder are glorified, yet rape is ALWAYS shown as the act of sadistic, evil people, normally men. Nope. There are tons of examples of rape being portrayed as comedy in various media. More examples here (fourth-to-last paragraph).
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:22 AM
1

I believe I've already addressed all five. Those last two papers paint a bad picture regarding feminist discourse on domestic violence, and I'm not prepared to defend feminism on that score; but the word "rape" appears a grand total of once between the two papers. (Have you read the papers?) As for the rest, I've said more about them than you have; you seem content to let your citations do the debating for you.
/r/MensRights26/03/13 02:06 AM
1

Ok yes, I'm prepared to concede that sexual victimization of men by women is poorly understood and needs more study before strong claims can be made. And that feminism has some ideological blind spots in that regard. But I don't believe that feminists have been "maligning a whole gender"; the feminist philosophy on rape lays the blame on a toxic construction of masculinity perpetuated by all of society, not men as a class. And feminists have been working for decades to address at least half of t…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:59 AM
0

Some feminists talking about female perpetrated rape, doesn't in the least change the fact that feminism as policy has been covering up female perpetrated abuse and rape and misrepresenting it as mainly gendered for decades. What on earth is "feminism as policy" supposed to mean? How is this different from "feminists talking"? Any guidelines on how to determine which feminists belong to which category? And no, it's not possible to cover up female-perpetrated rape while simultaneously talking abo…
/r/MensRights26/03/13 01:46 AM
1

If feminism is deliberately covering up female perpetrated abuse and rape, how do you explain the numerous links I cited of feminists discussing exactly this issue? Here are a couple more: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Rape_culture This same dynamic of the dehumanization of femininity contributes to defensive homophobia and violence by men against men perecieved to be insufficiently masculine. By cultural definition, male victims of rape have been feminized, and thus are often erased, ignor…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 11:26 PM
0

Ha, if feminists are attempting a deliberate coverup they're doing a terrible job.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 10:04 PM
0

So every time MRAs talk about men getting raped, that "minimises domestic and child abuse as well as sex crimes by only telling one half of the story" as well? If you don't mention both genders each time, that's rape culture? What if you talk about rape without mentioning the rape of black people? Homeless people? Gays and lesbians? Prisoners? War victims? Human trafficking victims? Sex trade workers? If you don't discuss all victims of rape every time you talk about rape, is that rape culture a…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 06:39 PM
1

BTW, that deserved a special answer because rape being defined as penetration, by definition there is no rape when a women fucks a man against his will by either disabling him or threatening him. Yes I get that, what do you think this whole conversation was about? Didn't you see the link I posted quoting feminists making that exact same point?
/r/MensRights25/03/13 06:29 PM
1

What a laughably weak excuse. Even granting for the sake of argument that your version of the history of gender politics is correct, you don't win political battles or achieve policy goals by griping about your political opponents while simultaneously complaining that aren't doing your work for you. Women, black people, and gays have all made enormous strides in having their rights recognized by doing the hard work of real activism. They organized rallies, published books, lobbied for new laws, …
/r/MensRights25/03/13 12:01 PM
1

From what I understand, the only people allowed to change FBI definitions "directly" (nice little addition, it escaped my notice on the first read) are law officers. This is what I was referring to; I wanted to know if feminists were among those that actually crafted the definition. I guess not. It's not my fault you didn't read my earlier comment more carefully. But since they are basically mouthpieces for what the campaigners advocate for, I'd think its fair to say the latter share the respons…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 10:06 AM
4

Those two explanations aren't mutually exclusive. One might say that cult-like glorification of athletes that goes to the extent of excusing rape is a pretty good example of rape culture. In fact, some people have said exactly that: Rape culture is when the Steubenville is far from the first instance of athletic clubs covering up sexual violence allegations. See: Sandusky, Michigan State 2010, Arizona State 2008, University of Colarado 2006, University of Iowa 2008, Lincoln High School 2012, Uni…
/r/MensRights25/03/13 05:52 AM
-1

Wikipedia has a pretty good definition: Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape. Some interesting examples and illustrations here, here, and here.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 05:42 AM
1

Those links only show that feminists campaigned and gave testimony to update the definition, not that they worked on the new definition themselves.
/r/MensRights25/03/13 05:04 AM
1

Fair enough, but I'm not yet convinced. Even in the wikipedia page you quoted, the next paragraph goes: Although Roman law in the historical period recognized rape as a crime, the rape of women is a pervasive theme in the myths and legends of early Rome. The Augustan historian Livy seems "embarrassed" by the rape motif, and emphasizes the redeeming political dimension of such traditional stories as the "rape" of the Sabine women, constituting Rome as a "blended" population in which people coexis…
/r/MensRights24/03/13 10:26 PM
1

So it's not okay for any organization to help only one gender??
/r/MensRights23/03/13 08:30 AM
1

That's true, I haven't forgotten. The bible is full of all sorts of atrocities committed against both men and women, often with god's sanction. But the only proscriptions against rape I'm aware of only considered the case of men raping women. Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 08:06 AM
0

All relationships are transactions. You put something in, and if you get something back then you continue. This is true only in a superficial sense. In a healthy relationship, you do good things for your partner because you want to, and it makes you happy to do so. For example, relationship experts say that sex should be an expression of love/affection; it's unhealthy to withhold sex as a punishment or give sex as a reward. Framing a relationship as just a transaction probably won't lead to a go…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 07:17 AM
1

No, they are making the argument that rapists can't help but rape when they see women in provocative clothing. Those quotes didn't say "rapists", they said "men" or "guys". And who said we were talking about a first world country? That's a pretty clumsy attempt to move the goalposts. Are there no men in third world countries to take offense at those statements? I've addressed those feminist quotes before. They don't accuse all men of being rapists any more than the quotes I cited. The MacKinnon …
/r/MensRights23/03/13 04:06 AM
0

They demonstrate exactly the line of thinking criticized in the posted link. These people are making the argument that men can't help but rape when they see women in provocative clothing. How else can you interpret "You know what men are like - provocative clothing will make them do things"? If these quotations don't prove that these people think all men are rapists, can you point me to feminist quotes that do? I bet I can come up with more feminist quotes explicitly stating that not all men are…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 03:13 AM
2

Still can't find any evidence she's a feminist. Apparently she's a "wealthy hypnotherapist, counselor, life coach, fortune-teller, trainer, consultant, mediator, international motivational speaker, health educator, and neurobiofeedback technician / brain wave specialist", but I can't find anything online connecting her to feminism. It seems this "25 year feminist career" was just made up.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 03:09 AM
1

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2012/opinion/letters/12/04/modest-dress-would-protect-a-woman-against-rape/ Every female has the right to protect her chastity and maintain a dress of dignity, honour and respect which will ensure her rightful place in society. This dress will not only protect her against rape but will assist those contemplating such acts to desist from this behaviour. The dress of females will ignite the flame of passion among men or extinguish this flame. Those who encourage women t…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:20 AM
1

Well that would depend on what "real life" we're talking about, wouldn't it? It might be hard for you or me to find such a person, but for someone living in, say, a predominantly Muslim country, it's probably a lot easier. And I'd bet that a provocatively dressed woman who has the misfortune of being raped would suddenly find it very easy to find people who think this way.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:49 AM
1

What a naive statement.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:30 AM
3

http://char.txa.cornell.edu/lennon.htm Although there is no available data showing how often clothing is introduced in rape or sexual assault cases for the purpose of showing consent, it does occur. In a 1978 sexual assault case, the Montana Supreme Court noted that the 'defendant testified that the sexual contact was encouraged by the dress and behavior of the prosecutrix, a fifteen year old girl who had come to the defendant's home to baby-sit his children.' In 1988, a man convicted of rape in…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 01:10 AM
2

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/09assault.html?hp&_r=0 Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said. “Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:55 AM
-6

What happened to "drunk sex = rape" being a stupid idea concocted by feminists?
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:27 AM
1

I googled "Jessica Carde feminist" and literally the only relevant hit I got was the linked Spearhead article. Even googling "Jessica Carde" gets hardly any hits connected to this person; she's a nobody. The only mention of feminism in the original Seattle Weekly article refers to a psychotherapist who has no recollection of even meeting Jessica Carde. Ms. Carde isn't a feminist writer or scholar or activist, she has no meaningful connection to feminism, much less a "25 year feminist career". Th…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 10:06 PM
1

I've never heard that there were feminist consultants that worked directly on the new FBI definition. I'm not saying it's untrue, but can you give a link?
/r/MensRights22/03/13 09:01 PM
-1

I can see you made this post with good intentions, but I'm afraid there are a lot of problems with what you're saying. Let me try to explain my own reaction, as a feminist, to your post, in the sincere hope that we can "bridge the gap" a little, if you will. For example, I want women to see that nice guys are not being nice merely for sex, even though that is a beneficial side effect. We want good relationships, along with a woman who will not judge us for our sexuality The problem with the "nic…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 09:50 AM
2

If you're not antifeminist, that's great, at least from the point of view of feminists like your mother (and me). Maybe if you tell her that it will soften her opinion of your position. But keep in mind that "Men's Rights", as a movement that exists today, is very much antifeminist (just take a look at this subreddit). So the label has a lot of baggage that dissuades many feminists from listening, just as the label "feminist" has the same effect on many MRAs. I, like you, would like to see men's…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:55 AM
-1

If that's what you believe it's your right; just don't turn around and question why feminists aren't flocking to your banner, as the OP did.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 01:53 AM
2

talking about MRA to her comes off as a setback for equality and a slap in the face to all she fought for The MRM is a fundamentally antifeminist movement, so it's quite understandable that she'd feel this way, no? You can't support and defend an antifeminist movement and not expect a feminist to take offense. Either you talk about and address men's issues in a way that doesn't bash feminism, or you don't talk to her about it at all. I'm not sure that it's possible to achieve a middle ground tha…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:49 AM
0

Ha! This subreddit, and the MRM in general, seems to be more about feminism-bashing than actual activism to address men's issues. Every time a feminist comes in here saying that they care about men's issues too, or that they also identify as an MRA, they get criticized and downvoted. I can assure you that feminists are not made to feel welcome in this movement.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:37 AM
1

It was AndrewLevin who said above that "Feminism is the cause of this horror." I'm merely challenging that statement, and more broadly, the tendency of MRAs to lay all blame at the feet of feminists.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 11:36 PM
2

I suspect you're right, at least about the "until recently" part. The idea of rape as something men did to women is an ancient one, it even pops up in the Bible. Feminists didn't invent it.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 10:04 PM
2

Okay, no further comment. But on a related note, you might find this paper interesting: The Truth, The Half-Truth, and Nothing Like the Truth: Reconceptualizing False Allegations of Rape Frankly it probably provides ammo for both "sides" of the debate, and fails to come up with firm conclusions, but whatever.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 09:30 PM
2

Dr. David Lisak's landmark research for his 2010 Violence Against Women study found that 14.2% of all claims that could be classified one way or the other -- either as false claims, or that were referred for prosecution or disciplinary action -- were, in fact, false claims. [...] but we know the actual percentage of false claims is no less than 14.2% and almost certainly higher Wait, what? "14.2% of all claims that could be classified one way or another" isn't the same as 14.2% of all claims, an…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 09:03 PM
0

First, what AndrewLevin said is that it isn't a crime. And second, the FBI definition is just for gathering statistics, it's not the law.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 08:32 PM
-7

We live in a society where this terrible crime is LEGALLY only a crime when the perpetrator is male. Female perpetrators, who are 50% of all perpetrators, are not accountable. What you're showing as "proof" is a survey, not the law. In the real world, rape by women is still a crime.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 04:40 PM
2

Only a willfully ignorant person thinks that Catholics and Protestants are indistinguishable, or that all Muslims are the same. Failing to understand the internal divisions within a group that you're criticizing is just intellectual laziness.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 06:43 AM
4

This is an old meme that has gotten a bit out of control. A quick google search shows that it pops up on a lot of websites, including plenty that you'd ordinarily find reliable such as various UN websites and the New York Times. The original source is a World Bank report published in 1994, but over the years the meme has mutated into inaccuracy. Among other potential errors, it's supposed to say that violence is supposed to be a leading cause of death and disability; and the word "combined" shou…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 03:10 AM
-1

She is calling what happened to the bosnian muslim women "gendered violence." "Gendered violence" whenever I've seen it used and as it's used here, refers only to violence against women, with the implication that violence against women happens because they're women. And yet later in the paper, the author states that: At the same time, feminist scholars have critically pointed to the ways in which transitional justice institutions persistently elide ‘victim’ with ‘women’, and ‘women’ with ‘sexual…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 10:10 PM
1

Here is an example. Eh, that's just a comment to an article. Further down in the thread the same person says that: The case of women thinking men always want sex so you can’t rape men – that’s rape culture. The case of a man raping another man (if he thinks the other man is gay/bi) can also be explained by the man assuming that men always want sex so you can’t rape men – that’s rape culture. The cases of men and women raping another man, and then justifying it by saying, “he was just too weak to…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 08:02 PM
1

She really said that men can't be raped? I can point you to any number of feminist sources saying otherwise that you can show her.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:14 AM
-6

Even granting that it's childish, I still think it's wrong to force an argument on someone who's clearly unwilling. Especially when it's clear that they're disengaging because they're taking personal offense.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:55 AM
0

Since the theory of "rape culture" only applies to male-on-female assaults, That's plainly untrue. Show me any source that states that rape culture doesn't apply to male-on-male assaults, or that it's strictly about male-on-female assaults. I think solidarity includes something more than simply stating what a person did. McEwan called the boy "brave and clever and admirable", and defended him from blame by O'Reilly. I honestly can't comprehend how that can be read as anything other than solidari…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:43 AM
11

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-necessary-evil-of-humanizing-rapists/ Now here’s something that’s strange to write: we also dehumanize rapists. That is probably difficult to read; it’s damn sure difficult to write. It’s true, though. In fact we dehumanize all criminals. In general mainstream society often doesn’t talk about rapists as though they are human. Instead we talk about them as though they are something else altogether. We talk about how rapists are monsters and absolutely e…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:45 PM
0

Right, because god forbid that they educated themselves, looked at the arguments and evidence, and came to their own conclusions that they're responsible for. Nope, it's all the rich women's fault.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:30 PM
10

Her attacking first is arguable. You were the one who posted the video and solicited her opinion, and you went out of your way to criticize feminism and post radfem quotes. She never attacked men's rights or men's issues as far as I noticed. When she expressed her frustration and tried to disengage by ending the discussion (twice!), you escalated with a lengthy and outright attack on feminism. You're seriously wondering if there was a way you could have handled the situation better?? At minimum,…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:23 PM
0

So feminist men aren't responsible for their own actions, and middle/upper class women have apparently been pulling the strings all this time. We've been living in a secret matriarchy after all. I'll remember this comment the next time someone argues that patriarchy is just a conspiracy theory.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 05:57 PM
0

Same thing in new packaging run by the same people - middle and upper class white women. Here are the staff pictures for the Men Can Stop Rape and Men Stopping Violence campaigns. Do you see a lot of middle and upper class white women? Or even white men for that matter? Its history repeating itself. So you think chivalry and Victorian sensibilities were enforced by women? These campaigns work off the premise that men can be and need to be trained to not be brutes and to respect women. Which of t…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 05:46 PM
1

Like the modern version of chivalry as it applied to women, and victorian sensibilities that followed later. Chivalry and Victorian sensibilities served to deny women's agency, and suppress or control female sexuality. This is all about recognizing and respecting that agency, and allowing both men and women to express their sexuality in safe and healthy ways. Men are brutes that need to be trained and civilized by or on behalf of women. These campaigns are specifically premised on the idea that …
/r/MensRights19/03/13 05:32 PM
1

Is this an actual thing, or did you just come up with it? Googling "reverse Bechdel test" just came up with the gender flip of the original test. I have absolutely no idea what proportion of films fail or pass this test, and I won't hazard a guess. But you might be interested to read about some tropes that relate to women dying in stories: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisposableWoman http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLostLenore http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 08:07 AM
-1

It's like you didn't bother to read the article that you linked. The title is "5 Ways We Can Teach Men Not To Rape" (italics mine), not "train". The only time the word "train" appears in that article is here: When I said that “We can prevent rape by telling men not to commit it,” I wasn’t expressing some simplistic, fantastical worldview. There are organizations like Men Can Stop Rape and Men Stopping Violence that are already doing the work to train men from a young age to understand and challe…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:42 AM
1

You're not interested in a discussion, you just want to insult me. I've told you before that I'm done with you. That policy is still in effect.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 03:31 AM
1

Like I said, I don't want to continue this anymore. And I don't appreciate you asking me such a personal question.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 10:24 PM
1

but rather about how they should be happy about being mentioned at all. Concluding that they were given sufficient mention isn't the same as saying they should be happy about being mentioned at all: That’s why, when I saw the film the first time last spring, I was grateful that Dick and company had expanded the sweep of the narrative to include the often-taboo topic of male-on-male rape. And it seemed clear the filmmakers had make extra effort to find men willing to speak out on the subject, esp…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 10:17 PM
1

Re: those links, you're just moving the goalposts. Shakesville (and feminists in general) acknowledge male victims of female rapists. You just dismiss it because you don't agree with their emphasis. We're up against a society that actively works against acknowledging men's vulnerabilities. That's weird, because it's my feminism that has helped me to acknowledge my vulnerabilities to myself and others. And it's to other feminists that I feel most comfortable with sharing my vulnerabilities as a m…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:30 PM
2

Your search is futile. No one person or organization speaks for all of feminism, just as no one body speaks for all of Islam, or liberalism, or Protestantism, or environmental activism, etc. Even I can only speak authoritatively for my brand of feminism.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:18 PM
1

How about the fact that we make decisions based on our emotional maps, emotional maps are laid down between late third trimester and six years and women dominate early childhood socialization? Huh? What does that have to do with matriarchy? You're just grasping at straws. Would you ever find "women can be raped but X is more important" a reasonable statement? Sure, it would depend on X, and the context of the statement.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:14 PM
1

That women commit a significant portion of sexual violence (by your estimates 40%) undermines the notion that "constructions of masculinity are part of the cause" of rape because it suggests that what prompts people to rape has little to do with gender identity. If masculinity were a requisite for rape, which is what the theory of "rape culture" implies, then one should not see women committing sexual violence at all. Last I checked, 60% still counts as a part, and a rather substantial one at th…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:06 PM
2

You seem more eager to point fingers and given all your previous comments you've posted, from what I've read you seem more eager to tell people they're overreacting or being overly sensitive then actually listening to how they feel about the issues so let's just cut it off here. Fair enough. I'll admit that my last reply came off as more hostile and about casting blame than I had intended. And you're right that saying "MRAs do it too" is an unproductive stance to take. Feminists have done some p…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:25 PM
1

I'd take those statements seriously if there were any evidence at all backing them up.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:06 PM
2

Only this one that I'm aware of (proof that the author is a feminist). I had collected links that focus on rape, not domestic violence.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:04 PM
1

Again, I can only conclude that you're not really interested in reading or understanding what feminists really have to say about men's issues.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:01 PM
2

All these people suggesting bdsm clubs clearly have never been to one. Its certainly not comfortable for me and the time I went there was no way I could get aroused. I don't know what else to tell you. There's an entire subculture that revolves around the very sort of sexual expression you seem to want to talk about and engage in. As well as a branch of feminism that discusses, supports, and even overlaps with that subculture. If neither work for you I'm sorry, but I don't really know what else …
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:57 PM
3

If your basic premise is that all men are sociopathic oppressors and sex maniacs then you are by definition, anti-male. It's tiresome how MRAs love resorting to this obvious strawman. It only discredits your movement.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:50 PM
0

The updated FBI definition was a victory by feminists in advancing men's rights. Not a complete victory, but still. What have MRAs accomplished to get rape definitions updated to include male victims?
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:48 PM
0

Do you have an example of a feminist source discussing men who are abused by women, without minimizing it? Plenty. But I suspect you won't think they count, since you may have a different idea of what "minimizing it" means than I do.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:45 PM
1

If you haven't heard of it it must not happen! I'm sure it happens, Jacobtk proved that. But what evidence I'm aware of suggests it's a very rare occurrence relative to the reverse. Shakesville still doesn't include male victims of females. [Here's one instance] (http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/cnn-still-doesnt-know-how-to-cover.html) where (a) male victim(s) of (a) female perpetrator(s) are discussed in shakesville.com. Here's another. A discussion of the NISVS study that acknowledges male v…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:34 PM
1

But what? It would all depend on the ending of that sentence, wouldn't it?
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:04 PM
1

That completely undermines the notion that "constructions of masculinity are part of the cause" of rape. Huh? How? Likewise, the 2:3 ratio is not the great a difference, certainly not enough for anyone to pretend that rape is something only or mostly men do. It's still just one study, and the analysis deliberately maximizes the female rapist to male rapist ratio (by using the 12-month rather than lifetime data). And what about prison rape? War rape? Rape in the military? Sex trafficking? Do you …
/r/MensRights18/03/13 09:41 AM
8

Any blog that discusses patriarchy and how men can stop lusting after women in yoga pants is anti-male. If your definition of "anti-male" is that restrictive then no, there probably aren't any feminist groups that aren't anti-male. But I'd argue that just because other people have a different idea about what's good for men than you doesn't mean they're your enemy or that they don't genuinely care about men's issues. I'd also argue that any approach to men's issues that doesn't hold men to a high…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 08:53 AM
6

Title seems misleading. You're not asking to talk about rape, you're asking to talk about rape fantasies, and healthy ways of expressing those fantasies that aren't rape. I think you'll find support in the BDSM community, and even within sex-positive feminism if that works for you.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:51 AM
7

Here you go. EDIT to add: And what about all the "Can't we all just get along" feminists that come in here saying they also care about men's issues? People like this guy? Don't they count?
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:37 AM
5

Yes it is. Because this is far from proven. Even that link you cited estimated that the ratio of female rapists to male rapists is about 40% : 60%, using only the 12-month data. And anyway that study didn't count rapes or rapists, it counted rape victims, so a woman who's raped multiple times by her partner, or a girl who's gang-raped by multiple men, would each be counted only once (and have you ever heard of a man being gang-raped by multiple women? I haven't). Your first link (Shakesville ign…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 06:27 AM
8

Is rape culture also gendering rape as male-on-female violence? I'd say rape culture is gendering rape as only male-on-female violence. But it's not wrong to recognize that the majority of rapists are men, that large majority of rapes are committed by men, and that harmful constructions of masculinity are part of the cause. Your second two links involve tweets... people are assholes on the internet, news at eleven. The point is, these notions are common. Your fourth link involves boys as victims…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 05:30 AM
8

Uh, yes it is. Victim-blaming and defense of rapists happens all the time with female victims. Right. Yes, right.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:51 AM
17

What on earth are you talking about? What CNN did here is how female rape victims are treated all the time. There's nothing sudden or unusual about this; feminists have been pointing out examples of rape apologism for years. And feminists have worked to bring recognition to male victims of rape as well.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:12 AM
18

There's a lot of that going around. Seriously, there's a reason why feminists argue that rape culture exists. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/17/the-top-5-rape-apologist-reactions-to-the-steubenville-rape-verdict/
/r/MensRights18/03/13 03:53 AM
1

I appeared on all fronts to them to be willing Well that's pretty important context, don't you think? My assumption was that you were a passive participant and near-unconscious from the alcohol. I guess I just have a different idea of "too inebriated to give consent".
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:44 AM
-1

Also feminists definitions of rape don't include envelopment so to them it is impossible for a woman to rape a man unless she penetrates him. You know perfectly well that isn't true.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 02:34 AM
1

Fair enough, you were there, so you know what the nuances of those situations were in a way that I can't. I guess my point is just that the way you described it sounds an awful lot like rape.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 01:16 AM
2

Exactly. When your message is "men can stop rape", the target audience is obviously all men, only a small minority of which would have been raped by women. Furthermore, that message is backed by specific ideas about what men can actually do to stop rape. That slogan represents a set of theories about rape and its causes that is being put into practice; and those theories, as shown by all of the accompanying educational and promotional materials, clearly qualify "rape" as male-on-female rape. The…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 01:03 AM
2

Well than you have to be more specific. The RAINN figure of 207,754 is only the average number of rape and sexual assault victims each year.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 11:40 PM
3

Where did you get the 0.06 statistic? That wasn't in the source you cited.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 11:33 PM
1

I understand, but I'm still curious to know why you don't label it as rape, if you don't mind. Women whom you didn't find attractive (or so you imply) had sex with you when you were too drunk to give consent. It seems like a textbook definition of date rape to me (or drug-facilitated sexual assault, if you prefer). I don't mean to force a label on your experience, I just don't get why people are so ready to dismiss this as something other than rape.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 11:23 PM
1

How is that not rape? What you just described is, quite literally, sex without consent, i.e. rape. What happens when you go out drinking that this is a regular occurrence? And why don't you label it as rape?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 09:55 PM
1

I've already explained how I think the poster comes across. I don't think the image is pretty direct, and I don't think the image is "clearly targeting people who do false claims, not actual victims of rape." I don't think a rape survivor would see this poster and think "Oh, well this doesn't apply to me, so it's fine."
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:28 PM
2

I don't know. Something more direct, I'd imagine. It would probably be more effective to highlight what happens to a victim of a false rape accusation, rather than focus on an accuser who may or may not be telling the truth.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:08 PM
0

And doesn't that tell you something interesting about gender and history?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 07:01 PM
2

So, you believe Charlie's Angels involved characters in a world that revolved around and was dominated by men? Pretty much, yes. With all of those female lead characters, they couldn't once talk to each other about something other than men? I'd bet that at some point in the film, the male secondary characters talked to each other about something other than men. And why aren't there many (any?) female mooks? Why do men have to be the default or only gender when casting unimportant roles? Same wit…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 06:58 PM
1

Celebrating IWD doesn't just happen; women and feminists (and men too) work to make international women's day a big deal. If men and men's rights groups want to make international men's day an equally big deal, they have to do the work to make it so. Nobody is entitled to respect or attention or global celebration, you have to earn it. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/ What's wrong with saying things happen to men too? Short answer: Nothing in and of itself. The p…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 06:36 PM
0

We should; I think there's a need for an anti-rape campaign that targets women. But the majority of rapists are men, and the large majority of rapes are committed by men. Anti-rape advocacy shouldn't lose sight of that reality.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 06:21 PM
4

Huh? Who says that? I've never heard of a feminist saying anything remotely like that.
/r/MensRights17/03/13 05:16 AM
0

It's fine to complain about how sexism impacts men, if that's what you're interested in, but that was definitely not the time and place to do it. She was lamenting how women never seem able to talk about women's issues without a man chiming in to focus the conversation on men... and you chimed in to focus the conversation on men. Seriously, not cool. Oh, and when you finish that post, please put it up here. I for one would be sincerely interested in reading it. (In fact I'd be much obliged if yo…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 04:31 AM
26

Regarding that AVfM photo - imagine saying those words to someone who was actually raped. The message that comes across isn't "Don't make a false accusation of rape". Instead it seems to say "I don't believe you were really raped, you just regretted having sex." It spreads a message that people who experience rape aren't to be believed. It belittles the horror and trauma of the experience. To a survivor of rape, that photo is probably like a slap in the face. Yes, people shouldn't make false rap…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 04:21 AM
3

I can actually give you a dozen more quotes from Dworkin implying all men are rapists [...] I'm still not too persuaded by this. Dworkin has specifically disavowed statements like "all sex is rape" and "all men are rapists". And while Dworkin and other radical feminists are taught and even sometimes acclaimed by other feminists, they're also strongly criticized by feminists as well. (Sex-positive feminists, for example, were outspoken critics of Dworkin's ideas, to the point where a "war" within…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 03:21 AM
2

Some information about the Bechdel test you might be interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheBechdelTest This is because the Bechdel Test is not meant to give a scorecard of a work's overall level of feminism. It is entirely possible for a film to pass without having overt feminist themes — in fact, the original example of a movie that passes is Alien, which, while it has feminist subtexts, is mostly just a sci-fi/action/horro…
/r/MensRights17/03/13 12:44 AM
2

What aspects of masculinity do you think are under assault? Which masculine behaviors are punished or discouraged? What is the "fundamental core of what it is to be a man" that you believe has been corroded?
/r/MensRights16/03/13 08:02 PM
0

Only a small fraction of MRA's are misogynists The hypocrisy, it's funny.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 07:25 PM
-4

Judge a group by the actions of the mainstream and influential, not the fringe. Especially when you're claiming that your portrayal describes 9 out of 10 members. By your thinking I could very easily portray MRAs as misogynists, or republicans as racists, or liberals as hippies.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 06:28 PM
-3

tumblr feminists Good grief, don't judge feminism (or any movement) by what you see on tumblr.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 06:16 PM
23

That's a great point. They didn't even show the woman's face. They could hardly have done more to dehumanize her. http://bitchmagazine.org/article/headless-bodies-found-in-shameless-media
/r/MensRights16/03/13 06:06 PM
6

The guy probably wouldn't have done anything. So what? That still doesn't make it a matriarchy, he wasn't acting under orders. The guy could just as easily have been aggressive to the OP if the OP had bumped into him accidentally, or had left sweat on some equipment he was about to use, or even just looked at him funny. The woman was just the excuse or trigger to act like a jerk. I'm not saying that sexism wasn't at play in this case. But just because a woman benefits from an instance of sexism …
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:50 PM
0

There are plenty of examples of feminists speaking out against female-on-male violence. (The collected examples I've linked are mostly about rape rather than domestic violence, but still.) And some additional examples: http://fitnessfortheoccasion.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/its-hard-to-say-rape/ A common thought in Hollywood is that “women raping men” = comedy gold. For example, take 40 days and 40 nights. (Spoiler Alert). A man (Matt) gives up sex for lent, and during this time meets the woman of…
/r/MensRights16/03/13 05:37 PM
-6

The author, Jennifer O'Mahony, identifies as a feminist. Remember this article the next time you're told that feminists ignore or enable female-on-male domestic violence.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 04:57 PM
1

This is more accurately described as gender essentialism than sexism. And gender essentialism is something that many feminists tend to criticize.
/r/MensRights16/03/13 04:37 PM
34

Is the white knight to blame for his actions? No. As others have said, men should be held responsible for actions just as much as women. The reason for this is that he was brought up by the feminist establishment to sacrifice himself to meet the whim of every woman around him. Men were "white knighting" long before feminism ever came into existence. Do you not recognize the chivalric roots of the term? and the effect of the matriarchy on the values and upbringing of men. "Matriarchy", seriously?…
/r/MensRights16/03/13 04:04 PM
1

What on earth does the report have to do with VAWA?
/r/MensRights15/03/13 11:21 PM
11

Credible in the sense of being authoritative. Creationists, 9/11 truthers and moon landing conspiracy mongers aren't credible, but it's still possible to cite a source that accurately represents those beliefs.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 07:56 PM
13

My thought is that if you're going to critique patriarchy theory, you should define it by citing a direct quotation from a credible source. And that an effective critique should focus more on what the theory actually says than what it supposedly implies. And if you insist on focusing on the things it implies, you should elaborate more on the logic of how those things are implied by the theory, rather than merely assert that those things are implied.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 07:38 PM
1

Fair enough. Let me address those points: the notion that society somehow approves of rape. Society as a whole doesn't approve of rape, but elements of society often ignore it, excuse it, belittle it, or enable it. Until feminists brought attention to it, marital rape wasn't considered rape at all. The idea that men can't be raped by women, and the enshrinement of that idea in the law, is an ancient one and still believed by many. Courts and law enforcement have often blamed victims of rape for …
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:30 AM
1

Didn't we go through this already? I somehow ticked you off before in an argument and you had responded by going through my comment history and replying with numerous personal insults and accusations, only to later apologize via PM. I thought we were past that, and now you're starting it up all over again. Enough. I'm done with you, and unlike you, when I say that I really mean it.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:54 PM
2

Of course not. When I challenged that claim, you made a different claim, then declined to provide a citation for the original claim, then emphasized another claim you had made as being "the point". I can only conclude that "feminists say all men are rapists" is a baseless assertion.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 05:36 PM
2

So do you concede that you were wrong when you said that "they [feminists] continuously call all men rapists"?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 04:57 PM
4

Seriously? So a college girl feeling safer with a female roommate is misandry now?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:35 AM
6

Here's what I've heard: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/PrevalenceIn-ServicePost-ServiceSexualAssault.pdf Surveys were returned by 3,337 veterans (effective response rate, 68%). Among men, 6.5% of combat veterans and 16.5% of noncombat veterans reported in-service or post-service sexual assault. Among women, 69% of combat veterans and 86.6% of noncombat veterans reported in-service or post-service sexual assault. A bit of additional context here. EDIT: I just wanted to add this: http://en.wikipedia.…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 06:31 AM
2

Conveniently, I've addressed those quotes before, here: First, if you think that a bunch of decades-old quotes by radical feminists is representative of mainstream, modern-day feminism, then I can't help but question if you're truly interested in an honest discussion. And even then, some of those quotes are worth debunking. The quote attributed to Marilyn French was stated by a fictional character, in a novel she published in 1977. The quote by Andrew Dworkin was a misattribution that originated…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 06:02 AM
3

It's a matter of what they say, how they say it, and what they avoid. It's sort of like when you hear of a politican getting in trouble for saying black people need to be motivated more and black people take that as themselves being accused of being lazy. I'm not impressed by this at all. Either (some) feminists say that all men are rapists, or they don't. Implying it doesn't count. By the standard of "it's a matter of what they say, how they say it, and what they avoid" I can just as easily sho…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 03:48 AM
5

Feminists themselves create a real culture of rape in the sense that they continuously call all men rapists Who exactly is saying this? Which feminists? Citation needed, preferably one less than ten years old and by a feminist people have actually heard of. I bet I can come up with more quotations of feminists explicitly saying not all men are rapists.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:01 PM
1

I wasn't impressed by the long list of games that supposedly had female protagonists. Many or most of those included a female deuteragonist or secondary/supporting character, not a female protagonist.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 05:02 AM
1

I find it hard to believe that you don't have to have custody of the child or permission from a custodial parent to abandon the child under safe haven laws. I'm just repeating and interpreting what I read in that website. Why should fathers not be able to relinquish their right of custody and their responsibility of support to the state, simply because the mother failed to inform the father the baby existed? Because the child has rights. Safe haven laws are themselves intended for the protection…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:38 AM
1

See my reply to Izicata.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:20 AM
1

First, regarding the requirement that the father have custody of the baby, the link you posted is just an outdated version of the link I posted. The details are a bit more complex: In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven. In four States, only the mother may relinquish her infant. Idaho specifies that only a custodial parent may surrender an infant. In approximately 11 States, an agent of the parent (someone who has the parent's approval) m…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:04 AM
2

Under safe haven laws, men can also choose to drop off their baby, no questions asked, in all but four states; and in two of those four, the mother can approve the father to drop off the baby.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 11:55 PM
5

Here's a feminist's take on this article. Cracked has recently presented an article about the five ways modern men are trained to hate women, as part of its latest bid to be Feministe’s more ableist, more prone to dick jokes little brother. Seriously, what is it with Cracked and social justice these days? I can only figure that they’ve worked out that laughing at misogyny is funnier than “hey hey guys you know what’s funny? SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE RAPED. Ohmigod I crack myself up.” Unfortunately, u…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:49 PM
3

Source this, please, because I think you just pulled this straight from your ass. This might help. Also, there's this.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 08:39 PM
1

I think this is a pretty good illustration of what rape culture is and how it manifests. A quote: And then, allegedly, Roethlisberger blocked her exit and raped her. That’s rape. When she reported the attack to Harrah’s security chief Guy Hyder, he declined to investiage and allegedly told her that she was “overreacting” and that “most girls would feel lucky to get to have sex with someone like Ben Roethlisberger.” He also told her to either keep it from their boss at Harrah’s, or to tell their …
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:06 AM
1

We need to treat young men as allies in the war on rape, not potential suspects. I've done a 180 on getting young men to be helpful bystanders. We need to tap into the impulse among young men that finds rape repugnant (an impulse much more common to masculinity than the impulse to rape) and turn them into warriors who can help root out the tiny group of sociopaths who rape. But this is exactly what the "tell men not to rape" crowd is saying: http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Core-Values/ We believe …
/r/MensRights12/03/13 04:55 AM
0

Some feminists say that men can't be raped, that if a man has an erection it means he wants it. Who exactly is saying this? Which feminists? I'd say this is very much a fringe position within modern feminism. I'm sorry this all happened to you.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 02:52 AM
2

You're welcome. For all my, ah, skepticism (to put it mildly) of the men's rights movement, I actually do respect and admire what COTWA is trying to do. It's good work, keep it up.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:53 PM
2

She said the following: "We believe someone who makes a report of a sexual assault shouldn't be charged with a crime." That's all-encompassing. Taken literally I admit it is all-encompassing, but I'm inclined to pass this off as merely imprecise language, resulting when a reporter asked Ms. Jones-Williams for a statement. I doubt that they literally believe that a person who deliberately makes a false rape accusation shouldn't be charged with anything. Their official press release that you had l…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:41 PM
0

Look at the claims being made in the paper: The convicted offender was eliminated as the source of questioned evidence in 33 out of 422 convictions (8 percent) and that eliminiation was supportive of exoneration. (Emphasis in original.) Not 8% of "cases for which there is any kind of probative evidence", but of convictions. Their conclusion, as phrased, was exactly correct. As for the other claim: The convicted offender was eliminated as the source of questioned evidence in 33 out of 227 convict…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 09:20 PM
-1

Like everyone else, I don't know what really happened here. But I don't think it's fair to say that "They [rape victim advocates] are intent on arguing that a person who makes an accusation of sexual assault should not be charged with making a false report under any circumstances." They believe that the evidence suggests a rape did occur in this case, and that the false rape charge against Melisa Vistain is spurious. http://www.sexualassaultmyths.com/ "The manual clearly states the procedure Off…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:38 PM
1

If you insist on extending this discussion beyond the NISVS report, that's fine. Feminism and feminists aren't perfect, and I have no difficulty saying that some of the things said and done under that banner are wrong. The women's rights groups in India that sought to perpetuate a sexist definition of rape are wrong. So was TheLesbianMafia, although that writer avowedly denies being a feminist. But as for the rest: I primarily care about the effect of telling male victims of female rapists that …
/r/MensRights07/03/13 08:41 PM
1

I got it from the beginning, I just think it's a stupid interpretation. She stated in the very next sentence that women can rape; and she clearly expected the first sentence to be interpreted as referring to heterosexual rape (i.e. female-on-male). The OP is just being offended over nothing.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 12:25 AM
1

Good grief. She stated that men can be raped to dispel the common myth that men can't be raped. Even when feminists are recognizing male sexual victimization, MRAs have to argue that they're being sexist in favor of women.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 07:57 PM
2

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CountryMatters
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:35 PM
0

that says feminism doesn't want anything to do with men's rights I think you need to get your reading comprehension checked. It was about appropriate spaces for male-centered vs female-centered discussion, not what feminism does or doesn't care about. The post specifically stated that: No one is saying that discussions on men and masculinities shouldn’t go on. It is absolutely important to have dialogue on men’s issues, including discussions on violence done towards men. and The thing is, a femi…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 03:03 PM
-4

Fair enough. But you aren't going to convince me of your position either if all you can say is that it's what "MRAs know".
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:52 AM
-1

Even granting for the sake of argument that this critique is sound, I think the burden of proof is on MRAs or father's rights groups to show statistical evidence that the discrimination does exist. I'm actually really prepared to believe that it does, since it's one of those things that "everybody knows". But the only studies I've seen (namely the ones described in my linked comment) suggest the opposite.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:45 AM
-4

The feminist backlash happened when GMP refused to shut out those voices. By the time last December's incident happened, feminists already despised GMP and Tom Matlack in particular because they would not kowtow to feminist demands to make GMP a "feminist" space despite that it already is a feminist space. Actually, from what I understand (please correct me if I'm mistaken) the feminist backlash started with this problematic and poorly written piece by Tom Matlack. This was followed by a Twitter…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 02:38 AM
-6

Ah. My mistake then. I thought things like mental health, sexual abuse, and fatherhood were issues that men themselves care about. I guess not.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 01:34 AM
-8

By that logic, any discussion of men's issues from a feminist perspective wouldn't be about "real men's issues" (whatever that means). I simply can't agree with that.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 10:06 PM
-3

I've addressed that before.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:49 PM
-2

Deal.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:47 PM
-14

True or false: The Good Men Project is a space that publishes about and discusses men's issues.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:41 PM
-10

If you're referring to articles like this, I think it just proves my point. Distinction without a difference. If you really don't see a difference there's no more point in our having a discussion.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:21 PM
-10

That subreddit is against this subreddit and the men's rights movement in general. As it says in their sidebar: "We are not against the concept of men's rights, we are against the "men's rights movement" -- if it can even be called that."
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:18 PM
-14

If men do try to create a space to discuss their own issues, feminists vehemently oppose it. Feminists were widely supportive of the Good Men Project when it started, until it started publishing what they considered were antifeminist MRA articles and rape apologism.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 09:17 PM
-13

Really? How about every third feminist poster here, The Good Men Project, Amanda Marcotte, The Frisky, Jezebel, etc... Link please. Basically, "More Feminism helps men" is a talking point of feminists whenever the MRM comes up. Of course you know that, but were hoping no one else would call you on it... "More feminism helps men" is not the same as "Shut up about men's issues, we've got this." The former is a restatement of what I said, the latter isn't.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 08:28 PM
-6

in the majority of cases, will end in naught. I'd have thought so too, but the statistics I've come across suggest otherwise.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 08:14 PM
1

Fathers give up because they know that THEY HAVE NO CHANCE!!! Even if this were true, those fathers have no right to complain about court bias when at the same time they're passively perpetuating that bias. The 5% of fathers who fight to the bitter end rarely win. From what I've read this doesn't seem to be the case.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:56 PM
-18

Who exactly is saying that "men's rights is not needed because feminism is addressing men's issues"? From what I've seen their actual argument is that men's issues can be analyzed and resolved using a feminist perspective, the corollary being that the men's rights movement deserves criticism for rejecting the feminist approach and being generally anti-feminist. I've never actually seen feminists demonstrate opposition to men's rights for its own sake. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 07:30 PM
2

This is helpful, thank you. Lots to mull over.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:47 PM
1

To cut a lengthening argument short, I'll summarize my current position thusly. I'm persuaded that the 2010 NISVS results represent intriguing evidence that male sexual victimization is higher than previously believed, and that the gap between male and female rape may not be what was previously believed. However it remains a single survey, with inherent limitations (though I was embarrassingly mistaken regarding the inclusion of strangers), and far more study is needed before firm conclusions ca…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 03:33 PM
1

I wouldn't say on purpose, it's difficult to change when the narrative tells you that of course women need more protection. Even when it's statistically unsound. That's true, it probably is the case that feminists have caused male victimization of domestic violence to be overshadowed in the public discourse. They bear some responsibility for that, but it's primarily the responsibility of men's advocacy groups to argue for men's issues. But in so far as most victims of domestic violence are women…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 01:23 AM
1

The original topic of this thread was arguing that by believing in patriarchy theory, that you believe men are sociopaths. Then I guess there's a misunderstanding, because I was focused on the narrower point made here that "men never oppressed women". I have been trying to keep us on topic, in that patriarchy places blame for all of societies ill onto men, AND says that not only did men create this system but ALL men colluding together to continue it. It doesn't; feminists acknowledge that men a…
/r/MensRights05/03/13 12:34 AM
1

I didn't mean to imply that you had shifted the goalposts, although, re-reading my last reply, I see that it's entirely my fault it came across that way. My point was that you're focusing on an overly narrow threshold for what counts as sufficient acknowledgement by feminists of male sexual victimization. You're complaining because they've failed to discuss a specific pair of data points in a lengthy document full of tables and statistics, even when they've discussed the broad claims and summary…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 11:11 PM
1

I'm glad we seem to be coming to some sort of agreement, but there are also a few things I have to say. The original topic for this thread was whether men have actually oppressed women, and I've tried to stay on that topic, so I find it somewhat disingenuous that you keep trying to shift the conversation towards standard antifeminist talking points (e.g radical feminist quotes, who speaks for feminism, examples of alleged feminist hypocrisy). I've never claimed that feminism is a perfect ideolog…
/r/MensRights04/03/13 05:54 PM
-1

So that's what this is really about? Your argument was that male victims of sexual violence were erased by feminists for all practical purposes. Now that I've shown otherwise, you're not happy unless feminists acknowledge that men are raped exactly as much as women? Surely you understand that this is a debatable proposition at best, given the volume of data that's suggested otherwise. Even the lifetime prevalence results in that very same survey contradict that contention. I guess it's not enoug…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 01:36 AM
1

This was unequivocably bad, but at least she got strongly criticized in the comments. And she was criticized by other feminists as well, leading her to write a response to her critics (which was still pretty bad).
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:15 PM
1

You asked: How many mainstream media articles or feminist blog post have you seen discussing the astounding finding of the NISVS 2010 Report that just as many men as women were raped in 2009 (look at last 12 months numbers in tables 2.1 and 2.2 page 18-19) provided one considers rape by envelopment (or "being made to penetrate someone else" as CDC called it) as rape. http://community.feministing.com/2012/03/05/the-problem-with-penetration/ The government’s definition of rape is basically unwante…
/r/MensRights02/03/13 04:23 PM
1

Seen what, specifically? Particularly, what evidence debunks the nondiscrimination clause in VAWA? That, I don't believe I've seen.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 05:02 PM
1

I am in fact one of those persons who's asserted that VAWA isn't discriminatory against men to the degree that MRAs argue, and had been downvoted accordingly. I don't really care about the downvotes or karma, but it's worth pointing out that some of us make those comments because we, or at least I, haven't seen this debunking mountain of evidence, or at least the part of it that I'd find convincing.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:24 PM
2

It's truly amazing how you can interpret a feminist initiative that improved things for men as bigoted against men. Here are some other things feminists have said regarding the new rape definition: http://community.feministing.com/2012/03/05/the-problem-with-penetration/ Despite liberals’ general approval of the revised FBI definition, inclusive it is not. The government’s definition of rape is basically unwanted penetration. So how can the approximately 1 in 20 men who report having been “force…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:07 PM
1

Actually you're not getting my point, which was that the law appeared to allow for grant money to be awarded to a "nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that assists domestic violence or sexual assault victims", a description that encompasses those that help men. But never mind; reading the bill further, I see now that you were right. Sec. 2001 (b) does state that the purpose of the grants was to provide for services that help women. Oh well, at least the 2005 version fixed that.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 03:29 PM
1

Even with trying a university library catalog, I couldn't find a way to download a copy of that paper, (at least not without paying $25, which I'm unwilling to do). So I'm not going to comment on that part. But I'm highly skeptical of the claim that the reason a 2010 NISVS report didn't account for rape by envelopment is a 1993 paper by Mary Koss, as opposed to prevalent legal definitions of rape at the time. Also, to be fair those male rape victims weren't entirely erased. They were accounted f…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:05 PM
2

the pervasive idea is that men are inherently built to oppress and that we also apparently are all enjoying it As I said, I don't believe this idea is pervasive within modern feminism. (Though I won't deny that there are feminists that have said and believe this). Please correct me here, give me a reason not to think that she's advocating making all men potential criminals and then having just women deciding which ones they feel like putting in jail. Here is the original context for that quote: …
/r/MensRights28/02/13 12:52 PM
1

The fact that they unanimously deny that forced envelopment is rape is evidence enough that nothing they do is to benefit men in any way. Unanimously? Really? So you wouldn't have any trouble finding multiple links to feminists saying that forced envelopment isn't rape? And this post was never written? Nor was this one? Edit to add: Here's another example.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 11:10 AM
1

but of course we both know the same sentiments rule feminism today. I know no such thing. Someone was asking me to read Feminism is For Everyone by bell hooks and she was pumping that same shit out by page three of the introduction. I just read page three of the introduction, there was no reference to all men naturally wanting to rape and oppress. This is what it actually said in that page: Most men find it difficult to be patriarchs. Most men are disturbed by hatred and fear of women, by male v…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 10:18 AM
1

What does that tell you? I'm not certain, but I would guess it means that the FBI messed up, not feminists. Feminists lobbied to update the definition of rape by pointing out the limitations of the old definition, but they didn't actually propose the specific wording for a new one (as far as I know). So it seems that it was the FBI that came up with a better definition that still fell short of the ideal. Also did feminists actually do this? I've seen them claim credit for it. But that doesn't me…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 09:55 AM
1

What absurd hyperbole. If 99% of men suffered it was due to their class, not gender. The 99% of women that were consigned to poverty and hard labor due their being of lower class didn't exactly have it easy. And of course no man has ever shared his wealth with his wife, daughters or unmarried sisters... oh what was that? He was required by law to do so? Gosh. No, actually he wasn't so required. Traditionally, only the husband was allowed to own property. In fact it was the opposite; a wife that …
/r/MensRights28/02/13 09:49 AM
1

You mischaracterise what feminists did. Actually my characterization of what feminists accomplished is exactly accurate. The definition did change from one where male victims and female perpetrators didn't exist, to one where they did. I think you're the one mischaracterizing what I'm saying. They could have lobbied for male victims of female rapists to be recognised but they didn't. The new definition does recognize male victims of female rapists (just not all of them). Third because feminist a…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 09:29 AM
2

I proposed a probable conclusion based on what I judge to be the most likely set of events that would fill in the large gap in her account. People who feel scared and are thinking "Stop! Stop!" do not typically exhibit behavior that would indicate affirmative consent to engage in sex. I stand by my inference.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 09:09 AM
1

If we're just going to assume that she could have been self-deluded or lying in that letter, then what's the point of even having a discussion about whether it was rape or not? You could make the same argument about a personal account of that unambiguously describes actual rape.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 08:59 AM
1

I'm glad you mentioned those 19 subsection points. Here they are in full: (1) the nature and incidence of rape and sexual assault by strangers and nonstrangers, marital rape, and incest; (2) the underreporting of rape, sexual assault, and child sexual abuse; (3) the physical, psychological, and economic impact of rape and sexual assault on the victim, the costs to society, and the implications for sentencing; (4) the psychology of sex offenders, their high rate of recidivism, and the implication…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 08:55 AM
1

By making all the available funding dependent upon saying you are only helping women, the VAWA made it illegal to help men. Except that I couldn't find any provision stating that funding was dependent upon saying you are helping only women. Every relevant provision I could find allocates funds to services that include those for women, but don't explicitly exclude those that serve men. For example: SEC. 2003. DEFINITIONS. [...] (8) the term ‘victim services’ means a nonprofit, nongovernmental org…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 08:48 AM
1

Huh? The survey defines specific criteria for what constitutes rape and stalking. And obviously women and men can be raped according to their metrics, that's a huge part of what the survey was about in the first place.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 08:38 AM
1

If you've read the whole thing, then could you point me to those specific provision(s) that allocate funds solely to women?
/r/MensRights28/02/13 08:23 AM
-4

Focus on women, yes. Prohibits helping male victims, no: SEC. 40412. TRAINING PROVIDED BY GRANTS. Training provided pursuant to grants made under this subtitle may include current information, existing studies, or current data on — [...] (6) sex stereotyping of female and male victims of rape and sexual assault, racial stereotyping of rape victims and defendants, and the impact of such stereotypes on credibility of witnesses, sentencing, and other aspects of the administration of justice; [...] …
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:52 PM
-3

It was originally written entirely female [...] The original law made it illegal to help male victims. Citation?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:33 PM
1

Who exactly is saying that non-verbal communication doesn't count? Could you cite a source?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 04:07 PM
-3

You only looked at the stats on physical violence. When you look at all the categories (rape, physical violence, and/or stalking) it was 35.6% (lifetime) and 5.9% (12-month) for women vs 28.5% and 5.0% for men. Also the focus of VAWA is not 100% on female victims and male perpetrators. Title aside, it's actually written to be gender-neutral.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:59 PM
0

I'm confused. You think 90% of all men would "share" or "like" a crude joke accompanied by an up-skirt photo of an unconscious woman? I certainly wouldn't, and I have a better opinion of men than to think most would.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:48 PM
11

Exactly this. There's a lot of context here that we're missing. Did she freeze up or exhibit non-verbal reluctance? Did she remove her clothes or willingly participate? The former is far more likely than the latter, assuming she was telling the truth in the letter. That, added to the fact that she stated earlier that she didn't want to go all the way, means that this was very likely rape. At the very least, the guy should never have initiated sex that day once the girl had told him she didn't wa…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:30 PM
-2

Men were tacked on as an afterthought. Source? I've never argued that feminists are against expanding the definition of rape such that more women are legally recognized as rape victims. That much is obvious. MRAs like to say that feminists should be judged for what they do, not what they say. Well here, what they did was change the FBI definition of rape from one where 100% of rape victims were female and 100% of rapists were male, to one where male victims and female perpetrators existed. It ma…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:17 PM
2

First, if you think that a bunch of decades-old quotes by radical feminists is representative of mainstream, modern-day feminism, then I can't help but question if you're truly interested in an honest discussion. And even then, some of those quotes are worth debunking. The quote attributed to Marilyn French was stated by a fictional character, in a novel she published in 1977. The quote by Andrew Dworkin was a misattribution that originated in 2003; she said no such thing. The MacKinnon quote sa…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 03:08 PM
2

Seriously?? A campaign to broaden the definition of rape was merely an attempt to placate MRAs? And not, say, rooted in decades of activism and scholarship regarding rape and sexual assault? Can you cite any sources backing up this assertion? Here's how the problem was framed by the Rape is Rape campaign: The FBI’s definition of rape – "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" -- was written more than 80 years ago and is the basis for their Uniform Crime Report statistics…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 12:48 PM
4

I wish they'd be honest and just start defining rape, DV, child abuse, etc as something committed by a human in possession of a penis. Feminists were responsible for getting the FBI definition of rape changed to include male victims in the first place.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:38 AM
0

I didn't see actual reduced numbers in that article, just people lauding how great it seems. "According to the Globe and Mail the number of reported sexual assaults fell by 10 per cent last year in Vancouver, after the ads were featured around the city. It was the first time in several years that there was a drop in sexual assault activity."
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:21 AM
1

I think it's time for us to end this argument; it's gone on long enough and I don't have the energy to pursue it any further. I'll admit I'm a bit frustrated with some of your responses, I feel that some of your points tend to be evasive, or simply fail to address what I'm actually saying. I suppose that's partly a failure of communication on my part, and in any case I'm sure you have similar criticisms of me as well. As a gesture of good faith I'll just let you have the last word and decline fr…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 10:14 PM
2

But when men wanted to shirk their responsibilities you act as though they had a choice. I've said no such thing. But I am losing my mind watching society take the bait hook line and sinker that men are these horrible cave creatures who just wanted to rape, and oppress naturally, seriously everyone grow the fuck up. Who exactly is saying this? I hope you don't think that this is anywhere close to a mainstream position within feminism. As for the rest of what you said, I pretty much agree.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 09:55 PM
30

Actually the person who posted that was heavily upvoted. And a dissenting comment was heavily downvoted. Several other commenters are acknowledging that the girl may well be guilty of disruptive/intimidating behavior, or withholding their opinion until more information surfaces. It's actually a pretty balanced discussion over there.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:43 PM
5

Feminists will be focused on women's or feminist issues. Complaining that they don't also protest about your unrelated pet issue is just silly.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:16 PM
4

It's a very unspecific petition. It asks for so much and brings up so many issues that it probably won't do any good even if it did get enough signatures.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 07:07 PM
1

Regardless, the sentence is incredibly light. 45 days for murder 2 isn't justice in my eyes. I fully agree. Unfortunately, the criminal justice system isn't perfect. For example, rich and powerful people, often men, get away with horrific crimes because they have the right contacts and can hire high-priced lawyers who know how to stonewall and exploit legal loopholes. Likewise, innocent people (both men and women) go to prison for crimes they didn't commit, or get excessively harsh punishments f…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:31 PM
0

What happened to not typing another word to me? No, it would be sexist if models were forced into it by the opposite sex. We seem to be operating under different definitions of sexism. To my mind there's nothing impossible about a person being complicit in promoting sexism towards their own gender. It may be produced with men in mind, but there are women who watch it too. So it does count as the reverse. But it's not "full of incredibly degrading and objectifying imagery of [men], made for the t…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 03:25 PM
2

So, porn featuring men, or male strippers who perform for the titillation of women, is not sexist? I said "degrading and objectifying". Not all porn or stripping (featuring men or women) is an assault on human dignity, i.e. places a person in a submissive, demeaning role designed purely for the sexual enjoyment of the other gender, but some of it is. Pornography of that type is sexist, or to put it more accurately, contributes to sexism. No it's not! Have you seen the vast number of gay porn sit…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 11:13 AM
0

Wow you really are an idiot. When those sources were requested you hadn't yet provided sources, so the request was entirely reasonable. Edit to add: The Huffington Post article you linked leads to a 404 error page, so that was no help either.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 10:33 AM
12

Her age, and also the fact that the crime happened so many years ago (1957). She was tried and convicted under the crime of second-degree murder, which requires that the prosecution prove that she had intended to kill her daughter. This would have been difficult, since there's really no way to prove it wasn't an act of angry abuse with no actual intent to kill. A conviction under the crime of manslaughter would have been easier to obtain, but impossible in this case because the statute of limita…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 09:23 AM
1

And is porn sexist?! Porn is often, but not always, sexist, in the sense that it can be full of incredibly degrading and objectifying imagery of women, made for the titillation of men. The reverse is far more rare. And advertising isn't porn; you don't need to make an analogy between a used car and a non-virgin woman to make sales. The ad referred to in that thread promotes the idea that women are commodities whose value are tied to their sexuality (and past sexual history). I call everyone swee…
/r/MensRights26/02/13 09:06 AM
0

Or maybe just a desire for clarification, so that the discussion can be centered on something specific? Providing sources is just good etiquette in an online debate (I myself often make an effort to do so). I had never heard of the diet coke ad or the Lindt ad you were talking about.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 08:53 AM
1

But the advert really wasn't that sexist at all. Are you kidding me? It was borderline pornographic. only to be down voted further for suggesting Google! And for being incredibly condescending and rude, making belittling comments, referring to someone as "sweetie" and "sweetheart", calling people liars and hypocrites, using terrible logic, and generally being an ass. What's especially rich is that you then came here to get sympathy for being downvoted.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 12:51 PM
0

Yeah, claiming something doesn't exist and asking for sources aren't the same thing.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 12:37 PM
1

Exactly this. I didn't notice anyone there actually denying that female objectification of men exists.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:49 AM
2

Oh good grief, yet another entry in the never-ending List of Evil Women. This is supposed to be relevant to men's rights? Are you people now going to argue that female serial killers get lighter sentences than male serial killers? Do you really believe it helps your cause to point out every time a woman did something bad?
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:08 PM
4

This never went into production.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:14 PM
1

When the focus is on rape (even if it's stopping it) it's not so much a model of healthy masculinity as much as it is a model of unhealthy masculinity (rapist) and lecturing not to be it. Umm, have you forgotten that it's a rape prevention campaign? At this point you just seem to be grasping for any reason to criticize it. I worry that all they have to look up to are Homer Simpson and Doug Heffernin types as expectations. The majority of the world's greatest artists, musicians, scientists, write…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 12:57 PM
3

Under safe haven laws, men can also choose to drop off their baby, no questions asked, in all but four states; and in two of those four, the mother can approve the father to drop off the baby.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:53 AM
1

/u/themountaingoat claimed that he's never heard that women are expected to return sexual advances. I listed multiple examples as evidence to the contrary. If that's not enough to satisfy you, well that's not really my problem, is it?
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:45 AM
1

And under this system, the average man bore a great deal more hardship and risk to life and limb than the average woman. Yes, and men also reaped the greater rewards if they managed to succeed within this system. Rewards that were categorically unavailable to women due to their gender. Don't you think this adds a degree of complexity not acknowleged by feminists? "Men oppressed women" describes a completely different situation than "a few men oppressed everyone and treated men much worse." First…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:36 AM
1

So you think children are currently treated like slaves in modern society? Of course not. Who said anything about modern society? I was pointing out how the philosophical foundation for the idea of female subservience to men existed long before Rousseau.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:12 AM
0

Let's continue the rest of that sentence: Too many men across the world see too many women as repositories of their rage, frustration, narcissism or simply their will to enact violence. Is this sentence true, or false? I'd say it's true. Brutal misogyny does manifest primarily as violence committed by men against women. This is plainly obvious, and feminists are correct in pointing this out. That doesn't mean that only men, or all men (as the OP claimed), are guilty of perpetuating the system th…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:07 AM
0

So a few men taking rejection badly means that women are expected to return sexual advances? Those men lashed out to punish the women who had the temerity not to return their sexual advances. So yeah, I'd say they were good examples of the phenomenon I was talking about. that if everyone doesn't behave perfectly all the time that means that society supports those things. Not all of society supports those things, but they're not uncommon attitudes either. Have you never heard of the term "ice que…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 07:01 AM
2

That's your way of assessing how pervasive the problem is? Subreddit statistics? (And before you object that I did the same thing, I merely used those posts as examples, not as proof that it's a large problem). Also, handling rejection poorly in the moment is vastly different from 'treat[ing] women as sexual objects, and feel[ing] entitled to have their sexual advances be met with acceptance.' Have you ever browsed /r/creepyPMs? The sense of sexual objectification and entitlement is pervasive.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:48 AM
0

I agree. Who said they were?
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:36 AM
0

Of course it's not. Who said it was?
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:36 AM
0

...you're using /r/creepyPMs as an example of a majority of men? No, I'm not. Where did I say it was a majority of men?
/r/MensRights24/02/13 06:34 AM
1

Yup, that's pretty much what I expected.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 06:00 PM
-11

Who says women are expected to return sexual advances? I have never heard anyone say this. Then you're not paying attention. Far too many men treat women as sexual objects, and feel entitled to have their sexual advances be met with acceptance. When faced with rejection they tend to lash out with hostility and insults. /r/creepyPMs is a gold mine for such examples: "Then fuck off you gross gremlin." "Do you think that if you weren't judgmental, shallow and mean that we would be together? I'm jus…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:55 PM
0

Nice try, but no cigar. Again with the "implies" and "indicates", hardly any actual quotes. now, do you think that implies women are the ones creating and perpetuating this system? no, didnt think so. so who does that leave? Notice how you're the one framing it as the fault of just one gender, not the writer? Read any introductory feminist text on patriarchy or rape culture. You'll find that blame isn't assigned only to men, that women are acknowledged to participate in them. Or to draw an analo…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:35 PM
0

Once again MRAs critique what feminists allegedly imply rather than what they actually say. Did you read the article? "Global system of misogyny" was referenced as a way of stating that widespread violent misogyny isn't limited to just South Africa. The full quote: This is hardly a South African problem, of course. We are confronting nothing less than a global system of brutal misogyny. Too many men across the world see too many women as repositories of their rage, frustration, narcissism or sim…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:39 PM
1

I've heard of all of those things, and apparently understood them better than you. The claim that women bear a disproportionate burden of the world's poverty does not equate to "men are the rich oppressors and women are the poor victims". The claim that the majority of victims of domestic violence are women and children does not equate to "women are noble, emphatic, meek and cooperative creatures, but men are agressive and competitive, reveling in war and rape". The claim that prevalent cultural…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:10 PM
0

You're not acknowledging the counterpart demands placed on the man, which was that he was under strict orders to protect and provide for his family, often putting his life and limb under tremendous risk to do so. I don't deny that this was true, but this isn't incompatible with the reality that women lived in an oppressive system largely governed by men. For example, under feudalism serfs were required to serve and obey the Lord of the Manor, while the lord was in turn required to protect them. …
/r/MensRights23/02/13 10:43 AM
2

Interesting comparison between women and slaves. This line of thought goes back to Aristotle: But the kind of rule differs; the freeman rules over the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child; although the parts of the soul are present in an of them, they are present in different degrees. In fact the entire idea of wifely subservience to their husbands, and the rule of men over women, was an ancient idea, as I'm sure you know. Other …
/r/MensRights23/02/13 08:58 AM
-6

Again, willful misinterpretation. "Global system" != "deliberate conspiracy".
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:36 AM
-2

This is exactly what I mean by "willfully misinterpreted". The meaning was crystal clear in the article, but you chose to conjure up an implausible interpretation that has no basis in the actual text.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 03:03 AM
-6

Impressive how "too many men" was willfully misinterpreted as "all men" right there in the post title. Let's see how else that works: MRAs conclude that all women are guilty of false rape accusations: "Too many women who have been raped say that they have not."
/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:00 AM
1

Citation fucking needed. If you're going to list the "basic pillars of modern feminism" you should at least link to feminists actually saying these things.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:59 PM
0

I did, there's no reference to any feminist groups.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 02:01 PM
1

Funny, I read the article and thought the story was about violent homophobia. But apparently it's about how women have the power to get away with anything. /s
/r/MensRights22/02/13 11:44 AM
1

I'm glad you recognize implicitly that sex should only be had only for money, preferably for much money. Many men and women are not that honest about it. We agree on that point. I emphatically do not recognize this, or agree with it. And I don't understand how you could think so, considering that I only commented on what you seem to believe, and said nothing about my own opinions.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 10:11 AM
1

You don't believe that some regulation is needed to prevent exploitation of young people and immigrants, given a world where sex trafficking exists? You sound as if men are simply entitled to cheap sex.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:22 AM
0

HIV positive men, especially black men are never treated by the media as anything other than evil sociopathic deviants. This is plainly false. The fact is that there are plenty of organizations that advocate for the rights of HIV-positive people, men and women, including those that fight against the criminalization of HIV transmission. In fact, given how HIV disproportionately affects gay men and many HIV advocacy groups are often associated with the LGBT community, I wouldn't be surprised if th…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 09:17 AM
1

Feminists are not uniformly opposed to legalizing prostitution.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:30 AM
2

So your brother-in-law got primary custody and the mother's visits have to be supervised, but this all demonstrates anti-male bias because your BIL is required to present evidence in court? This is your front row seat to how the court system favors women?
/r/MensRights22/02/13 06:15 AM
0

Women groups were outraged at the possibility of a women been charged for men not using a condom. Citation needed. I can't find any evidence online of any feminist group being outraged over this.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 05:55 AM
1

That's why I find your response to /u/ClaudeKenni so bizarre. I've explained what I meant by that response, I don't know how to explain it further without just repeating myself. If you still find it bizarre, or you're unable to accept my explanation, there's not much else I can do about it. My solution is equality. Just give men the same legal right to relinquish parental rights that women already have through adoption and safe haven laws. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 03:07 AM
0

I've written most of my objections to your perspective on rape prevention in my other comment reply, but I want to address one specific point here: If feminism is hiding away their healthy models of masculinity they should do a better job of advertising them. If we can't find them through the fog of male demonization that occurs it's not our problem. If they can't police their own movement they should specialize and find more distinctive labels. That model of healthy masculinity that you seem to…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 02:01 AM
1

Sorry for the delayed response. I have many, many objections to the way you've framed this issue, so I'll just get to it. Also the targetting of men ignores the responsibility of women to collectively stop also enforcing the cultural values which encourage men to behave in aggressive ways. If you're going to say that women have a collective responsibility to do what they can to end rape culture, then you have no grounds for objecting to the idea that men have a collective responsibility to do th…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:54 AM
1

We hear about how women were property without acknowledging that men were treated exactly the same way. No, men weren't. The legal tradition of coverture subsumed the rights of women under those of their husband. A quote: "As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband. A married woman could not own property, sign legal documents or enter into a contract, obtain an education against her husband's wishes, or keep…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 10:49 AM
0

You criticise the caricatures of 'man-hating harpies', but to then dismiss those within the MRM who are frustrated at feminists caricaturing MRAs is blatant hypocrisy. I don't see it as hypocrisy because, quite frankly, I find their description of the men's rights movement to be fairly accurate. Blaming feminism for practically everything is pretty much the central theme of this subreddit.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 10:03 AM
1

I'm honestly sort of at a loss as to why you included that link. Because it discusses the issue. That writer takes the stance that the needs of the child to have support from their father outweighs the father's right not to be further burdened by the effects of the rape. It frames child support not as a punishment (which technically it isn't) but as a necessity for innocent children. Obviously this isn't what MRAs believe, and that's fine; my point is simply that these feminists chose not to ign…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:57 AM
9

what she needs to understand is if women were ever treated like property, it was more akin to a piece of fine jewelry or inheritance piece, or an expensive classic show car, or a cherished cabinet piece passed down from a parent...they were protected, held in high esteem, cared for and well-appreciated. Good grief, you're just blatantly rationalizing inequality and discrimination.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:38 AM
5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture Coverture (sometimes spelled couverture) was a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England and the United States throughout most of the 19th century. The idea was described in William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the late 18th century. [...] As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law w…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:37 AM
-1

Since I haven't yet been presented with a substantiated argument as to how the data was manipulated, I'm inclined to disagree.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 06:13 AM
-1

Because men's rights activism is fundamentally an antifeminist movement. It originated as a backlash against feminism, and one of its central tenets is that feminism is largely to blame for men's problems. There's rarely any acknowledgement that some of the discrimination men have faced across the centuries (before feminism came into being) just might be due instead to the enforcement of rigid gender roles, gender roles I might add that feminists have been trying to break down for decades. Inste…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 06:04 AM
1

As a man, you’re expected to never be helpless or ask for help, you must solely rely on yourself and be independent of other people, otherwise the common epithets “sissy”, “pansy”, “fag”, etc. will be thrown at you indiscriminately. If you admit you have problems, you’re not a man anymore, you’re a pathetic effeminate faggot (even if you’re confronted with problems which are beyond any man’s capacity). How is this the fault of a movement that's been trying to break down traditional gender roles …
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:43 AM
0

To say that fathers are not biased against in the courts is completely ridiculous. I'm prepared to believe this, I'd just like to see clear evidence (not anecdotal data) in favor of the claim.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:29 AM
-4

Frankly, I'm not yet convinced that this bias exists, or is as bad as MRAs say. Mothers get custody most of the time because this is usually mutually agreed upon by both parents. When fathers actually seek custody and don't give up, they are very likely to get sole or joint custody. Study 1: MASS 2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%) 29% of fathers got primary custody 65% of fathers got joint custody 7% of mothers got primary custody Study 2: MASS 700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:23 AM
0

The first link sounds like a good argument to simply change the name of the law. It argues for rewriting VAWA so it's gender-neutral, but it doesn't specify any specific gender-biased language that needs to be rewritten. The main point argued in the second link is that VAWA is ineffective, not that it's gender-biased. The part addressing gender bias is summarized thusly: VAWA fails to protect male victims and that ends up harming women. The organization that tracks domestic violence policy, Stop…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:34 AM
0

There are so many errors, inconsistencies, and gaps contained in that link you posted it's difficult to tell where to start. In no particular order: The title: "Misrepresentation of Gender Bias in the 1989 Report of the Gender Bias Committee of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court". The gender bias study was published in 1990, not 1989. It only discusses the Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study, with the sample size of 700 cases (study 2 in the summary I posted, among which on…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 01:14 AM
-1

If feminism wants equality, why are they shoving the Violence Against Women Act through Congress which SPECIFICALLY withholds help from male victims of domestic violence and MANDATES arrest of men in any encounter of domestic violence? I'm on shaky ground here, I know very little about VAWA. But I just did a bit of googling, so I'll give it a shot. Regarding withholding help from male victims of domestic violence, could you specify exactly what you mean? Joe Biden, the author of the original 199…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 03:00 PM
3

Yes. This. Exactly. So many of the things I read here on /r/mensrights, I agree with intuitively because I'm a feminist. Of course it's wrong for women to hit men. Of course it's wrong to shame men for being vulnerable or emotional. Of course rape committed against a man is a horrific crime. Of course fathers are important and deserve respect. Of course it's okay to be a stay-at-home dad. Of course men shouldn't carry the entire burden of courtship. Of course it's okay for men to enjoy knitting,…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 01:17 PM
-8

When noting that the author didn't identify as a feminist, I didn't mean to say that she wasn't one; I merely meant that there was no indication as such that I could find online. But while she may not be a member of NOW or any women's studies department, I'd say she almost definitely is a feminist. The commentary was written from an explicitly feminist perspective, employed a strong familiarity with and engagement of feminist literature, and even included a brief critique of arguments by "so-cal…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 12:19 PM
-4

Is two-to-four years a short time for a guilty plea of aggravated assault, relative to what men would face? Unless this is the case (and I have no idea if it is), I don't see how this is a men's rights issue, as opposed to just another instance of angry whining because A Woman Did Something Bad.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 10:28 AM
-10

If one ten year old quote is the only positive contribution that feminism as a whole has made to the discussion of male rape victims and child support, then the quote means nothing really. If this is the case, and I have to admit it's a good point, then it would be nice if MRAs stopped bringing up Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto. More to the point, it's not as if commentary on issues such as this is completely absent from feminists (see for example here and here.) But given both the histo…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 10:18 AM
-25

Given it's currently career suicide to publicly identify oneself as an MRA in an academic setting I think MRAs themselves are largely to blame for this.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:03 AM
-2

Here's another law review article that may be of particular interest - it discusses at length two of the cases (S.F. v. ex rel. T.M. and County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J.) cited in the post linked by the OP. While the author, Ellen London, doesn't identify as a feminist as far as I can tell, the article itself makes heavy use of the language and perspective of feminist scholarship. Interpret it as a feminist article or as a critique of feminism as you like; the text itself indicates that…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:02 AM
-26

It's comments like this make me think MRAs are less interested in resolving inequalities that men face than in hating feminists. Could you point to even a single work of serious legal scholarship written by a self-identified MRA that challenges laws like this? I honestly don't know if any exist, but I can definitely say I've never heard of any.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 07:17 AM
16

I just want to point out, yet again, that feminists aren't always your enemies in issues like this. Consider a quote from this article in the Georgia Law Review: Inequality from Gener-Neutral Laws: Why Must Male Victims of Statutory Rape Pay Child Support for Children Resulting from Their Victimization (36 Ga. L. Rev. 411 (2001-2002)): Thus, statutory rape laws are not equally enforced against female offenders, nor have such laws been crafted to address male victimization. These laws protect you…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 07:07 AM
1

Ah, apologies then. I've gotten used to being dismissed here whenever I defend feminism.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 02:23 AM
3

Of course this is hardly unique to Valentine's day. This is simply the age-old tradition of courtship, where men woo women by proving their love, commitment, wealth, social status, or whatever marker serves to indicate their fitness as a mate. Men bear the cost of courtship, and women are little more than prizes to be won. It's lamentable, but hardly a unique insight. Fortunately, feminism is teaching women to be more independent, ask men out on dates, pay for dinner, etc. But that's not the ser…
/r/MensRights15/02/13 10:37 AM
4

Good luck with that. Resentment towards women is a feature, not a bug, of men's rights advocacy.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 01:24 AM
1

Thank you! I came across this article months ago and lately I've been trying to find it again, but I couldn't remember it well enough to hit the right google search terms. People here will disagree with me yet again, but I think it's a great piece.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 12:54 AM
1

Again, it would be helpful if you specified what studies you're talking about. At least name one. In my discussions here I try to link to evidence that supports my point. It would be nice if you did the same.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:51 PM
1

Ok. Fair enough. Anyway, I think I've made my point that, as with feminists, MRAs have prominent members (at least one anyway) and not-so-prominent members that they can be ashamed of.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 11:40 AM
0

I really don't know how to reply to this. We're clearly working from completely different presuppositions regarding how people behave, what feminists have to say about rape, and what has a chance of actually working to stop rape. In fact I think I disagree with literally every single sentence you wrote. I can't even think of where to start in composing a response that has any chance of getting you to understand my point of view. The mountain of scholarship that's been published discussing and di…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 11:30 AM
1

Well I guess that settles it then, feminists aren't interested in letting men express their sexuality in healthy ways. Because someone called you a misogynist!
/r/MensRights14/02/13 11:06 AM
1

The MRA position is not that feminists think men can't control themselves, That's not obvious from what others have said. For example: Saying "tell men to not rape" is talking down to us, as if we're stupid and just inctinctively do rape. If we were on that level of subhuman animal we would not even understand the instructions. Even if they could be communicated, this talks about men like they're dogs to be given commands. "Sit!" "Stop humping legs!" Serious question: why do you think (some) men…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 08:37 AM
1

"We believe both men and women are victims of domestic violence and need help... so we are going to fund a shelter that only helps women". Feminists also say that rape and domestic violence are issues that affect women more (i.e. most rape victims are women, most rapists are men, etc.). Their reasoning then is to devote more resources towards women then men. The empirical basis for these ideas may or may not be unfounded, but it's not ideologically inconsistent. Like when they release study afte…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 08:20 AM
0

Wait a minute. First you say this... The problem with your comparison is these ads appeal to moral people who may accidentally be doing immoral things due to negligence. I don't view rapists this way. Then you say this: But I think others are at war in their heads trying to second-guess the BS that constitutes romance, where in spite of feminist memes, other media sources are promoting the 'chase' as romantic, and men who give up without a fight as weak. So are (some? many?) potential rapists mo…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 07:01 AM
1

The problem is that outing yourself as a 'feminist' means zilch these days. You seem to be jumping topics here. You accused me of lying about not wanting to embroil myself in a discussion about my beliefs; otherwise I wouldn't have called myself a feminist. I said that I thought about that, but identified as such anyway due to other considerations. Now you're telling me that outing myself as such is meaningless? If it's so meaningless, then why do you think it would even attract discussion? And …
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:19 AM
1

I don't even think that would offend me, I'd probably just laugh and figure they were trolling, and I'm a huge advocate for not assuming other people are trolling, but it's just silly. If every man was a rapist then every woman on earth would be raped or else there'd be some heavily raped female minority out there to compensate for all the unraped women. So you do think it's an absurd proposition. I completely agree. Of course not all or even most men are rapists. But it seems that several of yo…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 06:04 AM
-2

Thanks for the open-mindedness. I don't even disagree really; I don't really know what the best policy is in situations like these, but I'm not opposed on principle to giving men (and women) the means to protect their interests in the case that their spouses cheat. And I don't disagree that cheating by a woman can have different implications than cheating by a man, if only because she's the one that gets pregnant. I just wanted to push back against the sexist implication that women are inherentl…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:51 AM
1

SSF will you acknowledge that you have just back-pedalled? You have gone from arguing that we think feminists think all men are rapists to saying merely "capable of rape". Actually, I did mean "capable" in the emotional sense, as in your puppy example, not in the absolute literal sense. Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. So I'll wager and say that every human being, on some subconscious level, has a desire to rape, plunder, murder, pollute and eat anything else feasible which we evolve…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 05:40 AM
1

Oh you mean like these feminists? http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ Pointing out that men are privileged in no way denies that bad things happen to men. Being privileged does not mean men are given everything in life for free; being privileged does not mean that men do not work hard, do not suffer. In many cases – from a boy being bullied in school, to a soldier dying in war – the sexist society that maintains male privilege also does great harm to boys and men. http://f…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 04:21 AM
0

I think that many of you think that feminists think that most or all men are capable of, or desire to, rape. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/18coel/film_series_at_st_thomas_university_in/c8e5keg Lisak believes that rape is committed by most men and that rape jokes, football, and rap videos all attribute to it? (in response to a statement that Lisak is in line with feminism) http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17skqt/any_time_a_feminist_talks_about_teaching_men_not/c88vsub It …
/r/MensRights14/02/13 03:42 AM
1

If MRAs, or men in general, are offended by those feminists that actually do say that literally all men are rapists, by all means feel offended and fight back against that toxic idea. I'm certainly not going to stop you, and I think I've demonstrated that a lot of feminists, myself included, will actually be on your side in that debate. In fact I would argue that by promoting their models of rape culture, predator theory, and healthy masculinity, feminists have already worked hard to undo the la…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 03:07 AM
1

Because of what they do? Or because of what they say/say they do? Both. central tenets that state that every single man, regardless of their actual situation, is privileged and all women are oppressed. This is a common but woefully inaccurate caricature of patriarchy theory. From wikipedia: "A man's access to male privilege varies depending on his other characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and social class." Also, it's worth remembering that patriarchy is meant to only be a theory, a…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:47 AM
1

This can't be true, because if it were, you would not voluntarily label yourself as a feminism. To be honest, I seriously debated with myself whether I would "out" myself as a feminist. One the one hand, I didn't want to get embroiled in a discussion which, ironically, I seem to be having anyway in this thread. But on the other hand, I wanted to be upfront about my beliefs and intentions, rather than hypocritically pretending that I haven't "picked a side" just so I would be more accepted. I eve…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:34 AM
1

It's silly because good people don't need the warnings and bad people won't abide by them. Then why have any awareness or advocacy campaign at all, for anything? Are you insulted when you see a poster admonishing you not to engage in internet piracy? That only you can stop forest fires? That you need to recycle, stop wasting water, and lower your carbon footprint? The absurd extreme of your argument is that advertising doesn't work, when the evidence shows that it does. The fact is, some people,…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:29 AM
-14

If it's the "reality" that women are prone to cheating on their husbands, then it must equally be the case that there are men willing to be a party to that cheating. Also, to be fair cheating by husbands is a pretty common occurrence; they just don't get pregnant so it doesn't become an issue in the way it that does with women.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:44 AM
1

Sigh. I can't deny that this is true, especially here on Reddit, given the insanity that is SRS. But to be fair, I get a lot of insults and misrepresentations thrown at me from your side as well.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:38 AM
0

Feminism is the idealogy behind women's rights. Its alot easier to claim an idealogy is flawed rather than an activism. Feminism is an ideology (or rather a diverse set of ideologies), but also a activist movement. I think most would agree, that those who identify as feminists do not fight for both genders rights equally, Yes, feminism is focused on women's rights and issues... and are not egalitarian. and are not egalitarian. Not necessarily. The end-goal of feminism is equality; they're just m…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:36 AM
1

These movements also include degrading BS like Forgive me if this is a joke and I'm misunderstanding it as serious, but stuff like this: I'm actually glad you think it's degrading. Yes, it's satire; it's meant to lampoon the messages that women constantly hear as rape prevention advice. The idea is to put the shoe on the other foot, and get men to see the unfair absurdity of how women always have to be on guard, carry rape whistles, be wary in lifts or when their car breaks down, watch for drugs…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:23 AM
1

If I cared about hanging with the cool kids, I wouldn't be spending any time here, would I?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:03 AM
-1

If we are missing something point it out. I've done so in this subreddit a number of times, and I probably will again. is because society and men have a tendency to want to earn women respect by protecting them and helping them. Uh, what? You're more or less admitting that the discrimination that men face is something they brought upon themselves.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 01:02 AM
0

Sigh. Read my argument - I said that: If feminism is only responsible for the new forms of legal discrimination against men that arose in the last 50-60 years, that doesn't cover as much as you might think. My point being that if you're restricting what feminists are responsible for to legal discrimination within that time period, you're not covering very much. I'm pointing out that men have faced (and continue to face) a whole fucking lot of discrimination, legal or otherwise, that can't be lai…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:57 AM
-1

That would just be horrible wouldn't it, if you had to actually stand on your principles. Check out my comment history; hell check out my comments in this very thread. Do you really believe I'm not willing to stand on my principles? Edit: also, I love this bit of cognitive dissonance You're misunderstanding my point. I'm happy to defend feminism and critique MRAs (or criticize feminism and agree with MRAs, where applicable). But if I'm going to get into a debate with all of you, I want to be in …
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:54 AM
0

But it has broadened into a criticism of traditionalism in general, and since feminism core assumptions are traditionalist - female hypoagency, male disposability, especially around DV and rape, demonization of male sexuality, this criticism still encompases feminism. Uh, citation needed? I particularly disagree with the "demonization of male sexuality" part - have you never heard of sex-positive feminism?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:49 AM
0

Do you think it would be right of me, as an egalitarian, to join the KKK and constantly identify as a Klan member... if I didn't actually do or say anything that is racist? No, but KKK is avowedly a non-egalitarian movement. Feminism is a much broader (and admittedly harder-to-define) movement, some adherents of which don't claim to be egalitarian, but many of which do. I don't see any more inconsistency in the concept of an egalitarian feminist than I do in an egalitarian MRA.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:48 AM
1

Everyone knows that feminists don't think that men can't control themselves, they think that men support and actively engage in rape and support it despite that fact. I make it a point not to take seriously any argument that begins with "Everyone knows". Especially when they're in response to a long list of evidence demonstrating the contrary. but you should make sure you are actually arguing against what we are saying, and not some belief that you decide to attribute to us because you find it e…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:46 AM
0

All we ask is that feminists stop saying that feminism helps men too, if that's a requirement. I personally would not say this, because I believe feminism has helped me as a man. I'm glad I'm living in a world where women are treated more like equals, where I can enjoy the presence of women as friends and professional colleagues, where my female friends hold jobs and support earn money for their households alongside their husbands, where I can be my nerdy, not-very-masculine self and know that i…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:44 AM
1

This is what would be adequate - feminists denouncing these people as anti-feminist for their man-hating rape apology and dismissal of male suffering from rape, DV, paternity fraud, inequality in fmaily life before the law and in the culture, the mistreatment of boys in the educational system. Okay, who exactly are "these people"? I'm instituting a new personal rule, if only to stay sane in a subreddit where everybody disagrees with me: I will only consider apologizing for or denouncing a "bad f…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:39 AM
1

Have you not seen the " I am a man against violence against women"posters that feminists groups love to use, or the "my strength is not for hurting" anti-rape campaigns. If those aren't implying that all men are rapists I don't know what is. Oh dear god, those posters again. Yes, I've seen them, I've discussed them repeatedly in other threads, and frankly I endorse them. At some point I'm going to have to write a master comment detailing exactly what I think about those posters, the reasoning be…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:27 AM
1

It's quite a badly written and highly emotional article, and I think that quote-mining an obvious satirical hyperbole from it which is retracted in the next paragraph is quite bad form. It's not quote-mining because I acknowledged it as satire. Even then it's still a really terrible thing to say. Did you read the language he used? "I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - t…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:15 AM
0

Maybe slightly more accurately I could have said "every new source in the last 50-60 years". If feminism is only responsible for the new forms of legal discrimination against men that arose in the last 50-60 years, that doesn't cover as much as you might think. Ask yourself this: prior to the 1950s... ... were men not shamed for showing emotion or weakness? ... were men not expected to carry the entire burden of carrying for their family? ... were male victims of rape not dismissed or ignored? .…
/r/MensRights14/02/13 12:01 AM
4

That's true, and I sincerely appreciate it!
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:02 PM
-2

First, that I am one of "you people". Second, that I am in any way representing a movement. Third, that I am critiquing feminism. (All I did was reply to a comment) That part of my comment was directed at this subreddit and men's rights movement at large, not you specifically. Hence "you people" and not just "you". Sorry, I guess it wasn't as clear as I thought. Fourth, that MRAs care if feminists take them seriously. I certainly don't believe that MRAs care if feminists take them seriously. But…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:01 PM
-3

Ugh, I get this a lot on this subreddit. Feminism allegedly implies that all men are rapists and abusers. Never mind that feminists repeatedly and explicitly state otherwise. Never mind that feminists have explicitly endorsed a model of rape culture (predator theory) that disavows this idea. Never mind that feminists have embraced a model of rape prevention that relies on this not being true. No, MRAs insist on perceiving the absolute worst from feminism, because we all know that feminists are a…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:39 PM
-4

I don't spend any time in any of those subs, but I suspect you're right in that regard. The difference is that feminism doesn't need obscure internet forums to speak for itself; the movement has a storied history of academic and professional literature, not to mention actual political accomplishments, to speak for it. There's a reason it's gained so much political and cultural capital, including plenty of men, and it's not because western society and government are ruled by a secret cabal of fem…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 03:27 PM
0

it's not like every single source of legal discrimination that men currently face in NA just wouldn't exist without feminism or anything... /sarcasm. If this were the case, then before the feminist movement came into being no legal discrimination against men could have existed. Is this your contention? I find it pretty hilarious how you constantly say "NAFALT", despite being constantly told of examples that show otherwise, and even bringing them up yourself. How is it possible to bring up an exa…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:59 PM
-1

I purposely challenge my beliefs just by spending time on this subreddit and engaging with other commenters here. I just don't want to be embroiled in a discussion centered on my beliefs and opinions, rather than a specific issue, event, linked article, etc. over which multiple opinions from different people can be offered and debated. But since you mention it, I'd venture that many people here could benefit from your suggestion. Folks here tend to embrace the most lazy, skewed, and often outrig…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:44 PM
2

I'm talking about the ones that have all the funding and political power. If that's the case then I disagree with your assessment. I simply haven't seen the sort of outright "all men are rapists" misandry you describe from mainstream feminism. the extreme elements are rightfully marginalized, isn't well funded, organized or politically powerful That might be because hardly anyone in the MRA movement seems particularly well-funded, organized, or powerful. But would Paul Elam, founder of A Voice f…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 12:07 PM
4

I don't go around telling MRAs who believe in gender equality that they're really feminists. Please return the courtesy and refrain from telling me that I'm not one.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:01 AM
-1

I suppose this is something that we should address. Good luck trying. The men's rights movement originated as a backlash or countermovement to feminism. It would be impossible to move the MRA movement away from antifeminism without transforming it into something else entirely. But the batshit insane 'men are all violent rapists' 'lets cull males down to 10% of the population' types that seem to constitute the core of the movement are a very big problem. This is probably impossible to prove eithe…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:26 AM
-5

My mistake, apparently you weren't asking in good faith.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 09:27 AM
-7

I assume you're asking in good faith, so I appreciate the interest. But if I try to answer your question I'll probably just get a bunch of comments from the community challenging me to justify my beliefs and self-identification, and holding me accountable for all the bad things that have been said and done in the name of feminism. I'm not interested in having that discussion, so, with respect, I'm declining to answer your question. You're welcome to peruse my comment history if you like. Practic…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:41 AM
1

The whole story.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:31 AM
6

In case you're wondering why he kept doing that, see my username. I actually found it amusing.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:19 AM
-1

Maybe it's a clumsy way of phrasing it. All I mean is that I consider myself a feminist.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 08:18 AM
4

If this is true, it's probably because much of the gains in women's rights to higher education were achieved in the 19th century.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 07:04 AM
1

You should check out /r/gaybros. It's a running joke over there.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:44 AM
31

As someone who identifies with feminism, I find it depressing that there doesn't seem to be any place on Reddit where open, balanced conversation about feminism is allowed. /r/feminism has that top-level comment rule, /r/mensrights outright hates feminism, and SRS is, well, crazy batshit insane. I once posted a question on /r/askfeminists, it got deleted without any reason or response. I may not identify as an MRA and disagree with a lot of things posted here, but at least /r/mensrights doesn't …
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:14 AM
0

While a good thing, it wasn't equality. They got the right to vote for free while men still had to potentially pay with their lives. Uh, what? You're stretching the definition of equality beyond all recognition. As for the rest, read up on some history. Women have been have been denied higher education, employment, property rights and economic autonomy for centuries, across multiple cultures. Here's a list of things feminists have accomplished in their fight for equality, and this is just the fi…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 06:02 AM
-1

If that's what the video is about, it sounds to me like a pretty good video. I assume that MRAs would at least agree that "assuming that men don’t get raped or that only 'weak' men get raped" is a bad thing.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:24 AM
1

I don't think of consideration for the welfare of the child as superfluous language, I actually think it's the most important issue in this whole debate. And it's not really about the portrayal of men vs women. My comment gets at an inconsistency that I've perceived within men's rights advocacy. MRAs are often complaining (often correctly, in my opinion) that men aren't respected when it comes to the care of children. They say that men are readily stereotyped as pedophiles, that fathers are cons…
/r/MensRights13/02/13 05:10 AM
2

If you're so supportive of PP then I'd have thought you'd be thankful for the movement that's so vociferously supported and defended it. I can't prove this, but I honestly doubt PP would even exist today without the feminist movement.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 04:41 AM
0

But not what feminists actually say.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 02:34 AM
-1

And did the film say that rape is committed by most men?
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:34 AM
2

Exactly this! Not all women are greedy bitches going after child support money. Also, use condoms! A vasectomy even. Men aren't completely helpless in preventing pregnancy.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:32 AM
2

It's frightening how this discussion was framed without any concern about what's good for the child. If men don't want to be treated as disposable or secondary parents, they shouldn't act like one.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:28 AM
2

Wow, blatant sexist chauvinism from an MRA. It finally comes out.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:18 AM
2

Giving women the right to vote, get college educations, hold important jobs, and own property in a marriage.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:13 AM
2

Fascinating. There have been studies showing that girls do more poorly in math and science in school because they're constantly told that boys are smarter in those subjects. So yeah, I think this is a plausible explanation.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:08 AM
-1

You can deploy lazy caricatures of the feminist discourse on rape, or you could read and discuss what they actually have to say. Only one of those options makes you sound like an intellectually serious person willing to argue in good faith.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 12:58 AM
17

Wait, what's so wrong about this? The feminist movement has been very strongly supportive of Planned Parenthood and the services it provides; in fact I think it's safe to say that feminists are its most vocal and effective supporters. Are MRAs so resentful of feminism that you can't give feminists credit for anything?
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:29 PM
19

Uh, citation needed? I have never heard this before.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:26 PM
4

It's not sexist in and of itself to focus solely on the issues of one gender. After all, the MRA movement is focused solely on men's issues; is it therefore sexist? What I think is sexist is to claim that the issues of one gender don't exist, or don't matter.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:25 PM
2

Do you then agree that women also need campaigns admonishing them not to rape? Yes, absolutely.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:18 PM
-1

I actually argued in that thread that Lisak's work is very much in line with the feminist perspective. The best explanation of how Lisak fits in with anti-rape feminism is here: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/03/25/predator-theory/ Original source: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:13 PM
0

They experience some difficulty. But from everything I've seen, the majority opinion is more positive for all four of those examples. And the majority opinion is more negative towards males in the same situation. Hence, easiER. Okay, but oppression towards women was still pretty much denied in the original post, so my contradicting this was still relevant. Also, while I'm not interested in playing oppression olympics, for accuracy's sake I have to say I'm not sure men have it harder in all of th…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 08:05 PM
-1

Are you denying that contemporary culture creates sexist men? But surely you agree it creates sexist women, right?
/r/MensRights12/02/13 04:22 PM
2

The website doesn't identify as feminist.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 03:40 AM
4

The website specifically doesn't identify as feminist. I'm not just claiming No True Scotsman here.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 03:30 AM
1

This is a fascinating little undercurrent to feminist ideology, and I feel like I should point it out here. It's actually not, because the writer wasn't a feminist. A similar phenomenon can be seen in (TW: offensive, stupid, and offensively stupid) this article[1] on Jezebel, for example. It's a classic example of the problem feminism has with dealing with the conflicts between its ideology (men oppress women) and reality (men have it worse in a non-zero number of ways). Hmm, I'm not sure that J…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 03:20 AM
1

It IS repulsively vile, but it wasn't written by a feminist. Just a lunatic radical, apparently.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 02:50 AM
7

For the record, this is incredibly, unequivocably vile. This sort of victim blaming is NOT acceptable, whether done towards men or women. And I absolutely believe that rape by envelopment IS rape, regardless of what flawed definition the FBI uses. But for those who want to use this ugly screed to tar the feminist movement, it's worth looking at how this website identifies itself: Their manifesto: We are not feminists of any kind BECAUSE we are pro-woman we don’t relate to most of the politics in…
/r/MensRights12/02/13 02:37 AM
32

I don't know, the sentiment behind both male and female versions is nice, but they both ultimately boil down to "Teach your children to recognize bad gender stereotypes, and your children of the opposite gender not to behave like those stereotypes". Cute, and I don't particularly disagree with either, but both are ultimately reliant on stereotyping, and not particularly insightful.
/r/MensRights12/02/13 01:04 AM
1

gender roles != patriarchy. You're absolutely correct here. I knew this and debated whether I should include that parenthetical about patriarchy, but the temptation to be facetious was too much to resist.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 10:04 PM
1

I was wondering this too. I'm not exactly clear on what either the law or feminism have to say on this subject. I posted a related question to /r/AskFeminists recently, but apparently it was deleted. My question was: = Consider a case where person A (I'm leaving this question gender-neutral) goes to a bar, gets really drunk, goes home with person B (again, gender-neutral) and engages in sex. The entire time both persons expressed willful, enthusiastic, unambiguous consent for sex. Is this rape? …
/r/MensRights11/02/13 09:35 PM
-1

I haven't noticed any in this thread.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:20 PM
0

It was a rhetorical question, meant to point out that in the hypothetical scenario, the rapist would have gotten away with it. For the record, I think that from a policy standpoint the only consequence that any rapist should suffer is due process. The first sentence in that comment expressed my main point: that rape is often swept aside or ignored. That people insist on misconstruing my statement as an approval of vigilante justice, in spite of my repeated and explicit statements to the contrary…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:16 PM
1

Hmm, reading the article now it doesn't look like it was taken out of context. Nor was it published decades ago. Sorry, I guess I misremembered after all. (And since everyone seems intent on misinterpreting me on this thread, let me state for the record that I think false rape accusations are thoroughly vile and unacceptable).
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:10 PM
-1

Are you actually advocating what happened? :? Sigh. Please read my other comments in this thread. I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 05:03 PM
-2

I love how you claim that I seem to be missing a point that I explicitly made. And then claim that I seem to think acceptable something that I explicitly disavowed, twice. The willful misinterpretation going on in this thread is bordering on the farcical.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 04:40 PM
1

I agree with this. Why does nearly everybody in this thread think I wouldn't??
/r/MensRights11/02/13 04:38 PM
0

I have no idea how you can square away the claim that the author "takes away any personal responsibility" with the sentence "She does have culpability". In otherwords, since she was immature she is not able to have "Agreed" or "Allowed" because of course only "Mature" people have the right to make decisions, and of course the only people capable of being mature are men who ar incapable of doing anything other than manipulating the immature, acording to feminists. This is the crux of the problem.…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 04:31 PM
1

This conversation is turning into a farce. Please quote where I stated or implied that "because women also experience SOME difficulty in these areas that they have it worse than men."
/r/MensRights11/02/13 04:26 PM
-4

Then that is her own irresponsibility combined with the fact that rape is just really hard to prove. Rape is a traumatic experience and everyone reacts differently, usually not in what seems like a rational manner. I wouldn't characterize someone's failure to report or collect evidence as "irresponsibility", even though one could argue that that's what it technically is. or that we should erode the rights of everyone just to make sure we can punish a few. Never said it should. In fact I agree th…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 04:21 PM
-6

I wouldn't. Good for you! You shouldn't! Nevertheless, many well-intentioned fathers would. How many times have we seen in movies or TV where fathers behave menacingly towards the young men who would dare to think about even dating (much less raping) their daughter? I don't have a daughter so I don't know how I'd react in such a scenario. I'd like to believe that I, like you, would remain perfectly level-headed, fair-minded, and dispassionate. But if I'm truly being honest with myself, I serious…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 04:12 PM
-4

I really don't. Believe me or not, it makes no difference.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 03:05 PM
-6

There is a lady around that says she would not necessarily spare men the experience of a false rape accusation, she says they learn from it. I came across that somewhere, can't remember where or by whom exactly. But I seem to remember that the quote was published decades ago and shown out of context, (e.g. the men in question had committed rapes previously). Hardly representative of modern feminism.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 02:52 PM
-6

I really can not comprehend how they can say that rape is someone that is often swept aside Rape really is often swept aside or ignored. Consider how else this could have gone. Hypothetically, let's say the girl really was raped in November. Because of her youth, inexperience, intoxication, or whatever other reason, she failed to report it to the police at the time or preserve any evidence of the rape. She confided in her father, who then chose (correctly) not to pursue any vigilante justice. Wh…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 02:41 PM
-3

There are some interesting aspects to this story beyond the simple fact of a man being beaten up over an alleged crime. Particularly, this wouldn't have happened without the rigid gender roles (dare I even say patriarchy) that society imposes on both men and women, specifically the idea that fathers are charged with protecting their daughters' sexuality or virginity. Consider if you were the father in this scenario, and your fifteen-year-old daughter came crying to you, claiming she was raped by…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 02:34 PM
0

and your brain tacks on 'women have it so easy all the time', I didn't make this up; the OP directly stated that women have it easy (or easier) in situations where men don't. For example: "my sister was to be raped or abused, she would be taken seriously." "Because dominatrices are considered empowered" "women who like gay porn are seen as, at worst, a little off." "Because female nerds are seen as empowered and admirably destroying the patriarchy/gender roles," These were specifically the situa…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 01:01 PM
1

I would probably be attacked, and it would be my fault to an extent, You've pretty much undercut your own argument. If something is your fault, then you're to blame, and therefore deserve to experience the consequences of your actions. Yes, as much so as words. Are you saying that if a woman wears a provocative dress and sexy lingerie, says "no" to sex, and is raped anyway, her clothing counts as much as her words in establishing the guilt of the perpetrator? This is such a morally horrendous th…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 12:35 PM
-3

Did you read the article? She does have culpability. She agreed. She allowed. It was her choice to go along, even though it was within her power to say 'No.' She's an incredibly immature 18 year old. Maybe I just hang out with smart teenagers, but most of the young adults I know are smart enough not to do something as drastic as this.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 09:04 AM
1

Then why did you object to so many of lovelogicrainbows' points by essentially saying, 'I don't think this is necessarily true, because this same thing happens to women too'? That's irrelevant. For perspective. The statements the OP was making sounded almost absolute, as if women have it so easy all the time and men have it tough. And I absolutely do not find the discrimination that women go through any more "irrelevant" than I do the discrimination that men face. Especially when so many of the …
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:55 AM
-1

Besides the fact that it has no hope of being effective. Except for the fact that it DOES work.
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:44 AM
0

What's being brought up is the mixed signals. Saying "tell men to not rape" is talking down to us, as if we're stupid and just inctinctively do rape. If we were on that level of subhuman animal we would not even understand the instructions. Feminists and the rape prevention movement have only been working hard to put a stop to men raping women, but hey, I guess what's really important here is that you not be offended. /s Even if they could be communicated, this talks about men like they're dogs …
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:43 AM
1

I find it insulting that people think men need campaigns admonishing them not to rape because it assumes that men on their own do not have the empathy to realize sticking your dick in someone while they are crying and sceaming NO is a bad thing. These campaigns are specifically premised on the idea that most men do have that empathy. The purpose of the campaign is to call upon that empathy, to activate it with awareness, in order to stop people from raping or giving tacit support to those that d…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:35 AM
0

For every blog you posted as a source, there is another blog that hates men and wants us completely out of the biological picture. I'm sorry, I didn't realize the standard of evidence here was "unsupported assertions". In any case, I think I've clearly demonstrated that your accusation regarding feminists insulting men was false. If it were the case this list wouldn't have been so easy to compile. Not only is this statement ridiculously incorrect, specifically "the free pass society has given th…
/r/MensRights11/02/13 08:31 AM
5

Are you kidding me? They didn't invent that idea; people really do argue that scantily dressed women deserve to be raped. There have been court trials where the woman's clothing and appearance are introduced as evidence in defense of the rapist. In Islamic cultures women are required to cover their entire bodies to avoid tempting men to rape them. Feminists didn't invent victim-blaming; they recognized that it happens a lot and have been fighting against it for years.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 03:03 PM
2

Huh? That's the exact opposite of what feminists say. Feminists repeatedly argue that women don't deserve to be raped regardless of what they're wearing. Or is this what you're saying as well?
/r/MensRights10/02/13 01:58 PM
2

Since I'm on a roll, I'm also going to challenge this idea that feminists or rape prevention activists (which I assume is what Lurker_IV means by "they") believe men can't control themselves: http://www.secasa.com.au/sections/crisis-centre/common-beliefs-about-rape/ MYTH - Men have no control when they are sexually aroused. FACT - This is an excuse that many men have used, in the same way that they use alcohol as an excuse. 'I couldn't help it, I got carried away...' Men can control themselves a…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 01:18 PM
-1

Even when these points are not always true, do you really believe that sexism can only possibly point in one direction? No, of course not. I never stated or implied that I believe this. In fact I believe the opposite: that rigid gender stereotyping (i.e. sexism) hurts both men and women. Feminism taught me this.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 12:33 PM
12

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/a-public-service-announcement-from-the-good-men-project/ GMP is promoting idea that lots & lots of guys — most guys — are already rapists or might rape at any moment. It’s worth repeating that this is not only insulting, it’s untrue. Most men aren’t rapists. But beyond that, it doesn’t really demonstrate a belief in good men, now, does it? It’s us “scary” “radical” feminists that actually believe in good men. http://feministing.com/2012/12/13/the-…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 12:15 PM
1

What exactly is objectionable about this?
/r/MensRights10/02/13 11:06 AM
1

Who says that men can't control themselves? One of the reasons why feminists argue that telling women to dress provocatively is a bad rape-avoidance strategy is that it's insulting to men. Feminists believe that most men are perfectly willing to and capable of not raping; that's why they support campaigns admonishing men not to rape.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 10:23 AM
3

Well, I'm already on record on this sub as more-or-less agreeing with this. I particularly like the analogy about the nice house. The only part I'd quibble with is this: Also it was claimed that teaching women to avoid rape is "victim-blaming" and typical of "male dominated culture". Some feminists would disagree, but I think it's okay to teach women effective methods for avoiding rape. The important thing that I think needs to be emphasized is that the responsibility for stopping or avoiding ra…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 10:20 AM
0

Hmm. Well for what little it's worth, this not-notable feminist disagrees 100%.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 07:02 AM
1

I seriously don't know anyone else, MRA, feminist, or otherwise, that interprets this law the way you do. None of these are lawyers or experts as far as I know, just a sampling of discussions and interpretations from across the internet: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/10/19/update-major-victory-in-rape-is-rape-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-39938 I’m very glad that the definition is getting updated. It’s a long time coming, but it does exclude one final manner of being raped. It mentions noth…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 06:59 AM
0

To be fair, health care professionals that commit medical malpractice very often don't go to jail, or even receive a sentence, for a very wide variety of botched procedures. I think the norm is to attempt to reach a settlement between parties. Even wrongful-death suits are usually brought to trial under civil rather than criminal law.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 06:34 AM
2

I can't recall any instance where feminists have scorned men that like feminine things. This is actually one of the things feminists argue against the most strongly - they want to break down traditional gender roles, so they support (for example) letting little boys play with dolls if they want, and letting little girls play with fire trucks. From my own personal experience, the people that are most likely to make fun of men for liking feminine things are other (non-feminist) men.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 06:14 AM
-4

Your response is ironic, given how this sub likes to say that feminists respond to arguments and evidence with silencing tactics and insults. Excuse me for thinking that men's rights activists were interested in more than a circlejerk. I've specifically argued against the word "only" in the sentence "only men can stop rape." I've specifically qualified that slogan as referring to male-on-female rape. And if it means that much to you, I believe just as strongly that it's the responsibility of wom…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 05:51 AM
-4

One: If, God forbid, my sister was to be raped or abused, she would be taken seriously. I don't think this is necessarily true. A lot of female rape victims aren't taken seriously, or are even blamed for getting raped. (In some parts of the world a raped woman would be killed by her brothers or father to save the family's honor). Because if I were in an accident with my brothers, they would be expected to lay down their lives to save me, and would be seen as disposable in the casualty reports. T…
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:40 AM
1

I'm afraid you're demonstrating a poor understanding of English. Rape is being defined here as an act of penetration (under particular circumstances); therefore it is only penetration (and not being penetrated) that counts as rape. If you really believe that the FBI definition covers being forced to penetrate, then please link any study or report by the FBI that counts being forced to penetrate as rape. Please link to any instance where the rapist (male or female) forced the victim to penetrate …
/r/MensRights10/02/13 01:05 AM
1

Here is the new FBI definition: The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Here its penetration that counts as rape, so being forced to penetrate wouldn't be rape under this definition. Also, "sex" is far more vague than "penetration", since there are many, many forms of sexual activity that don't necessarily include actual penetration.
/r/MensRights08/02/13 11:16 AM
1

Yes, it's very frustrating that the "forced to penetrate" criterion is so frequently ignored; it's not even included in the federal definition for rape used by the FBI. wonder if incorrectly classifying things skews numbers... This is definitely true, not just for this topic but for pretty much all of science and statistics. What you count is going to have a huge impact on how many you count.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 01:31 PM
2

But the real question is, how often do women conceive a child as a result of female-on-male rape, versus male-on-female? To be frank I've practically never heard of the former ever happening (though I've never looked, I'm sure it happens), while the latter scenario always comes up in abortion debates. So I'm finding it difficult to be troubled over a scenario that feels very abstract and hypothetical to me.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 12:32 PM
2

How exactly is this offensive?
/r/MensRights07/02/13 11:45 AM
3

Okay it's an inequitable law. Beyond that I'm not really seeing your point. There are obviously limitations - just the fact that a conviction is necessary (which should of course be the case) means that a man can get away with raping a woman and still retaining custody of the resulting child. I still think the law is a good idea, even if there's room for improvement. I dislike the exclusion of female-on-male rape, but I'm comforted by the fact that these are far less common than the reverse (and…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 11:41 AM
3

Lifetime prevalence of rape Women (includes all types of rape): Lesbian - 214,000 Bisexual - 1,528,000 Heterosexual - 19,049,000 Men (includes all type of rape, plus being made to penetrate): Gay - no estimate Bisexual - no estimate Heterosexual - 5,248,000
/r/MensRights07/02/13 08:30 AM
-1

I have no idea, was she?
/r/MensRights07/02/13 08:23 AM
-10

You may have a point, but I tend to be mistrustful of "what if the genders were reversed" type of arguments. They rely entirely on unknowable hypotheticals. I have no idea why she wasn't registered as a sex offender. Maybe you're right and it was because she was a woman. Maybe it was because the victim claimed to be in love with her (implying a lack of physical coersion). Maybe it was because he was 16 (legal in some states). Maybe it was because she had a relatively favorable psychological eval…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 08:22 AM
-10

I really don't get the point of posts like this. Is it a men's rights issue every time a woman does something wrong? She was convicted and sentenced; this hardly looks like an example of unfairly favorable treatment for women.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 08:00 AM
3

I think it's a really good idea, actually. Whether a man rapes a woman and gets her pregnant, or a woman rapes a man to get pregnant, the perpetrator has no business becoming the parent of the child. And custody battles often come with a lot of mudslinging anyway. False rape accusations might ruin a person's reputation, but without evidence to back them up they rarely lead to a conviction.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 07:41 AM
5

I don't know how it is in other states, but California has basically said marriage is a religious affair. This is false, civil marriage isn't religious anywhere in the US. "IF, however, you two decide you do NOT love each other, you there, man, will have to pay out his ass for your wife's lifestyle and live poor. And YOU, woman, enjoy not having a dick! Here's a lollipop, we'll just charge it from your ex-husband, he won't mind! What do people with dicks need money for anyway?!" The laws regardi…
/r/MensRights07/02/13 07:27 AM
16

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure you can't be put on the sex offender registry arbitrarily. Surely you have to be convicted of a crime first? Otherwise it's a blatant violation of due process.
/r/MensRights07/02/13 02:40 AM
1

Now if you had to be forced to do something, would you rather fight in a world war, or stay home and tend the house? Admittedly I'd rather stay at home; I'd make a terrible soldier. I'm just saying that you have to look at the whole picture; the system that forced poor men to be soldiers couldn't be considered separated from the system that allowed richer men to be knights and kings (or in a more modern context, generals and presidents). Would you rather have your husband be help responsible for…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 07:12 AM
2

This is a useful, and probably not inaccurate, analysis, but it's not the whole picture. Correct me if I'm mistaken (I'm not a historian), but I thought even peasant farmers had authority over their wives, if nothing else in their lives. And looking at the middle class, all the tradesmen, craftsmen, and guilds were dominated by (indeed, exclusive to) men. For example there were no women bakers recognized as such, just baker's wives (even though those wives undoubtedly baked as well). Going up th…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 07:06 AM
0

I explicitly agreed that men didn't have it easy.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:40 AM
1

Yeah, I'll freely admit that rhetorical flourish got out of hand.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:39 AM
0

Making that comparison is like saying the Christians had it worse than the Jews in WWII because the Christians didn't have the opportunity to go to the concentration camps. Not the same thing; at least there's a conceivable benefit to being a soldier and going to war, if one manages to survive. You can't really say that holding the sword is equivalent to having it pointed at you.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:39 AM
-1

Also, if the guy upped his class status, he upped his wife's as well. This just supports my argument. The woman's fate, identity, and status was tied inextricably to her husband (and before that, her father). She can't aspire to even be a blacksmith or cobbler or tailor, at best she's a blacksmith's wife, a cobbler's wife, etc. Please, look at both sides of the bargain before you make judgement. Yeah, I'd still take the man's side of the bargain.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:35 AM
2

It's still a huge stain on her career. Suspension with pay is a common disciplinary penalty across different professional fields, and isn't applied to just women.
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:30 AM
1

Andrea Yates murders her kids and we have a national debate over mental healthcare for pregnant and post-partum women. She was depressed, suicidal, and had postpartum psychosis. I think that national debate was appropriate. Kid in Sandy Hook (no more or less crazy) does his thing and we have a debate on . . . the evils of masculinity and testosterone. Are you kidding me? After Sandy Hook there was a HUGE national debate regarding mental illness, second in size only to the debate on gun rights. T…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:28 AM
1

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Regarding the sentence "all men bear collective responsibility for the violence done by some", I mean "responsibility" in the sense of being to blame or at fault. Policemen are responsible for stopping crime, but they're not to blame for crimes that civilians commit. Also if it's not clear, "rape" in this context refers to male-on-female rape; I'm not denying that other combinations exist, are serious problems, and don't get enough attention. Likewise, th…
/r/MensRights06/02/13 06:21 AM
1

Again, not a lawyer, so I don't know. I imagine the court would allow what they judge to be what's best for the child, whatever that might be in this case. I can't understand your second point.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 12:40 PM
-4

Ok, "kings" was an exaggeration; it's an inherited title. But the point still stands, historically men have always been allowed more agency than women, and given more opportunities for advancement in life. That was true across economic classes.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 12:32 PM
-6

Relatively rare exceptions. The vast majority of the heads of state and military leaders have been men, and the rules were set up to enforce this.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 12:21 PM
-20

I don't exactly disagree with this guy's point, being a man can be tough; but I think reality is a little more complicated. The system that kept women at home while men went off to war was the same system that forced them to stay at home - barefoot and pregnant, prevented from having important jobs or roles in society, disallowed from owning land or property in their name, and essentially the property of their fathers and husbands. And the system that compelled men to go off to war was the same …
/r/MensRights05/02/13 09:32 AM
-7

Again, I'm not sure this is a men's rights issue. I'm not aware of any double standard that holds women to lower standards when it comes to mental illness. If anything, women are more frequently stereotyped as being overly emotional and unstable. Also, she was suspended indefinitely (while keeping her salary, oddly enough), so it's not like she got away with it scott-free.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 09:19 AM
5

This bit needs to be included in the tl;dr. It gives the appeals court a legal justification for letting the fertility clinic off the hook, and raises all sorts of questions. Either she's lying about forging the signatures (with the man's complicity), or the expert testimony is incompetent/mistaken.
/r/MensRights05/02/13 03:39 AM
1

I'm not a lawyer, but from a strictly legal perspective I suspect the court actually made the right call here. The man signed the birth certificate declaring himself to be the father. That sort of commitment doesn't come with strings attached; there's no clause saying "only valid if the mother of the child stays with me". Otherwise divorce or separation would be enough to get a guy off the hook from taking care of his child. That being said, this is definitely fucked up, and morally if not legal…
/r/MensRights05/02/13 03:23 AM
1

But the message that feminists have to say regarding men and rape don't begin and end with these posters. Feminists publish articles, organize campus events, hold rallies and awareness campaigns, host training sessions, hand out fliers, give lectures and interviews, and so on. (And by the way, MRAs could stand to do a bit more of this as well.) Feminist discussions on rape culture are one giant discourse regarding rape and its prevention. The explanations and detail behind their advocacy is ther…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 11:40 PM
0

It really is not hard to find. For example, Emily Hauser[1] of the Daily Beast. Fair enough. I don't like her phrasing, but consider the whole context of what she said: "Women can fight rape — but only men can actually stop rape." This is pretty similar to my claim that women aren't powerless, but the active engagement of men is necessary to stop male-on-female rape. We are talking about feminists, and it is quit rare for feminists to support women changing their behavior in regard to prevent po…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 11:29 PM
-1

It is irrational if the majority of sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, and typically not in an empty basement, parking lot, a crowded bar or club, or in bed with a one-night stand. This is absolutely true, but a person would be insane to be entirely complacent in situations like these where they're vulnerable. I am sure that most feminists are not child rapists. However, I do not have the privilege of knowing which feminists are child rapists and which are not, and given …
/r/MensRights04/02/13 11:06 PM
-1

First of all, to a woman all men ARE potential rapists, or at least those that are strangers and able-bodied. If a woman is by herself in a vulnerable place (an empty basement parking lot, a crowded bar or club, in bed with a one-night-stand), it's not irrational for her to be wary of the men around her. I'm sure most women, even most feminists, know full well that most men aren't rapists, but they don't have the privilege of knowing which ones are or aren't. Second, I've never heard of any main…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 04:58 AM
1

First, #1 is arguably more morally culpable, but both are equally legally culpable. But to me this is an issue of prevention, not culpability, so I still don't see how this is relevant. And second, I reject the premise that only #2 is consistent with the "Don't rape" strategy. Reinforcing the idea that clear consent is necessary, that rape is wrong, that rape is an act of predation, breaks down the network of support that rapists tend to gain among their peers. It exposes the bullshit excuses th…
/r/MensRights04/02/13 04:17 AM
0

What you just wrote sounds like a very good reason to tell them then. Or am I not understanding your argument?
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:56 PM
1

Perhaps, but it can also cut off the support rapists often get from their peers, and undermine claims that they were just "drunk" or "confused".
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:34 PM
0

But rapist behavior IS wrong! I must not be getting your point.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:21 PM
3

I suspect the same is true of MRAs.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 09:37 PM
2

Even if true, that's a pretty weak excuse for dismissing the overwhelming feminist reaction to the piece. In any case Royse, the author of the piece, doesn't identify as feminist, so your argument is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 09:33 PM
2

Right, and now that you've told me that it comes under "male reproductive rights", I'd appreciate some clarification on how exactly that comes into play. Because I'm really not clear on what there is to discuss, or what policies can be suggested to address this, from a men's rights perspective.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 01:26 PM
3

The OP himself asserts that there was no cheating and he's the father, so presumed paternity is moot. I'm not sure exactly how male reproductive rights come into play here either, since those rights can't reasonably include forcing the girlfriend to carry the baby to term.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 12:34 PM
2

I agree with you that cheating is the more plausible explanation. But I'm not really clear on why this is a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 12:04 PM
5

Let me add to my earlier comment with some links: Here and here are two rather extensive discussions of Lisak, Miller, and McWhorter's work in two different feminist websites, both by the same author. Last November the Good Men Project published a highly controversial piece about rape. One feminist critic characterized it thusly: GMP thinks men=rapists. It’s dangerous, and obviously wrong to make an essentialist link between a whole gender and one action. [...] Except the problem with GMP goes e…
/r/MensRights03/02/13 11:15 AM
5

Huh? Lisak's work is already well-known and frequently discussed by feminist critics/opponents of rape culture. Lisak and Miller's 2002 study is widely acknowledged to be one of the best large-sample surveys of rapists and their behavior. I'd almost go so far as to say that any feminist talking about rape culture that hasn't heard of Lisak doesn't know they're talking about.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 10:17 AM
1

Frankly I don't think this is a fear that most men have.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 12:07 PM
3

It's a counseling service specifically for men. Of course it's only going to be men in the picture.
/r/MensRights02/02/13 02:46 AM
1

I agree, but most of the people on this thread seem to think otherwise.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 06:19 AM
2

If a man gets drunk, and a woman takes advantage and has sex with him, is he or is he not a victim? Is that rape?
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:25 AM
12

If you think it's safe to generalize "unprepared chemistry teacher" as "all feminists", then your debating skills still leave something to be desired.
/r/MensRights01/02/13 02:19 AM
-8

So the whole men's rights movement is about making things better for men, but it's somehow offensive for someone to do the same for women?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 04:17 AM
1

But pleasure and sensitivity aren't the same thing. Too much sensitivity could actually reduce pleasure; overstimulation can be quite uncomfortable. Reduced sensitivity due to lost nerve endings is an objective fact, but the degree of pleasure experienced as a result is entirely subjective.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 08:09 PM
0

What the hell? One of the main MRA arguments is that men are disproportionately sent off to war and thus treated as disposable. Now here's a critique of society's embrace of war as a moral force, a stance that would undoubtedly help men, and people here are upset with it?
/r/MensRights27/01/13 04:37 AM
8

This looks like plagiarism of a reddit comment made three years ago. And there was a short critique of it at the time in /r/law.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 04:09 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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