TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

t0talnonsense Archive

View 1 posts and 255 comments by t0talnonsense on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

It's not even about what other people think. It's about being a decent fucking person. It's never acceptable to greet an honest question from someone trying to learn something with ridicule and disdain.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 07:06 AM
4

An honest question was asked politely in an attempt to learn. Instead of trying to offer a relevant response, you belittled and ignored her. That was completely unnecessary. Just because good things can happen on this sub, that doesn't change how your behavior negatively influences the subs reputation, which is why I called you out on it. Even relatively unbiased people who read your comment chain in response to this person might generalize your abhorrent behavior to the rest of the sub. It's no…
/r/MensRights20/09/15 06:48 AM
–

You, and people like you, are the reason people think this is a hate sub.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 06:08 AM
6

A lot? I can take 4-credit courses over the short summer sessions as well.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 09:55 PM
1

You're vastly underestimating the damage the Republican Party will do to its candidates during the primaries. The hard, religious, right will force even center right Republicans into saying things that will make it incredibly difficult for them in the general election. Hell, look at Mitt Romney. The guy was fairly moderate, but came out looking like a hardline right-winger. The idea that it's the Republican Party that just needs to sit back is completely wrong. If The Republican Party continues …
/r/MensRights19/04/15 06:06 PM
10

Holy shit, the clickbait. The TL;DR is: A lot of other smart people voted to go to war, and made the best decision they could at the time. Electing a woman is symbolic, yada yada. Here's what she actually said: A war vote is a vote that everybody makes on the basis of what think know, what they believe, who they trust. There’s large number of people who supported the war. The consequences have been terrible in terms of what it meant to our veterans and the rest of that, but no. the answer is no.…
/r/MensRights19/04/15 04:00 PM
6

It has nothing to do with gender or incompetence. Coercion and prenups cut both ways. It's about leverage. After what is likely thousands of dollars spent on the wedding, months of a planning, other people making arrangements, and the social implications of canceling a wedding, leverage builds up. Whatever party, male or female, tosses in a prenup at the end is using all of that leverage to coerce turbojet party into signing something that they might not have signed at the beginning of the engag…
/r/MensRights11/04/15 09:53 PM
–

Who cares if it's coerced? Did you seriously just say this? Coercion invalidates a contract. No ifs, ands or buts. Let's wait for you to be coerced into signing something and see how you feel about it.
/r/MensRights11/04/15 07:45 PM
2

If there wasn't evidence of something possibly happening, then the prosecutor would have dropped the case. The very fact that the case is still proceeding through the legal system is evidence of the evidence you are asking for. Just because it hasn't been released, that doesn't mean it's not there.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 07:52 AM
3

Not the point of his post. It's simply a word of caution before parading this guy around as a poster child for the falsely accused. Prior incidents matter. That's why companies and governments vet all prominent employees. Holding someone up as the example is different than mentioning as an example.
/r/MensRights02/04/15 01:51 AM
–

Just a heads up, you're likely fixing to get into an argument about how injesting any sugar is bad for you, regardless of quantity or how active you are. If you haven't read through my discussion with him further up, then you should. He makes the argument that grapes and apples aren't healthy for you either, because they contain sugar. You have been warned.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 12:38 AM
–

"Apples have sugar. Grapes have sugar. These are traditionally thought to be healthy foods." LOL this is hardly evidence that they are. Booze is also traditionally thought to be healthy. You edited your post while I was replying to it. Actually, with this, I am done. You are seriously suggesting that fruits that have been consumed for millennia in healthy diets are not healthy. There is no chance for an intellectually honest debate if you can make that statement with a straight face.
/r/MensRights01/04/15 12:18 AM
–

?? Dude you need to learn how to read scientific papers. And you need to learn to stop typing LOL all of the time, but I digress. You made the statement, "There is no safe level...." Yet that is never stated in either of the articles you posted. The only thing that is actually being said is that too much of this shit is bad for you (No duh), and that it should be treated differently than it is now by the various regulatory agencies. Specifically, they recommend that sugar be removed from the Gen…
/r/MensRights01/04/15 12:10 AM
–

Your own sources make my argument for me. "Sugar is pleasure. So too is alcohol, but in both cases, too much of a good thing is toxic." (emphasis added) "Deadly effect Excessive consumption of fructose can cause many of the same health problems as alcohol." (emphasis added) LOL. Natural != healthy. Walk into the woods and start eating mushrooms.... That's not what I said at all. Apples have sugar. Grapes have sugar. These are traditionally thought to be healthy foods. That's my point, and if you…
/r/MensRights31/03/15 11:48 PM
–

So I should trust a random person on Reddit? Right. Sugar naturally occurs in plenty of natural, healthy, foods. Most fruit has sugar in it. Are you trying to say that we shouldn't eat fruits because it has sugar in it? There is no "safe" level of fructose in the human diet. bullshit.
/r/MensRights31/03/15 11:22 PM
2

You're missing the point. The judicial system works under stare decisis or precedent. If that's how divorce was settled 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, then that's likely how it's still settled today (to a reasonable degree). Judicial activism isn't nearly as prevalent as people try and make it out to be. It's the legislature's job to fix the problem, not the court's.
/r/MensRights28/03/15 07:46 PM
2

No, because there have been other instances of similarly stupid shit (think the red scare in the 1960s). Eventually it will work itself out. Maybe thousands of innocent people will suffer. Maybe it will take a high profile case of false accusations, or even the murder/suicide of a number of innocent victims before the wider populace recognizes the issue. But this isn't the collapse of western society or the rule of law.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 09:02 PM
4

Fembeasts Gone Wild! Come to UW and see the Dykiest, ugliest, most pessimistic ugly bitches (with figures like sacks full of wet laundry) you would NEVER stick your dick in! Even if you are being sarcastic, these types of comments just go to serve the other side's agenda. Anything like this can be taken completely out of context, posted on a blog or quoted in an article, and will be used to falsely represent everyone who frequents this sub, or proposes differing views to the perceived norm.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 06:02 PM
0

No. That's just the only thing you pay attention to. I'll bite for one more response. If there is so much other "evidence," that people have been posting, then please show me. Unlike most people in this thread, I actually read and follow comics. Show me other evidence beyond these 3 pages. Otherwise, accept you're wrong. You can't say I'm "not paying attention" to things that don't exist. Then you are the one using strawmen.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 09:37 PM
0

I can't help but note that you seem to very consistently strawman the other side like that. Except that you literally laid out my argument for me, again. No one said it did...Those panels exist as an example and evidence of what people are talking about. Sorry, but that's a generalization. They are saying things about the series, and then using only these 3 pages as an example to talk down the entire series. That is a generalization, which is what I said.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 09:19 PM
0

The point is that the crappy pages, that are likely a direct response to specific persons, cannot generalize the quality of the rest of the series.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 04:04 PM
1

Nah man. Totally pandering. There's no way Miles is going to be one of like. 3 people to survive Universe 1616 after Secret Wars. He's got to be the biggest waste of space Marvel has put out in the past decade, and that's not even counting Khamela Khan! /s
/r/MensRights15/02/15 08:05 AM
3

I really thought the pandering was clear when a character based on a male Norse god was recast as a female and then made a terribly written point about feminism along with token sister-solitude surrender at the end. I get that reasoning. I look at the crappy dialogue in the cont4ext of this being the 5th issue, and all of the backlash they've been getting. Maybe it's pandering, maybe it's not. I think the dialogue is more suspect than the change in gender. As for the gender change, I won't deny …
/r/MensRights15/02/15 05:49 AM
4

I'll try to clarify. This type of dialogue is not uncommon. Different writers and/or stories try to deal with social issue or philosophies. Inevitably, the dialogue is almost always bad in those instances. Even the Marvel Civil War event, that a lot of people love, had some pretty bad dialogue at points. Also, you keep going on about "pandering." That's your interpretation, which is fine. But realize it's also a perfectly reasonable interpretation that this was the writer's responding to all of …
/r/MensRights15/02/15 05:07 AM
4

I read the article, and I read the 3 pages in question. I've talked about how I feel regarding them throughout this thread in various places. The TL;DR is: that stuff is always bad, regardless of the issue it's addressing. It's also nothing new to comics. Beyond that, those pages were almost certainly directed specifically at all of the people who are losing their shit (on both sides) about the fact that Thor currently a woman. It doesn't bother me, because it's kind of expected. It's certainly …
/r/MensRights15/02/15 04:28 AM
2

Yeah, there was the whole frog thing too. Then throw in the fact that Mjolnir can be wielded by anyone who is worthy, and has held by a different guy under the name Thor for a bit, and you also have the Horse Alien guy who has wielded the hammer as well.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 04:17 AM
0

Here's the thing, whenever a writer tries to directly address an issue like this, it almost always comes off horribly. There were even times during the Civil war event that I was rolling my eyes at Iron man and Captain America's dialogue. The way I look at it is that this isn't very different from any other issue that comic writers have addressed. As such, I'm not appalled when it doesn't work out well, and I'm not decrying the medium, writers, or Marvel. It is what it is, and if people weren't …
/r/MensRights15/02/15 02:21 AM
2

You're correct, but you can't force stupid people to use their brain. Just let it go. It's the whole reason I never responded to the guy once I realized what he was pissed off about.
/r/MensRights15/02/15 01:33 AM
-6

You do realize that these 3 pages are a direct response to the people who are losing their shit about Thor being a woman, and likely wouldn't be in the comic otherwise, right?
/r/MensRights15/02/15 01:21 AM
–

You cannot take a character that is already established outside of comics and suddenly genderbend for no fucking reason. You obviously don't follow comics. Mjolnir can only be wielded by someone who is worthy. Nick Fury said something to original Thor that caused him to lose his worthiness (remember how he lost his worth in the first Thor movie? Same concept). If a giant [horse can wield Mjolnir] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Ray_Bill), there's absolutely no reason that a woman can't. The f…
/r/MensRights14/02/15 11:21 PM
–

This article started losing me after the first few paragraphs. The person who wrote this article either doesn't read comics, or doesn't understand how the Marvel universe works. They didn't get rid of Peter Parker when they introduced Miles Morales. Miles was a part of a completely different universe, that was created entirely for the purpose of re imagining characters, altering origin stories, and giving different artists some creative freedom. So, from the beginning, the author is drawing inna…
/r/MensRights14/02/15 09:26 PM
1

I agree. There is also the issue that men are more often chosen for studies about heart disease. As a result, there may be different/better remedies for these issues for women based on the inherent biological differences that we will never discover without a concerted effort to increase that type of testing. Like it or not, there are biological differences between men and women. Failing to focus on one gender regarding issues that effect both can actually prevent the other gender from having acc…
/r/MensRights12/02/15 10:23 PM
2

I'm not an engineer. I'm just saying that it's likely not some female conspiracy. Whoever designed it probably took the average shoulder width of a male, because smaller people can sit in larger seats with no problem. Regardless, the point still stands: those seats aren't designed for optimal comfort. They are designed for acceptable comfort. The majority of people don't have any issues using public transit and being slightly uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 07:22 PM
4

Division of assets has nothing to do with who shitty a person is.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 03:25 PM
11

That's just unlikely. There are more male engineers than female. Those trains are designed to fit as many people in there as possible with relative levels of comfort. The engineers probably just took the average shoulder width of the average sized person, and used that number to design the seats. Subways aren't AMTRAC. Subways aren't utilized in long distance travel. If you can't handle being slightly uncomfortable in a crowded subway for 5-10 minutes, then take a cab. That being said, the while…
/r/MensRights22/01/15 03:22 PM
1

It really bothers me to see all of these downvotes getting thrown out around here. You're absolutely correct. My wife forgets to turn lights off, and I nag her. I leave my shoes/socks around the house, and she nags me. Nagging behavior, in and of itself, is not abuse. I nag her. She nags me. At the end of the day, we both know that it doesn't really matter, and we love each other. No one's feelings get hurt about it. In fact, we usually laugh about it as it happens, because it's something we kno…
/r/MensRights20/01/15 03:54 AM
1

Read the full quote, then read a wiki article or something about the El Salvadori Civil War in the 80s and 90s, then read her entire speech. I'll jump start you with the full quote and a cite to the full speech. The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever know…
/r/MensRights17/01/15 05:48 AM
-1

If you can't appreciate the context of trying to convince a group of people from a war torn country to start fighting another battle (albeit political) when all they want to do is try and get a sense of normalcy back in their lives, then nothing I say will convince you that such context matters.
/r/MensRights17/01/15 05:25 AM
6

I'm so tired of this quote getting touted out without any fucking context. Yeah, it's a shitty quote, but the context is important, just like every quote. The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometim…
/r/MensRights17/01/15 05:08 AM
3

Because then some would argue that this sub is a hate subreddit. Better to let the people have their own little corner than make value judgments on hundreds or thousands of groups across several years.
/r/MensRights09/01/15 02:34 PM
1

devised by UVA's Greek leadership councils Greek students had a hand in created these policies.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 01:04 AM
1

I can drive to New York, or I could fly, or take a bus, or hitchhike. The result may be the same, but the means are different.
/r/MensRights08/01/15 12:49 AM
-1

Already addressed this. I have issue with the word encouraged. That's actively promoting someone to conduct in behavior. Excusing someone is dismissing their behavior after the fact, which is what happens. The downvote train has already happened, so I doubt there's any going back now. I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between saying, "women, go and break the shit of people who you think wrong you," and "I'm sure that he did something to deserve her breaking his stuff." Those …
/r/MensRights07/01/15 10:13 PM
-3

Maroon 5 has a song out right now about basically stalking some random chick. Just because something happens in some pop culture entertainment, that doesn't mean it is encouraged. Looking at the other examples you cited, petty revenge is what people are going on about. It works across both genders. It's not just women who are patted on the back for getting petty revenge by people. Are they given the benefit of the doubt more? Yes. I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that women, specificall…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 09:46 PM
-3

encouraged Sorry, but no. Excused? Glossed over? Ignored? any of those might work, but destruction of property isn't encouraged. Edit: not that it matters, but here is a more thorough explanation of my statement. The downvote train has already happened, so I doubt there's any going back now. I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between saying, "women, go and break the shit of people who you think wrong you," and "I'm sure that he did something to deserve her breaking his stuff."…
/r/MensRights07/01/15 09:35 PM
-8

Shitty people do shitty things, especially during divorce proceedings. So long as the OP tells his divorce attorney about this, then he's fine. Not really sure why this is here. It's not like this happened and then the judge didn't do anything about it. A shitty person, who happens to be a woman, behaved in a shitty manner. Just because she is a woman, that doesn't make this a gender issue.
/r/MensRights07/01/15 06:19 PM
1

Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with your relationship with your employer. It has everything to do with how you are treated within the eyes of the law, which is why it's traditionally the plaintiff or prosecution that carries the burden of proof, not the defendant. In some specific circumstances, the defendant may carry the burden of proof, but it's not standard. Regardless, what the US Constitution provides us as citizens means nothing in almost all of our interactions with any p…
/r/MensRights01/01/15 07:54 AM
4

Other than that they really don't have any legitimate complaints, and that's hanging on by a thread as it is. There are no other real issues, I've already responded to a somewhat similar argument elsewhere in this thread. in a different thread tonight (dear God I need to get some sleep). I'm just going to copy and paste it here. I've seen first hand how my wife has received some absolutely abhorrent behavior from men on the street or in a bar. I've seen women in tech fields or in video games or …
/r/MensRights26/12/14 08:32 AM
1

Thank you for chiming in. I'm tired, and pretty argued out at this point. It's been a long couple of days of traveling and doing family crap for Christmas, and I just can't care about this argument anymore tonight. That being said, you raised exactly the points I wanted to make. Thank you.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 08:30 AM
0

Feminism is built on the hatred and demonization of men Also, you need to go back and learn early 20th century American history. Feminism grew out of the women's suffrage movement, which has nothing to do with the hatred and demonization of men as you claim.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 07:34 AM
0

This is where you lose me. I've seen first hand how my wife has received some absolutely abhorrent behavior from men on the street or in a bar. I've seen men in tech fields or in video games or traditionally "geeky guy things" to be questioned and have to prove themselves over and over again, where a man doesn't. Shit. I know I've caught myself doing it sometimes, because I was raised believing that crap. I don't think that there are any rights that women lack now, but I think there is still a d…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 07:07 AM
4

Thank you for this perfectly reasonable response, and to take the time to distinguish the type of feminism that you have a problem with. Not all feminists respond like this woman. The people that are actively advocating feminism on the other hand? That's a different story. I know plenty of people who self-identify as feminists because they believe in equality for all, but primarily focus their concerns on women's rights. There's no problem with that to me. The problem is when MRA's are always ju…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 06:57 AM
-1

Potential allies who are dis-swayed by someone generalizing that Feminism sucks and Feminists are assholes, are never going to be 'allies.' That's not what gets said around here though. I can't tell you how many times I see actual, hateful, language about feminism as a blanket statement, because people would rather lump every single form or aspect of feminism under one label, rather than take the 5 seconds to specify exactly what part of feminism they despise (as you just did). I agree with your…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 06:37 AM
-1

Calm down, and reread what I said. I said, hatred, hostility, or violence. Harm is not part of that definition. A group can advocate for policies that harm another group without being considered a hate group. Let's look at a non-gendered example. Group A advocates for contracting through a national company to provide the food for a school system. Currently, the school system gets all of their food from local farmers. In this instance, is Group A a hate group, because the policies they advocate a…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 06:31 AM
-3

Legislation fucks over people of all religions, races, creeds, nationalities, and genders. That doesn't mean that a movement that has supported or advocated for any of those policies is a hate group. It just makes them shitty people. A hate group, very specifically, advocates hatred, hostility, or violence towards another group. Feminism, as the common person understands it (not the crazy misandrists or the third-wave feminists), does not advocate for that type of behavior against men. Instead, …
/r/MensRights26/12/14 06:21 AM
-1

You think it's people who say things like the quote here that's stopping people from listening to reason? Sole reason? No. Primary reason? No. Supplementary reason? Absolutely, and especially because it's petty. The very nature of feminism (feminism means whatever you want it to mean) allows the average, everyday, looks at an article or two before forming their opinion, may identify as a feminist. In fact, a lot of them do. When crap like this is encouraged, it alienates those reasonable people …
/r/MensRights26/12/14 06:15 AM
-3

It's not about the people who actually come to a subreddit and look. It's about people that take screenshots of this crap and then post it as evidence of their claims in a news or blog article along with other mysoginistic rants. Too many people here have the attitude of "well fuck them if they won't open their eyes or listen to my relevant points," when branding and PR are the backbone of any movement. Like it or not, the facts are only important when you can get people to listen or give you cr…
/r/MensRights26/12/14 05:48 AM
-4

My point was that when comments like these are upvoted consistently across the majority of threads, it does nothing more than provide validation for those marketing tactics that you speak of, regardless of any validity.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 05:40 AM
-9

Statements like this are part of the reason that MRA's are considered a hate group. Seriously. Please stop with this shit. A feminist doesn't have to be a misandrist.
/r/MensRights26/12/14 05:07 AM
2

Except a persons height cannot be changed, but a persons weight can be. They are completely different physical traits. Beyond that, a persons weight can likely inform you of the others lifestyle choices. Then there are the eating disorder problems and self-confidence issues that lead to anxiety or depression that go hand in hand with weight issues. Someone who doesn't like you for your height and talks about it is stupid. Someone who doesn't like you for your weight and talks about it is incredi…
/r/MensRights18/12/14 03:30 PM
3

It would be really handy if it contained actual double standards, and not inaccurate comparisons. People cannot change their height. People can change their weight. Beyond that, one's weight can also be indicative of other likely lifestyle choices that the individual makes. All that this post contains is an attempt at creating artificial outrage through inaccurate comparisons.
/r/MensRights18/12/14 01:12 AM
-13

Oh, look. Someone was in the /r/askmen thread yesterday.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 04:37 AM
0

It's about responding reasonably though. There is no need to deck someone half your size in the face as hard as you can. Self-defense is about proportional use of force. Beyond that, you move from defending yourself to possibly committing criminal assault.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 11:16 PM
1

They acknowledge the severe limitations near the very beginning of the article. At least give credit where it's due before inciting a riot. Limitations of the study, the authors noted, include its retrospective nature, selection bias— women may be more likely to nominate men — and reporting bias — male candidates for the award may be more newsworthy than female candidates.
/r/MensRights13/12/14 03:48 AM
0

All of your arguments fall back to class warfare bullshit. I'm not going to have this conversation with you, because you are arguing a completely different point, and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means for something to be objective vs. subjective.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 08:42 PM
0

men throughout history have been virtual slaves and treated as property. Women were property. What history classes did you even take?
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:52 PM
0

That's the very definition of subjective. ...that's the very definition of objective. Did women have the right to vote prior to the 19th Amendment, women could not vote. Men could. That is an objective standard: Right to vote? yes/no. There is an objective argument to be made about women's right to work in the early 21st century, because a number of institutions of higher education refused to accept women. Right to go to a university? Yes/no. It begins to be a subjective standard when we get mod…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:50 PM
6

Having a better life and having the ability to utilize one's rights are two different things. The first is a subjective notion, where the 2nd is a more objective fact.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 12:11 PM
1

That's not how things work. Social movements aren't firefights where you need to return fire. If something is unacceptable for the other party, then it's unacceptable for you. Engaging in the same activity invalidates any of your previous claims that the other party was in the wrong.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 07:32 AM
1

I'd wager that by the time your pit bull bites 6 different people in your community, the police will come and put it down. Starting here...Evidence of a dog attack is a lot more prevalent than a well crafted murder by a human. No analogy is perfect. So it went from 5+ years to 2-3 years? My suspicion is being confirmed that neither you, nor anybody else, can really say just how long you have to know someone before it's "safe" to marry. I never made a claim to a specific time period. I just said …
/r/MensRights07/12/14 03:49 AM
2

Yeah. it's pretty disappointing to see so much feminism hate, and then people turn right around and do the exact same thing they damn feminists for doing.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 03:19 AM
1

Not everyone breaks their leg, either, but that doesn't mean they should go without health insurance. false equivalence. Failure to provide oneself with a safety net is different than an affirmative decision to combine finances, property, legal rights, etc. with another person. A more relevant example is the decision of whether or not to get a dog (full grown, not a puppy). I'll even give you some by saying a pit bull, or some other traditionally more dangerous breed. Yeah, some pit bulls, contr…
/r/MensRights07/12/14 01:25 AM
1

You don't think that domestic violence against men is a reason to steer clear of marriage? No. I think it's a reason to not jump into marriage and have a good understanding about your future spouse. Not all women are crazy, or resort to violence in an argument or a fight. Vet your spouse before you marry them, and you probably won't have any problems. Source: Was with spouse 5+ years before we even got engaged, and had already lived together for a bit. We both knew exactly what we were getting w…
/r/MensRights07/12/14 12:29 AM
1

Sorry if it was unclear, but I knew you weren't the OP. I was just pointing out that the main point of the article (a woman got away with multiple murders) is not a reason to steer clear of marriage. Crazy people will do their crazy shit, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 11:59 PM
1

urposefully taking unauthorized possession of the property of another is theft by taking No. You have to have the intent to deprive the person of the property. Moving it does not show the necessary intent for theft. Had she hid the jacket, taken it to the women's restroom, or left the bar with it, then you might have a theft claim; however, moving someone else's property is not theft. There may, possibly, be a tort claim for trespass to chattel, but definitely not a criminal charge.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 10:05 PM
-1

Then change the title of the post. This has nothing to do with marriage.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 09:54 PM
-1

One of the best things about living in the country, is we don't have no cops. Or grammar, apparently.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 09:48 PM
–

You don't get to talk shit about another group for doing something, and then turn around to do the same thing. That's called being a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights06/12/14 07:12 PM
1

You attacked the guys character and mental capacity in order to drown out his voice. I take offense to that. Then, you argue with me about whether or not you name called, and ignore any of my points. I didn't "go off the rails" first. You said you were done, so I decided to lay it all out there, rather than continue the discussion. Had you not said you were done, I wouldn't have said those things in the middle of the conversation.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:33 PM
1

I'm so done w/this conversation, no matter who it is. You were obviously done when you got so angry you couldn't even critically read my initial response that said the word "he" multiple times. You aren't in the business of having a debate. you're in the business of throwing a tantrum to try and prove your incorrect point. Have a good day. Calm down before you have a heart attack, or don't. Whatever works for you.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:27 PM
1

Hey buddy, at least check the name of who you are responding to. I'm not /u/atheist4thecause . Women's breasts are sexualized (using your argument) the same way that men's abs are sexualized, or any other part of the human body, minus the genitals. It's an arbitrary categorization. Yes, our breasts are biologically different (under the skin), but they aren't very different at all in physical appearance. A breast is a breast.
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:20 PM
1

No offense, but it's quite easy to see you're not a very good thinker, and you're pretending to be one. You're combative, young mentally, and searching for any reason to argue that you can find. And you were the one who first resorted to name calling. The fact of the matter is that you asked a question, "name a right that men have that women don't in the western world," and he named one. Now, you are backpeddling, and trying everything you can to shut him down, including name calling. Face it, t…
/r/MensRights02/12/14 08:13 PM
2

We shouldn't seize a label like feminism and declare "you're a feminist. I know that I don't like them, so I don't like you." You would think, but I am constantly labeled and attacked as a "feminist" on this sub, because I don't prescribe to the hive mind. It's ridiculous. I'm not even a feminist, and vehemently explain why when my IRL friends ask why. But here, you start admitting that men have some privilege, or that not everything in the WRM is a load of shit, and you're suddenly labeled a fe…
/r/MensRights02/12/14 03:04 PM
-2

And what's causing them? What is it that deters women but not men, and rewards men but not women? Fuck if I know. I'm not a sociology professor or academic. Instead of changing the question everytime, are you at least willing to admit that there are more pressures on men to be assertive than women, especially in courting scenarios? Okay so here you're saying it's about opportunity, but how does that fit in with your little bar scenario? Women get approached more so they have more opportunities f…
/r/MensRights02/12/14 01:37 AM
0

Societal pressure to do what? What are you even talking about? Are you completely ignoring my first post? I said it there. There are pressures on men to approach and pressures on women to wai tto be approached. I'd argue that having no one want to talk you is worse. privilege isn't about "who has it worse." It's about what society does and doesn't expect from you, and what opportunities are open to you be virtue of things beyond your control (race, gender, socio-economic status). Ok so what are …
/r/MensRights02/12/14 12:56 AM
-1

If they didn't want to talk to anyone you'd think they'd just drink home. Just because that's how you drink, that doesn't mean others drink that way. They may be waiting on someone, or watching a game, or purposefully avoiding going home, or any number of reasons. The fact remains that a random woman is more likely to be approached by a random man in almost any situation, whether it's a bar or in line to get a coffee. I just used a bar as an example, because it let me hit all of the points quick…
/r/MensRights02/12/14 12:30 AM
0

They don't try to kill themselfs, they try to get attention I'm sorry, but you have no right to discredit or look down on anyone who attempts suicide. Just because women, generally, choose less immediately lethal ways to commit suicide, that does not mean that they are doing it just to get attention. A suicide attempt is, and should always, be treated as if it were sincere and legitimate.
/r/MensRights01/12/14 10:06 PM
19

It's possible to have privilege in different aspects of life and society. Privilege isn't a zero-sum game. I'll take a very literal example. Male A is at a bar, and female A is across from him. Male A has the societal pressure to make the first move (check one for women). Male A goes to chat with female B, but is rejected (check two to women for more readily being afforded the option to refuse). Female B is then approached by male's B, C, D, and E. Male A was only approached by female B (check o…
/r/MensRights01/12/14 07:46 PM
-1

Getting into a fight with anyone isn't necessarily horrific. Getting into a fight with your fiancé, the person you're supposed to care about more than everyone except your kids, knocking that person out, and dragging them by the hair with no concern for their well being? I'd say that's pretty damn horrific. Context matters.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 02:37 PM
4

Everyone has someone in their life who has been a victim of domestic violence. That hits home. Not everyone has animals, and even fewer people actually know what a dog fight is actually like. You don't have to like the fact that the public perception of the two events was different, but accept reality. There is a disconnect between animal violence and human violence. There probably always will be. Your argument of "she just got knocked out" dismisses anyone, male or female, that suffers from DV.…
/r/MensRights29/11/14 08:08 AM
3

It was violent, it was cold, and it was public for everyone to see. I think that if he hadn't drug her out of the elevator by the hair, then this would be an entirely different story. The dragging is what I saw talked about more than anything, because it shows just how unconcerned he was with the fact that he knocked her out. He didn't stop to see if she was okay. He just drug her out of the elevator in one of the most uncaring ways possible. All of that playing out, on video, killed his image m…
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:51 AM
-1

This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with his actions. It has everything to do with due process. Roger Goodell (the NFL commissioner) punished Rice when the allegations first surfaced by suspended him for 2 games. After the video was released, Goodell punished him a second time for the same incident. The reason Rice won his appeal is a double jeopardy clause, not because of some justification for the horrific action he took in that elevator.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:41 AM
0

This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with his actions. It has everything to do with due process. Roger Goodell (the NFL commissioner) punished Rice when the allegations first surfaced by suspended him for 2 games. After the video was released, Goodell punished him a second time for the same incident. The reason Rice won his appeal is a double jeopardy clause, not because of some justification for the horrific action he took in that elevator.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:39 AM
-1

This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with his actions. It has everything to do with due process. Roger Goodell (the NFL commissioner) punished Rice when the allegations first surfaced by suspended him for 2 games. After the video was released, Goodell punished him a second time for the same incident. The reason Rice won his appeal is a double jeopardy clause, not because of some justification for the horrific action he took in that elevator.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:39 AM
0

This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with his actions. It has everything to do with due process. Roger Goodell (the NFL commissioner) punished Rice when the allegations first surfaced by suspended him for 2 games. After the video was released, Goodell punished him a second time for the same incident. The reason Rice won his appeal is a double jeopardy clause, not because of some justification for the horrific action he took in that elevator. Please, dear god, be informed when you talk about …
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:38 AM
1

Before this blows completely out of proportion. When a different article with the same information was posted over on 2X, all but one poster (who was downvoted to hell) agreed how stupid the idea was. Extremists get elected all of the time, but they generally don't represent the views of the majority of people in office, or even the people who voted for them.
/r/MensRights29/11/14 07:35 AM
-1

It also doesn't say that they are though...
/r/MensRights26/11/14 04:01 AM
0

Seriously, trying to play the pedantic card? At least be right when you do. The criminal justice system consists of three main parts: (1) Legislative (create laws); (2) adjudication (courts); and (3) corrections (jails, prisons, probation and parole). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice#Definition The system of law enforcement that is directly involved in apprehending, prosecuting, defending, sentencing, and punishing those who are suspected or convicted of criminal offenses. http://ww…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 03:59 AM
0

Thank god you don't work in the criminal justice system.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 02:12 AM
0

Actually they start when the victim becomes aware a crime occurred. That's not true. Only in some instances. The statute of limitations may begin either when the harmful event such as fraud or injury, occurs or when it is discovered. The Supreme Court of the United States has described the "standard rule" as to when the time begins to be "when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action" (when the crime occurs, emphasis and this parenthetical added), which it describes as being in p…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 02:00 AM
1

If you want an interesting case study on cold case investigations, I would highly suggest the Serial podcast. It's put out by NPR's This American Life. A reporter is going back through a 1999 murder trial about an 18 year old guy (at the time), who to this day still claims his innocence.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:22 AM
1

That's absolutely bonkers. Most statute of limitations start ticking from the time a crime occurred. If you don't know about a crime until after the statute is up, then you're fucked. And you can't change it to "when you learn of the crime," because then the statute runs indefinitely. Not every crime is obvious. Not all obvious crimes have enough evidence to report. Not all people are able to mentally handle a devastating crime immediately after it occurs. Don't even get me started on criminal e…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:16 AM
2

When you stop caring about how other people perceive things, then you've effectively stopped the dialogue. What you say and how you say it matters. This goes both ways. If you stop caring how things look, and something you say is taken out of context, you're only rebuttal is "you're misinterpreting what I'm saying!" On the other hand, you are likely still attacking the other side based on what they said. Then they only have the same response, "you're misinterpreting what I'm saying!" It devolves…
/r/MensRights26/11/14 01:06 AM
3

It doesn't ruffle my feathers nearly as much as it does some people, but it's the fact that when all girls schools are attacked, the media makes a big deal out of the girls' gender; however, young boys gender doesn't seem to matter. I can see both sides of it though, in some instances. In areas where young girls are much less likely to go to school, or may face harm for going to school, I don't think there's a problem focusing on the gender. In those instances, their gender may well have been pa…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 12:40 AM
5

Not only that, her family was out in the community handing out fliers, and she had been reported missing by multiple people. Her family was trying to make it a story. The man, Mark Schiebel, wasn't even confirmed missing (from what we can tell) until Friday when he missed a probation meeting. The bodies were found on Saturday.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 08:49 PM
3

They didn't even know that the man was missing until Friday, and the bodies were found on Saturday. Do you read any of the articles you respond to? For anyone wondering, that bit of information is in the second article the OP posted, here.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 08:34 PM
15

You mean that a local woman, whose family was actively passing out fliers and drumming up attention, was found dead, and the media are reporting on it? Because that's all this is. From everything you have linked, it doesn't look like the man's family was in the community actively seeking help. Hell, it's not even obvious that he was originally from the area or had any serious ties to the area. She went missing on Tuesday, multiple people had reported her missing by Wednesday, and she had missed …
/r/MensRights23/11/14 08:27 PM
0

Reported missing on Tuesday, and bodies were found on Saturday. 4 days is a lot of time when you are dealing with a missing person. Edit: Confused the names in my head. Disregard.
/r/MensRights23/11/14 08:21 PM
3

Because the title is misleading. She was on medication for her depression, and they (apparently) successfully argued that the medication altered her mental state in such a way to lower her culpability. Realize that it was for the jury to decide whether or not they believed the testimony regarding the drug's effects on her, and the crown was also able to provide their own expert witness testifying against the lowered culpability. Note: I'm just explaining the legal side of the whole thing to the …
/r/MensRights23/11/14 04:41 PM
3

God I wish I could upvote this more than once. I hate seeing shit like this on this sub, because it makes us all look like idiots.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 04:26 PM
29

No offense, but there's no evidence to suggest that the course will have looser requirements than any other course. If you are going to criticize something, then stick to the actual merits of the argument and don't go making things up. Edit: "no" wasn't in the original. My bad.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 10:41 PM
4

It makes me happy to see a substantial number of posts that are pointing out that this is about asset division and not alimony. There are a lot of things to be outraged about, but this isn't really one of them. The way the law was applied makes sense, and it would go the same way regardless of gender or the value of the assets. The case doesn't change if it's 1 billion or 1 thousand dollars at stake.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 06:58 PM
2

Note, IANAL. So my understanding is based a lot off of news article, legal blogs, and mock trial experience in college where we had to make the decision between whether or not to raise an affirmative defense. I'm sorry about all of these walls of text. But your understanding is essentially correct, from my knowledge. Which, contrasted against my understanding of "innocence until proven guilty" makes the job of the defense quite a bit more dangerous. Don't forget that there aren't very many affir…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 07:55 PM
2

To answer your question, no. Technically, a even a defense isn't mandatory. All defenses are optional tools, but an affirmative defense even more so. Not all crimes have affirmative defenses. Also, an affirmative defense isn't raised to strengthen your argument (or tear down the prosecutor's). That's generally what defenses are for. I'm not sure your familiarity with the law, so please excuse me if this comes off as patronizing or something. I just want to cover all of my bases. Also, something …
/r/MensRights31/10/14 05:41 PM
2

The others are right, but I want to add that there is a difference between a defense and an affirmative defense. You can raise a lot of things as a defense, but an affirmative defense carries a burden of proof, just like the crime you are charged with. It's the difference between "I walked through the house before I shot into it. It's not my fault the victim was hiding behind a fake wall and got shot," and "I'm going to prove that I'm not liable by bringing up all of this evidence that shows how…
/r/MensRights31/10/14 05:00 PM
1

Except that there is a major difference between rapeplay, and rape. I'll echo what the person above me said: Nobody ever wants to be assaulted. Consensual roleplaying is an entirely different act than non-consensual assault. Why do you think BDSM is so popular? Because the two biggest rules are safety and consent. Safe words and actions are very nearly uniformly required by BDSM enthusiasts for a reason.
/r/MensRights12/10/14 03:12 AM
0

A hand job is the equivilent of rubbing on the outside of your vagina So, is touching of a person's clit considered outside of the vagina?
/r/MensRights12/10/14 02:16 AM
1

Follow the comment chain back to the beginning: Q: Would you say hand jobs and blow jobs can't be rape? A (you): As for a forced handjob, certainly not and don't see why anyone would think it should be defined as that. Being forced to finger someone I also wouldn't consider rape because my fingers aren't genitals. At a certain point you have to decide how expansive your define of rape is going to be and if expanding it to include more and more things is to its detriment. Then I came with my resp…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 02:09 AM
1

Unwanted sexual contact and groping aren't the same things as rape and I think it is a very bad idea to water down the definition so that it can include very minor incidents. Not all unwanted sexual contact is rape, but all rape is unwanted sexual contact. I was merely starting at the baseline where I felt there was no disagreement. Both actions are unwanted sexual contact. From there, should it be considered rape? Your distinction of when it becomes rape doesnt make sense at all I was talking s…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 01:54 AM
0

Look, I'm not going to argue about conspiracies. I think it makes people in this sub look petty and childish. I would much rather talk about a substantive issue we can see and document, than a bunch of guesswork that requires faith due to a lack of hard evidence. I just wanted to point out that separating the two figures makes sense from a research standpoint, but that I agree with your first sentence: they should be aggregated as part of the rape statistics. I think the entire reason the OP and…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 01:40 AM
0

I think both of those things would be considered rape. It is certainly unwanted sexual contact, and goes beyond groping. A blowjob should almost certainly be considered rape. It's called "oral sex." Not that the name forces this conclusion, but it is an act that is widely regarded as sex. If a blowjob is not sex, then is anal sex, sex? I can see the argument for why a handjob is not sex, but I think the intent of the rapist comes into play there. At what point does it go from unwanted touching t…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 01:24 AM
0

Which is what I think the whole point of this is. The numbers should be added in. Not totaling forced to penetrate with other rape statistics is likely a different issue than the logical reason for why they separate them. The only way the division is relevant is if it is intended specifically to marginalize men, which is unlikely. I think it's perfectly reasonable (in research) to separate forced to penetrate and forced penetration, because they are two different actions with potentially differe…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 01:18 AM
1

Here's the thing, I don't disagree with you. The whole reason I said anything was because the OP was making it sound like there were people who faced serious threats of harm to their physical safety or life. The language was similar to what I've heard from people talking about the civil rights movement in the 60s. The point I was trying to make is that dealing with bullshit that happens to people of all movements isn't the same as what men and women of color faced in the sixties. The tone of his…
/r/MensRights04/10/14 07:15 AM
4

That's not how it works. He got shadowbanned for something else. The mods can see his post, and it is marked in some fashion to let them know the user is shadowbanned. Regularly, we would not see his post. There is no telling, from our end, when he was banned, or what for. Normally, his comment wouldn't even appear when you loaded this page, because only the mods are allowed to see posts from shadowbanned users.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 03:32 AM
1

being told you're wrong, to be quiet, or to be harassed is not dangerous. Dangerous implies actual danger, not dealing with the repercussions of speaking out against the status quo. It's not disingenuous to separate ridicule from danger, because one of them can actually land the perpetrator in jail.
/r/MensRights04/10/14 03:05 AM
1

As someone who made a point, suspiciously, to go through and comment on several things I have said in this thread, then you should know that I called feminists out on similar bullshit right fucking here in the same thread
/r/MensRights04/10/14 02:59 AM
0

Thanks for that. I'm out and on mobile. So I wasn't exactly going to spend time researching the guy trying to rule me up. It's always a hit or miss whether it's a troll or not.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 10:48 PM
0

So someone who disagrees with you is a feminist? Nice try, but I'm not a feminist. Regardless of any fake threats against people, it's ignorant to believe that they aren't targeted the same way prominent MRA's are, sports stars, store owners, or politicians. Not every threat is reported in the news. In fact, it's actually better not to publicize a threat of violence. My point to that OP was that leading a social movement inherently brings threats of violence. The MRM is not unique in that fact, …
/r/MensRights03/10/14 09:31 PM
-1

You're talking to a brick wall here, just so you know. I stopped arguing with him after he said that threats against prominent feminists are trolls and lies made by feminists. In response to some of what you have said. Feminism and feminist's are often lumped together. The problem with this is that most people who consider themselves a feminist are moderate, and generally prescribe to feminism: the idea that women and men are equal, and that women should be afforded equal rights and responsibili…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 07:54 PM
1

Yeah. I stopped arguing with him [after he said that threats against prominent feminists are trolls and lies made by feminists] (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2i5vd9/thanks_to_feminism/ckzkrzc). It's not just smugness. It's a wilfull ignorance of reality.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:43 PM
0

Nah, the only people threatening feminists are deliberate trolls and themselves. And this is where I am done with this conversation. You actively ignore and dismiss the threats of violence against women who you disagree with. You are becoming willfully ignorant of the reality of the situation, and I don't think that anything anyone says will ever change your mind.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:38 PM
0

Where is the proof of this? Is there a peer-reviewed study on this? Look, I'm not going to go digging through legal opinions to try and find the exact rationale used by the courts. Likely, there are no citations to specific studies. If you feel so strongly about this, take it up with your legislator, because they are the only ones who can change this. Even then, I doubt they will. I disagree with you, because the decision to have sex goes beyond the simple act itself, especially to young, hormon…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:36 PM
-2

Career repercussions and death threats are not the same as actual violence. An old mod from here was doxed, they tried to get him fired, threatened him and harassed him in rl. I guarantee that the same thing happens to feminists and members of any other social movement. Such is the risk when you take on an actual or de facto leadership role therein.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:30 PM
1

was dangerous. I find that hard to believe. Source?
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:14 PM
1

First, you are correct. No law is broken by the teen. The law is designed to protect the teen, and therefore the teen cannot break it. The adult, who is reasonably expected to know and follow the laws, does break the law by having sex with someone who is below the age of consent. Different ages are required to be able to consent to different types of activity, because a person must be able to reasonably comprehend the consequences of their actions. Generally, a child below 6 or 7, legally, canno…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:13 PM
1

I saw above that you prescribe the the Overton Window philosophy. Basically, that you just have to be loud enough to cause a scene until the policy cycle comes back into your favor. Here's the caveat with that entire philosophy: You have to have allies to come to bat for you when the cycle swings in your favor. If the majority of the rhetoric coming out of your movement is considered so extreme by the people who are currently in power, then you won't build enough of a following to be able to cas…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 06:04 PM
-1

There is a difference between "extreme," and "different." Advocating that all homosexuals should be stoned to death as according to Old Testament law is an extreme view. Advocating that homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry, because marriage is a legal contract, is different from the status quo.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:48 PM
1

Consent is a legal term, just as much as it's a laymen term. Consent, legally, is a defense that the accused can offer to show why what would generally be treated as a crime is not. It's against the law for someone to walk on my lawn, but if I explicitly give them permission through some action of my own, or implicitly give them permission (for example calling an AC repair person gives implicit consent to let them onto your property to inspect the AC unit), then the actor's trespass is no longer…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:45 PM
0

Do some research on the first gains of feminism, and similarly the civil rights movement. They didn't come out swinging for dominant legislation. All they wanted was equality. They advocated for equal rights that were obviously being denied to them. By doing this, they were able to establish a following and gain legitimacy. A social movement, in its infancy, is almost never able to gain legitimacy from the wider population being touting what appear as extreme viewpoints, and by fighting everyone…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:35 PM
–

Oh my god, ^^ this. So many people around here don't understand that all of their bitching does nothing more than substantiate the claims against them. In contrast, the feminism movement has substantially more people, and more moderate people, who are actively working to support moderate views of gender equality. The extreme viewpoints are less pronounced, and (this is key) the average person doesn't know/care about the extreme views. The average person looks at the extreme views and dismisses t…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:29 PM
2

Excactly, the best graphics are the ones that cite reliable sources Yes that is what makes us better than feminism. No. Making the above statement makes you just the same. Don't argue about "who is better." Be above the petty drama, because it doesn't help anyone. Spend your effort supporting substantive issues.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:22 PM
1

Shhh. Some ignorant fool may come along and try and make a No True Scotsman argument... I really wish we could do something to bring some of the people in this sub around to a more self-reflective attitude.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 04:43 PM
2

They are teachers. Regardless of the age of consent laws in a state, the teachers would still be charged. Also, most age of consent laws still have restrictions on someone until they are 18, that limit the age range of people they are allowed to consent to have sex with. Age of consent laws are more often minimum ages people can consent to sex with one another of similar age without breaking the law, not giving them free reign to start seducing Hugh Heffner.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 04:02 AM
1

I really shouldn't have to clarify that by society, I was talking about democratically elected representatives passing laws to protect minors on behalf of their constituents. You are talking about the general population, which are two entirely different things that are held to two entirely different standards. Also, I've skimmed your comment history. Don't tell me what language I should or should not use, when voicing a frustration with people of this sub (in general) as of late.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 03:56 AM
5

What the fuck is the problem with people around here, and only reading subordinate clauses? Read the entire sentence. Further, put it all in context of the paragraph. Minors can't consent to a lot of things, because we, as society, have deemed them incapable of making those decisions rationally. Immediately following that sentence, I list other things that minors can't do for the same reason. Minors can't smoke. They can't drink. They can't drive without supervision until they are 16, and even t…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 03:25 AM
2

That's not what happened at all. I pointed out why minors can't consent, and then did this really complex thing to make your argument stronger: I provided other examples based on similar reasoning. My entire comment was structured around minors giving consent, not what "society holds to be true."
/r/MensRights03/10/14 02:58 AM
2

Unfortunately, according to the majority of this sub (a society you subscribe to), this only seems to apply to women who are intoxicated. That doesn't mean that drunk men can consent to sex. It means that there is unequal application by prosecutors or grand juries. So maybe intoxicated women are part of a special class which is in need of protection Again, you don't understand what a special class is. Do some basic research on elementary legal theory, and you will understand. As such, why do you…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 02:29 AM
13

You really need to stop talking, because you don't understand what consent means. Minors can't consent to a lot of things, because we, as society, have deemed them incapable of making those decisions rationally. Minors can't smoke. They can't drink. They can't drive without supervision until they are 16, and even then there are restrictions. Minors can't consent to sex with people substantially older than them, because they can't comprehend the ramifications of that decision. Those laws are desi…
/r/MensRights03/10/14 01:52 AM
1

Your argument was based around the fact that allowing women means it is no longer a fraternity, and the word fraternity has been changing for several decades. There are very few examples of words that will be devoid of any change throughout human history. Colors are one of them.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 08:26 PM
1

Then do it, and get the National Panhellinic Council (NPC) to sign off on it, and you will be an accepted, card-carrying member of a traditionally white sorority. Get a different, but same-named organization, the NPHC to sign off on it, and you will be a card-carrying member of a historically black sorority. The fact is simply this, your originalist interpretation of words is completely contrary to the nature and evolution of all languages. Definitions change all of the time, slowly, and that's …
/r/MensRights30/09/14 08:10 PM
1

The point is that the national governing bodies of Greek organizations apparently have no problem with women being members of a fraternity. So, your argument that having women in a fraternity fundamentally alters the definition of a fraternity doesn't hold water. There are also dozens of co-ed professional fraternities. Chi Omega has been around for over a hundred years, and co-ed professional fraternities have been around for decades. If anything, the definition was changed decades ago, not wit…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:58 PM
1

Forcing them to allow women into the fraternity makes it so it is no longer a fraternity. Then how do you explain away the [Chi Omega Fraternity] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Omega)?
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:14 PM
2

The problem that they have with her speech is that regardless of it's content, it is being used as a vehicle to empower a group that some people believe supports sexism and bigotry. So the heforshe element does matter. I agree with your assessment, and don't argue that the connection is important. I just wanted to make clear to everyone who has been arguing against me, that in light of the question presented, the difference between her words and the organization's is important. I also think it's…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 07:02 PM
1

Again, follow the comment chain. First, you have to distinguish what she said from the organization, because most people aren't seeing what the organization says. That's why the average person on Facebook doesn't understand why there is pushback against Watson's speech. Once that's done, then raise the arguments you are making; however, you have to bring the average person to the same level of understanding that you have before you can debate them on the topic. Otherwise, you and the opposing pa…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:51 PM
0

I'll copy my response to this same argument. Follow the comment chain back to the OP. The question was I know she made a pro-feminist speech, but I thought it was extremely moderate and equality driven? The person was asking why there is such a harsh reaction to what she said, which appears to be fairly moderate. In this light, the distinction between Watson's words and HeForShe's mission statement are of utmost importance, because the anger is at her characterization of the issues in light of H…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 03:41 PM
0

Follow the comment chain back to the OP. The question was I know she made a pro-feminist speech, but I thought it was extremely moderate and equality driven? The person was asking why there is such a harsh reaction to what she said, which appears to be fairly moderate. In this light, the distinction between Watson's words and HeForShe's mission statement are of utmost importance, because the anger is at her characterization of the issues in light of HeForShe. So, no. They are not one in the same…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 03:39 PM
-1

I know that there are people who have definitely made arguments like what you posted. And this was the point I was in the process of making: To me, it's actually normal that these type of far extremist beliefs exist given the shear number of feminists, There are extremists in every movement, and it's disingenuous to characterize entire groups based on the extreme ends. Rather than debating, arguably, the most active/extreme members on the internet, people need to take a step back and look into t…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 03:31 PM
0

Sorry, I've been on the defensive throughout this whole thread. I shouldn't have taken that frustration out on you. The point is, BOTH sexes are sexualized when they reach sexual maturity. Yes. But only women are victims, as usual. Not the point she was making. She was talking specifically about young girls. Biologically speaking, young girls are more likely to be sexualized than young boys are. It's not disingenuous to say that we need to focus on stopping the sexualization of young girls, beca…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:56 PM
2

That's cool. So are girls. We are talking about 14 year olds, and not 17/18 year olds. Solid job you did there fundamentally changing the facts to make your argument irrelevant.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:42 PM
-3

You are so far removed from reality. I'm done. If you seriously believe this shit, then do all men a favor and stop arguing in favor of us. You make it harder for reasonable men to work to decrease the inequalities we face in the 1st world, and save the lives of men in the 1st world.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:16 PM
2

Feminists, or some of the radical feminists who are not representative of the average person who identifies as a feminist? Why don't you throw out some links to back up your claims of enslavement.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:10 PM
-2

OH, look! Huge leaps of logic and massive condemnations of the other side. Do you know what you sound like right now? The redeems that you spend so much time talking about. Seriously, take a second to step back and compare what you're saying to what some of those radomes you hate so much. Just change women for men.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:07 PM
1

Yes, let's take comments completely out of context. You are confusing what she said with what the organization said.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:04 PM
1

You completely missed the point.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 12:27 PM
3

You can be done all you want, but realize this: every second you waste arguing about how feminists and feminism are the same thing, you are turning people away. I was talking about that pedantic argument. You can start taking individual sentences out of context of entire paragraphs to fool yourself into thinking you're right, but all you're doing is proving to everyone you disagree with that you are petty, childish, and just want to force your will on others, rather than have a legitimate discou…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 06:04 AM
-6

The fact that Emma Watson got almost universal approval from feminists by encouraging people not to demonize men and to be aware of men's suicide rate means she's done more to further Men's Rights cause than anyone on /r/mensrights. The fact that this so so glaringly obvious and so many people here refuse to see it is really disheartening. I've never been more ashamed too say I'm subscribed to this sub than I have been since her speech. I don't have to agree with the HeForShe movement, or how it…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 05:49 AM
3

How about you get off your pretentious high horse and see that everyone else in the civilized world knows how to separate an idea from its followers, and that you bring down the MRM by flaunting your ignorance every time you start bitching about feminists. Feminism doesn't equal feminists. AND EVEN IF you were factually correct, the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. Like it or not, you have to structure your rhetoric around terms that people fucking understand. Having pedantic arguments…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 05:43 AM
5

If that's the case, then the MRA movement is full of a lot of woman hating right now, and not about pushing forward men's issues. Have you looked around this sub lately? People would rather sit around here and bitch at women all day instead of talking about something relevant. There is a substantial difference between talking about a movement and what it says it stands for, versus what it's members are trying to say it stands for. Christianity's golden fucking rule is "love thy neighbor as thyse…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:54 AM
2

Pointing out a small handful of young men who are sexualized, compared to the larger number of young women who are sexualized, doesn't prove your point though. It just shows that we aren't as readily seen as sexual beings at younger ages. This also makes sense biologically, because girls tend to hit puberty and physically develop earlier than boys do.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 03:31 AM
6

Feminism Men's Rights is repulsive since its etymology only indicates focus on and only on biological women. Do you see how hypocritical you are right now? Shit like this is why the Men's Rights Movement is looked down on. Note: This is coming form someone who believes in the MRM.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 03:26 AM
5

No worries! I feel like I've been playing damage control around here for a week trying to show anyone outside of the sub that not everyone here is batshit crazy. Also, something to point out: her speech was more pro feminism, rather than feminist. Minor but important distinction to make when talking about it, if you want to be technical. I have substantially less problems with feminism as an idea, than I do with feminists as members and activists of a movement. It's similar to the, "I like your …
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:18 AM
31

Take anything said here with a grain of salt, and just watch the speech. It's around 10 minutes long. basically, what she said isn't unreasonable. Everyone is just up in arms because it turns out the organization she said the speech advertising for is called HeforShe, and it is focused solely on women. Watson speech, on the other hand, mentioned sexism faced by both men and women, while merely leaning towards a more women's focused view. All in all, it's a bit of both, but people around here are…
/r/MensRights30/09/14 01:09 AM
0

And if I was writing a paper for publication or an English professor, then I would have stopped to think about the grammar rule. Instead, I was writing quickly, and wrote for clarity. I really love the grammar nazi's, who have nothing better to add to a discussion than a critique on someone's grammar, when there is no confusion in the content of their post.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 09:21 PM
1

It didn't use to be this way. I swear. it's just gotten ridiculous since Emma Watson's speech. Hopefully, it will die down again soon.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:26 PM
5

Apparently. It's pretty disgusting. I feel like I spend more time here defending women now than actually talking about men's issues. It's fucking pathetic.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:24 PM
1

I can't tell if you are disagreeing with me or not... There is a difference between using patriarchy to describe a societal make-up or impression, and saying that it is an active force. Patriarchy was originally intended to be an academic descriptor, not a force in and of itself.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:22 PM
2

That's not true at all. and that the actions were willful, wanton or malicious. "Willful and wanton" essentially means "negligently," which is the lowest standard for tort law like that. The radio station either had to willfully and wantonly act negligently in regards to the actions, or they had to act with malicious intent towards the plaintiff. Anytime you see an article talking about a law, pay attention to the conectors. There's a major difference between commas, semi-colons, colons, periods…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:19 PM
2

I wish this were higher. So many people don't understand how this stuff works, and then blame the judicial system. When, instead, they should be looking at the legislature to change things.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:14 PM
2

Exactly. Also, she only got 250k for actual damages. The rest were punitive damages. AKA, the court spanking the radio station for what they did. The station also posted her name on their website, which likely caused the damages to shoot up. Beyond that, this is a federal court, and they aren't known for being lenient in their judgments.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:13 PM
1

When most people talk about the patriarchy, they are referring to one of two things, if not both: the systemic nature of male prominence in positions of legislative and financial power for several centuries, or the social belief that men must be strong, emotionless, providers, while women must simultaneously be weak, submissive, housekeepers. Any person who seriously believes that there is a society or organization of men that make up the "Patriarchy," (note the capital P) are astoundingly ignor…
/r/MensRights29/09/14 08:03 PM
7

You're using that word, "right." I don't think it means what you think it means. Regardless, there's nothing stopping you from wearing something like that, as others have noted.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 02:18 PM
0

i made no sweeping accusations, and I quote: its almost like they wanted to shut downs mens spaces only when it couldn't impact womens spaces. Are you seriously trying to say that your statement isn't easily read as an accusation? not exactly a balanced response with that thrown in, especially considering i do not identify as an MRA I don't either, but you have to assume, unless you state otherwise, that people will think you are when posting on this sub. Regardless, other people will read respo…
/r/MensRights28/09/14 05:18 PM
3

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I have a problem with something like this: its almost like they wanted to shut downs mens spaces only when it couldn't impact womens spaces. It's ridiculously speculative, and steers the conversation towards chasing boogeymen rather than actually discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of such a policy.
/r/MensRights28/09/14 05:11 PM
1

If you don't have knowledge of the system, then don't make such sweeping accusations. The reason /u/locknuts pointed out that they were residential fraternities was important. The house is either owned by the university or on land owned by the university. I wasn't being passive aggressive. I was straight up calling you out on chasing down a conspiracy, rather than actually thinking it through. but i guess your an american so you cannot see anything beyond your national bubble. And now you are Am…
/r/MensRights28/09/14 04:48 PM
-5

Or it could be because the sororities don't have houses owned by the university, and the university can't make that decision for them. You can't claim that there is discrimination against men, when it is literally impossible for the university to apply the same standard to women. Seriously, crap like this is why MRA's get so much shit. You're hunting ghosts instead of making logical analogies or conclusions. Edit: I'll add my response to a [different comment] (http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/…
/r/MensRights28/09/14 04:32 PM
0

I didn't say that. Read more carefully before fighting with straw man arguments. Except that is exactly what you said. "Why do you think we still have male gender roles? Because women want them. No other reason. " Reread your own post before saying that I am building a straw man argument. Second, The reason I based my entire argument around traditional gender roles is because you said this: Once there is a critical mass of women who gravitate towards a certain kind of man, The entire thread is a…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 08:17 PM
–

Because women want them. No other reason. It also has nothing to do with other men idolizing the "man's man," and perpetuating the stereotype themselves, right? /s Any argument that women are the sole and only reason for male gender roles is incredibly naive, and shows that you may be a person who is more intent to blame single sources for complex problems, rather than take a step back and try to look at something objectively. coupled with the leverage women have in the dating world To say that …
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:40 PM
2

You're taking one sentence from my entire post, and losing the forest for the trees. Are you saying that a housewife can't argue against traditional gender roles, because she and her husband decided to live that way? Arguing against gender roles is about giving people the choice. I don't have to be a smoker to argue for the rights of people to smoke. She doesn't have to want to date a quiet reserved man to advocate for mens ability to choose to be quiet and reserved.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 05:37 PM
–

There's a difference between disagreeing with the need of gender roles and stereotypes, and choosing to live by them, or be attracted to aspects attributed to one. I have absolutely no problem with women in the workforce and having a career; however, there is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to be a housewife. In that same vein, Emma can believe that men don't have to be aggressive, but that doesn't mean that she, personally, isn't attracted to someone being "bold," to use her words. The whol…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 05:20 PM
1

As long as you are in the same state, you should be fine. Your attorney may need to file everything in that county's court, but you could have a New York Attorney who is representing you in California, so long as that person has passed the California bar exam. It wouldn't hurt to try and get a free consultation with a local family law attorney to try and set you on the right path, if nothing else.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 10:07 AM
1

Entire subreddits don't get banned for that shit. The people who do it are banned.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 10:13 PM
2

I'm disappointed to hear anyone say they don't need to go and expand their knowledge on a subject. I'll clarify. I don't need to check my history about my specific point. There is always more to learn and new perspectives or hypotheticals to analyze. I'm saying that history is on my side regarding what gender has primarily held positions of power (regardless of the reason why), and that leads to a homogenization of thought, because each gender has a unique perspective that the other one will nev…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 09:14 PM
2

I'm torn philosophically. On the one hand, I agree with you. It would definitely lead to more moderate candidates. But is that a good thing? Should we really be so afraid of radical ideas that they are never given a chance to be tested in the court of public opinion by those who most readily identify with that philosophy? Hypothetical: I'm not black/African American (whatever the fuck you want to call it. That's a completely different discussion and idk what's PC anymore), and would have a shit …
/r/MensRights29/08/14 09:06 PM
1

Never would have noticed. I was buzzed as hell when I typed that last night. Thanks for the heads up.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:58 PM
–

are ENCOURAGED Citation needed
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:57 PM
0

If there is a problem in enforcement, than take that up with the moderators, but a rule like this is inherently neutral. Also, SJW stuff is much more likely to be inflammatory, rude, hurtful, and possibly illegal, which is why it is nipped in the bud much more quickly then anything else. There's a big difference between /r/pokemon raiding /r/digimon for fun, and political subreddits raiding each other out of spite or frustration.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 08:56 PM
3

That's not at all what I'm talking about. Looking at just the US: who wrote the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and every other law for the majority of our existence? Men did. Specifically, white men, were the ones who have done the majority of it. Women couldn't even vote until the early 20th century. Just as systemic racism is a serious problem, the same can be said about sexism. Societal structure isn't just about "who has power," because it is inevitably a small handful, but within the structu…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 01:16 PM
–

if you want equality and an end to bullshit, you need to break down any (false) sense of exclusivity I agree with everything you said, I don't really think our philosophies differ that much (just from this brief exchange). Your quote above is why I consider myself an egalitarian, because I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with each group looking out for itself. The problem I do have is the demonization of the other group at every twist and turn. There are women's rights issues. Ther…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 05:11 AM
14

I agree, it's just disheartening. If most high school or college aged men are this cynical, rude, and flippant towards the other side, then we will never get anywhere. Stop fighting fire with fire, and try to put the damn thing out for once. This antagonistic behavior is only breeding more and more young radical feminists, who see any sort of MR activism as thinly veiled misogyny, rather than the perfectly reasonable activism that it actually is. They will grow older, solidify their beliefs, and…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 04:53 AM
–

It's not about silencing dissent. you only see it that way because of the context of this subreddit. The rule is to prevent members of any subreddit from raiding another and manipulating the discussion, as well as the votes, to be in their favor. That type of behavior has a negative impact on any community that might be tangentially associated with the raid, as well as the Reddit community as a whole. It's the same thing as democrats all going to vote in a republican primary in order to screw up…
/r/MensRights29/08/14 04:49 AM
1

I'm sure I have before, but it's so rare to see it reported on. Granted, I don't have statistics. Just throwing out there that seeing a news report and it actually happening are different. That being said, this was a super easy, open and shut case. It's probably not deemed worth it by most PD's or DA's. They probably only had to pay for the filing fees and a few hours of man power to get everything they needed to get a judge to rule on it.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 06:11 PM
3

Or she knows exactly what it is, and that's why she is so explicit in her CL post so that she can actually lure a victim into her (incredibly dumb) trap.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 03:16 AM
3

It's a non-representative, selective, sample. Yeah. I definitely have some issues with the methodology. They may have polled enough people, but dear lord the rest of the methodology, not even counting the questions we can't look at, make me very skeptical of this entire article.
/r/MensRights25/08/14 09:37 PM
6

I would be much more interested in seeing his attorney. What the hell kind of attorney can't get evidence in that gives an accurate representation of his financial status?
/r/MensRights23/08/14 02:40 AM
–

I'm going to paste the same thing I said the last time this quote popped up on this sub... Did anyone take time to research a single quote taken out of context? Of course, that quote is ludicrous. It was also from 1998 in El Salvador, a country that was a few years out of a decade long civil war, to a group of women about combating domestic violence. Let's look at the paragraph that contains this quote and the one directly following, The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comp…
/r/MensRights14/08/14 09:13 PM
-1

Look, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, because I don't think you give a damn about objectivity. But assuming he did commit those crimes, then he would have been a potential risk of harm to others in the community, as well as a flight risk. That is why he was in jail for four months. Just because someone may not have committed a crime, that doesn't mean that they can't be detained until sufficient evidence has ben procured that they won't run or commit another crime. If this was any …
/r/MensRights01/08/14 02:03 AM
-1

Falsely accusing someone isn't a potential risk of harm to others. he was accused of raping, bashing, abusing, intimidating and unlawfully confining her. Are you seriously trying to say that, IF he had actually done what he was accused of, he poses just as much of a risk to society as her? because that's ridiculous. Lying and falsely accusing someone is a terrible terrible thing, but it's not the same as physical acts of violence, sexual violence, and unwilling detainment.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 07:33 PM
-4

You're innocent until proven guilty, but the burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff. This is how the court system works, until the charges are dropped.
/r/MensRights31/07/14 04:25 PM
–

and should be thrown in the trash That's not true. There is still valuable data to be found, but it all needs to be framed in context of the limitations of the study, which it doesn't look like the authors or anyone reporting on the study did.
/r/MensRights20/07/14 12:12 AM
1

But do not dare pull that holier than thou thing here in public when your favorite myth is debunked. I'm not, and it's not my favorite myth. Just scrolling through that list, the majority of them were published in the early 2000s. Without taking the time to even attempt to read any of the actual studies, limitations, methodologies, etc., there are a couple of things to take into account. I don't deny that men are more likely to not be believed during a domestic dispute and face jail time. At all…
/r/MensRights29/06/14 07:55 PM
0

An actual quote by me, "I'm not going to sit here and argue with you until you produce the specific study you (or the OP) are using, because I'm not going to argue in hypotheticals without being able to look at the study and its methodology."
/r/MensRights29/06/14 07:40 PM
0

You mean the one that is 2 hours old, and links to a /r/news article that is 6 hours old? Yeah, thanks. If it's so easy to find, then why didn't you link it? I'm not going to sit here and argue with you until you produce the specific study you (or the OP) are using, because I'm not going to argue in hypotheticals without being able to look at the study and its methodology.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 07:20 PM
–

which we now know is perpetrated and initative by women more than it is by men Then cite it And based on outdated, biases, incomplete, and thoroughly debunked statistics on domestic violence. When did it become outdated? Because if it's after November of 1998, then she was still using the best information she had as the First Lady. I'm just saying, don't sit here and tell me she was intentionally trying to do something, when the common understanding at the time was substantially different than i…
/r/MensRights29/06/14 06:58 PM
3

but what's curious to me is how someone like you, with a functional cortex, ends up on /r/MensRights[1] at all. Because I have a functional cortex. I don't think that feminism gives a damn about men's rights. At the end of the day, women's issues and men's issues (if someone truly cares about gender equity) are not mutually exclusive, and both should be given the time of day without ridicule. Are there some shitty people in both movements? Yes, but bringing men's rights to a level where it is lo…
/r/MensRights29/06/14 06:51 PM
7

To add to that, this is a quote from 1998, and women weren't allowed into combat roles until January of 2013.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 12:54 PM
3

You're welcome! What concerns me is that I found the exact speech because the OP posted the link. She mentions war more than once so I decided to google El Salvador to see what war she was referring to. It all kind of fell into place with a skim of the speech and 3 minutes of basic research. I just wish more people would take a little bit of time researching anything "radical" that someone, especially a public official, says. Context is so important to everything. If you've ever seen the movie T…
/r/MensRights29/06/14 12:30 PM
–

The only word I object too that Clinton used is the the word primary, but I appreciate and agree with the general sentiment conveyed. Then I would encourage you to look at the rest of the speech, because you seem open to actual thought, and not just brandishing a pitchfork. She gave this speech in 1998 to El Salvadori women about standing up against domestic violence. The country was a few years out of a decade long civil war, and she was trying to use the emotions they had about the war to empo…
/r/MensRights29/06/14 12:16 PM
0

Or this could be a quote from 1998 when she was speaking to a group of El Salvadori women about domestic violence, 5 or 6 years after their country was ravished by a 12 year civil war.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 12:10 PM
–

This is tagged for discussion, so we will see how well this goes. Did anyone take time to research a single quote taken out of context? Of course, that quote is ludicrous. It was also from 1998 in El Salvador, a country that was a few years out of a decade long civil war, to a group of women about combating domestic violence. Let's look at the paragraph that contains this quote and the one directly following, The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens wi…
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:02 AM
9

Really? I didn't realize it made the default list during the last round of changes.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 02:58 AM
0

It had nothing to go with her being a young woman, but everything to do with her age. He wasn't being misogynistic at all. He was talking about how capable an 18 year old is in comparison to a 30 year old. Of course they can make mature decisions, but that doesn't mean they will be good decisions or that they will see through someone else's bullshit. Three weeks ago, that 18 year old had to ask to go to the bathroom, and now you suddenly think they have the life experience to be able to have an …
/r/MensRights04/06/14 07:14 AM
17

Assault is never okay. Even jokingly suggesting it (which in not sure you were) is okay, regardless of gender. This is part of the reason why MRA's get shit from the general populace.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 01:15 PM
0

When talking about something to people who don't deal with it every day, and only see sensationalized news stories, semantics are pretty damn important. If you do nothing but further the misrepresentation they are fed by the media, then you are doing them, and the system, a grave disservice, whether you like the system or not. Imagine my first response when asking about MRA's was from someone who had such a dismissive attitude as you, and I took it at face value? I'd have a gross misrepresentati…
/r/MensRights21/04/14 02:18 PM
0

That seems like gross hyperbole. In any massive system, especially with multiple humans involved in every step, there are bound to be massive fuck ups anywhere. There may be particular judicial decisions or philosophical distinctions that are troubling to me, but the system, as a whole, works pretty much as it was intended. Saying that someone is disgusted with the system (as you did) and disgusted with particular people or components of the system are very different.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 09:27 AM
1

Because the US, unlike the rest of the developed world, doesn't understand that the employees are people too, and do not get to dictate their life decisions. They don't understand that having leave to help properly nurture a newborn helps better the entire nation, not just one company. But America doesn't, because, ya know, freedom and 'Murica.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 08:20 AM
2

The nine month response is from further up in the thread. Learn to read before trying to call me out for shit that makes sense in context.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 01:54 AM
-1

What do you think maternity leave is? it's not given willy-nilly just by the kindness of an employer's heart.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 08:31 PM
–

Pregnancy isn't "a poor decision." Pregnancy is the way we maintain our species. Maternity leave isn't about giving someone a vacation for 9 months (which isn't even close to a reality in any job I have ever encountered,) it's about letting the mother go home to keep from putting undue strain on the baby and then allow for time for the mother's body to recover and caring for the newborn child. This sub exists to promote equal rights for men, Then learn to do it respectfully. You get nowhere talk…
/r/MensRights05/04/14 08:30 PM
2

Ideally, expecting fathers should be just as risky to hire as expecting moms, by granting fathers the same paternity leave rules that mothers get. This is the discussion that needs to be had.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 08:22 PM
-1

Source. I've worked with plenty of women who have taken their maternity leave and have returned to work. What do you consider "large?" and also, what field were they working in? Edit: source was not meant to imply "this is my source," but rather, "what is your source?"
/r/MensRights05/04/14 08:20 PM
–

This is ridiculous. If you could get pregnant, you would want job security too. What you're espousing right now is male elitism, similar to feminism espousing female elitism. That's not what we are here for. The point is to find ways to make as much of the world as gender neutral as possible. But that doesn't mean that every gender is not unique and has specific circumstances that should be accounted for.
/r/MensRights05/04/14 05:40 PM
2

No worries. It would take some research on my part, but I would be willing to bet that the rhetoric involved with similar social movements was calmer. Rather than spending more time blaming and pointing fingers, things started changing/getting done when the people they were pointing fingers at were ignored and more emphasis was placed on the actual issues at hand. In the case of MRA's, spend less time fighting with SJW's and radfems. Instead try and form allies with moderate feminists who are ac…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 03:01 AM
0

I don't think so....I agree that we have a huge hill to climb if the loudest most radical voices are portrayed as the norm, though. Maybe I've just had a lot of really bad experiences here, but it unless someone is brandishing pitchforks at the drop of a hat, then they aren't welcome. This conversation and entire post is a very pleasant exception in my experience. I'm not sure what my post had to do with all of this though. It goes back up the comment thread about the whole civility thing. While…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:48 AM
2

They may have acknowledged it, but look through the whole chain. Not trying to be rude/argumentative. Just trying to explain my line of reasoning. /u/Raudskeggr A person on the internet was purposefully lying in order to generate support for their hate-speech agenda. So fuck that, mild name-calling is fair enough. /u/MakhSC You have no direct evidence whatsoever to support your claim. All you know is some person posted an infographic. The claim that the person who posted it created it. /u/Mister…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 02:05 AM
-4

it doesn't matter whether or not the moderate feminists are intentionally spewing misinformation But it does. I know and agree that there are things being done very deliberately by those who control the discourse, but being combative and rude doesn't help MRA's. I keep meaning to write out a long post about this, but just don't have the time. Quickly though, MRA is a reactionary movement to feminism. The origins of feminism aren't necessarily evil, and did a lot of good for gender equality. The …
/r/MensRights20/03/14 01:59 AM
–

I assumed not. It was primarily a hypothetical question to get the other person to think. Just because I can upload/share a picture onto the internet, that doesn't mean that I'm the one who made it.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 01:18 AM
-4

Did you miss the "end sarcasm." You're right. Some of them do, but not all of them. Dare say, the majority of them don't intentionally. Being duped by misinformation is very different from producing it. Rather than giving the person who posted or shared the content the benefit of the doubt (that they may be duped by the misinformation) is met with hostility here. Even mentioning the fact that we should treat people civilly is often met with even more ridiculous hate rhetoric, regardless of the c…
/r/MensRights20/03/14 01:16 AM
–

Was the person who posted the infographic the one who actually created it? A ton of shit gets shared across the internet without any real knowledge of who the creator was. Unless you know for a fact that the person created the infograph they are posting, jumping down their throat isn't the best course of action. They could be just as misinformed as anyone else. If you aren't looking closely, you miss the fact that the men get smaller. I know I missed it until it was pointed out to me.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 12:59 AM
–

Don't come in here talking sense. It'll get you nowhere. Trying to explain that no one will take you seriously when you talk shit about anyone who disagrees with you is a bad move seems to be the best way to heap downvotes upon yourself. After all, every feminist is evil, trying to destroy men, and purposefully spewing misinformation to push their own agenda..../s Heaven forbid there are people with actual brains who can comprehend a logical argument when presented with factual information in a …
/r/MensRights20/03/14 12:55 AM
-1

Lol. You waited until someone else found a source before you tried to counter my claim that you were going for a social-jerk. Sorry, but that does even more to convince me.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 12:51 AM
-2

Maybe it was a typo when earlier it said /Irony /Sarcasm /Peed Off I'm sorry. Are we reading the same conversation. All my initial post said was that your comment was irrelevant and you proceeded to hotly jump down my throat proclaiming that I think Reddit needs to be focused on the US. You also then ignored your previous post altogether, and brought up a separate argument, which I agreed was relevant. You now accuse me of being patronizing when your first response was far from civil. So the OP …
/r/MensRights17/03/14 04:00 PM
-4

Let's take a moment and step back. This article was posted to get a circle jerk going about how women get better treatment than men do in the prison system, with an intentionally misleading headline. /u/ImNotIntoPokemon posted that he is actually fine with what happened in this case, because as long as people of both genders get the same treatment, this was the right decision by the court. Cue your entrance... You come into a thread about courts in the US and dealing with chronic health issues. …
/r/MensRights17/03/14 01:08 PM
-2

I'm sorry, but that is completely irrelevant to the article with which this comment was directed. This is talking about people who suffer from extreme illness, outside of what prisons are typically equipped to handle in the US.
/r/MensRights17/03/14 12:15 PM
2

Did you read the TL;DR? girls need to be careful consenting. To decide whether or not to consent, one must first understand it. Regardless, neither gender at that age has an appropriate understanding of consent. My response was directed specifically at the two quotes provided, not at the entire article. traditional dating protocol does not apply to rape So are you saying that someone giving consent while heavily intoxicated is rape? I think not. Men ask women out. Men go for the first kiss. Men …
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:07 PM
5

Traditionally, men pursue women, and there's no getting around that. Until that culturally changes, the author is saying that boys need to understand consent much more thoroughly, both ethically and legally. Having sex with a 15/16 year old kid (even if you're the same age) is always risky. Add alcohol into the mix, and it can get hairy fast. Teach young boys to use common sense, and that it's probably better to wait until one or both of you aren't drunk to get down and dirty. Young girls can of…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 07:23 PM
6

no no no. What group of people are the dye-haired fatties? Don't skirt around the question like a child. Own up to your prejudice like a mature adult.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:32 PM
2

Then who are the dye-haired fatties you were talking about?
/r/MensRights13/03/14 03:26 PM
-2

You're disregarding the key word in my post, should. I acknowledged that feminism is currently putting men down, rather than raising women up. Reread my post carefully before dismissing my argument, because an argument based in should cannot be dismissed summarily as invalid, based on the current state of affairs. Should necessarily implies that what is cannot not stand, and that changes must occur. edit: Also, you fundamentally misunderstand gender if you think that feminism works in a spectrum…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 01:14 PM
6

Just because a diehard won't change their views doesn't mean that those types of arguments won't get a dozen other people to think critically. Remember, when you argue on a public forum, hundreds more see the discussion than who comment or "like" it. The point in arguing with the diehard believers is never to change their mind, but the other person who is reading and might not have seen that line of reasoning before.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:26 AM
7

Because referring to feminists as "dye-haired fatties@ is a productive means of conversation and a great way for MRA's to be taken seriously. Do us all a favor and stop talking. You don't grow a movement that is already looked down upon by feeding into the stereotype. Either take the high road or go home. There's no room for people with your attitude here.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:17 AM
-3

"Then they should actually do something about it" Except they shouldn't. Hear me out. Gender is a spectrum, and although the feminists have been welcoming of the LGBT community, eventually their support will grow enough that they will branch off. You have feminists on one extreme of the gender spectrum, LGBT in the middle, and MRA on the other extreme. Each section of the spectrum should do the arguing for their own issues, and leave the others alone. Don't actively impede anything the others ar…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 08:09 AM
–

Those questions are irrelevant though. He's a person, who has a particular skill set, and likes to teach it to others. Maybe he doesn't like dealing with boys attitudes, maybe girls are more enthusiastic. It doesn't matter. He has just as much right to be there as anyone else, especially since he's a coach, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 07:24 PM
5

This position drives me nuts. Feminism should be about fixing the inequalities women face, without creating new inequalities for men. That doesn't mean that they should use their political power to bargain for men's rights as well. Gender equality has room for what a feminist should be, and men's rights activists. The differences in the inequalities the genders face is great enough that each gender is actually able to better accumulate political power separately rather than together. The problem…
/r/MensRights23/02/14 06:02 PM
1

Because he is ignoring the fact that regardless of what should be happening, it's not. We all should have adequate access to healthcare in the United States without fear of debt, but that's not the case. People should not drink and drive, but they do. Talking about the world as it should be is useless. You have to take the world as it is.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 02:42 AM
-4

You can't deny the patriarchy as a societal description, which is what it was intended to be. You can't deny that for the majority of human history, men have dominated leadership roles and subjugated women. This patriarchal society is what has led to the majority of gender inequality on both sides. The patriarchy created the dominant, non-feeling, manly man, just as it created the soft-spoken, supple, subservient. The problems arose when militant, anti-men, feminists started getting the term int…
/r/MensRights30/01/14 01:55 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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