TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tactsweater Archive

View 5 posts and 279 comments by tactsweater 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)
8

And this is, in and of itself, an advantage women have over men. Society has collectively decided to focus entirely on women's problems and ignore men's problems. Both men and women do this.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/12/20 05:01 PM
2

Ever think maybe there's a good reason for that? Her career choice is irrelevant. Trying to point that out over what she's saying is a logical fallacy at best. If she self-identifies as a feminist and supports gender equality while feminists try to argue that's all it takes to be one, then this is, in and of itself, a legitimate reason to shit on conclusions from the feminist movement. And if it's that easy to find one, maybe there are more. Maybe there are even many, many more.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/11/20 06:08 PM
1

Actually, I think it's applied pretty consistently. It's just not applied according to how feminists might tell you it's being applied. If you ignore what they say the definition is though and only look at who is actually considered a feminist and who's not, I think you'll find the real definition to be "one who supports feminist theory".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/20 03:53 PM
2

That's kind of the point. She's not considered a feminist by the overwhelming majority of feminists even though she self-identifies as a feminist and supports gender equality. Without even going any further, what that means is there's a huge disconnect between what many feminists will define feminism as (do you believe men and women should be equal?), and what they actually demonstrate they believe it is in practice.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/20 12:39 PM
2

There are different kinds of feminists because there are different branches and those branches don't always agree, but the core of feminism, which I think you're referring to, is feminist theory. The only group of self-identified feminists which doesn't support feminist theory is equity feminism, headed by Christina Hoff Sommers, and for that reason, they've actually been disowned by all other branches. That and feminist theory itself defines feminism differently. So there's no way to argue it's…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/11/20 02:01 AM
4

It's a rationalization used to justify sexism. Really nothing more. Fundamentally, it's not that different from claiming some group is inferior, so it's ok to discriminate against them. Instead, we have a group pinned as always being in power, whether they are or not, so it's ok to discriminate against them. The only reason anyone would want to rationalize this is to continue being sexist with impunity.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/10/20 10:41 AM
2

The same reasons anyone would benefit from control over anyone else. I'm unsure why that would be the part you're stuck on, but if you control others, you can get them to do things for you or prevent them from causing problems for you.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/20 08:54 PM
2

I mean, that part is at least *possible*. Slaves have existed before, and the benefit is fairly obvious, but slaves or even just "oppressed groups" have nearly always existed as a group of "others" brought into a dominant culture or at least people from the same culture with a drastically lower socioeconomic position. Patriarchy is presented as happening *across* socioeconomic lines, so rich women are still "oppressed", and always were. This is asinine in the extreme. It goes against every model…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/20 05:12 PM
3

Patriarchy "theory" (hypothesis) is literally impossible. It would break everything we know about memetics and, considering the technology level of ancient people, would break the conservation of energy. It's not just those things. In feminism, patriarchy is presented as a socially driven system of oppression for the benefit of men at the expense of women. Think about how every other culture and religion and social norm spread in history. It started in some place, competed against opposing memes…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/10/20 05:36 AM
1

Ok, so you agree that none of this is from socialization. From there, you already disagree with feminist canon, so I guess my work here is done. Clearly, you want to rope me into an emotionally charged competition about who had things hardest in times long before you were born, and I won't have that, but while you're lamenting the ancient past, do remember how men were pressed into hard labor and military service against their will. Countless many lost their lives, and probably to improve the li…
/r/MensRights21/07/19 02:06 AM
1

Socialization is information. It follows all the same rules that other forms of information must follow. There must be a physical means by which the information can travel and propagate. If no such pathway exists, then information cannot travel, and you must accept that the results you're seeing come from something else.
/r/MensRights21/07/19 01:34 AM
1

None of this follows from my previous comment, so I'd ask you to go reread it, because I'm guessing you didn't understand it. multiple unrelated societies were going after anyone who didn't believe in their local gods. This has nothing to do with any socialized information, so I'm really confused why you'd try to use it. Humans tend to oppose deviation from established societal norms. If the context is a pagan theocracy, then heretics will be punished. Since many unrelated societies do this, and…
/r/MensRights21/07/19 12:43 AM
1

This is literally impossible. One society in one time period can oppress a group of people. If you identify actions as "oppressive" for groups within multiple societies that had no contact with each other, as was the case with most societies throughout most of history, then there's no physical avenue for the information to be transferred. The only possibilities are that oppression never occurred, or that one group is objectively better than another. Are you saying that men are objectively better…
/r/MensRights20/07/19 10:33 PM
14

It's almost like she thinks he's a vending machine you put kindness coins into until sex falls out.
/r/MensRights03/09/16 09:18 AM
3

I was on the fence about feminism for a while. Some of what they said sounded ok, but something was .... amiss. I couldn't place it, so I looked more into feminist theory. Immediately, I thought large portions of it were batshit insane, so I wanted to know if anyone else drew similar conclusions.
/r/MensRights22/07/14 06:33 AM
2

I tend to vote Democrat, but that doesn't mean by any stretch that I agree with everything the party does.
/r/MensRights19/07/14 03:27 AM
2

Will do, and fair enough.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 12:55 PM
2

I actually agree, but I'm sure you understand I'd need a little more than this to change my view. I may not be the foremost American history expert, but I have checked into this.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 12:50 PM
1

Got a source? Conscription was pretty common during the Civil War. Moreso for the Confederacy, but they later became a large part of the US, so I'd find it hard to deny that as American history.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 12:39 PM
3

I'm aware of the historical context for women's suffrage in America (thanks GWW). I get that it was originally a way to reward men who survived military service, and that women were just given the vote without any comparable responsibility. Personally, I'd say it's about time to require women to sign up for selective service, but conscription seems pretty unlikely anyway. In any case, I wasn't trying to speak for everyone. Just posting what I see.
/r/MensRights13/07/14 06:28 AM
9

Contrary to what you might have heard, I think you'll find the vast majority here actually do support women's rights. The details might be different, but you'd be hard pressed to find an MRA that doesn't think women should be able to vote or work in the field of her choice. This alone is one of my major issues with feminism. It seems they just can't accept that women's rights could possibly exist without unquestioning belief in an ancient world-spanning conspiracy. a point where we have groups t…
/r/MensRights13/07/14 05:33 AM
2

Objectification comes down to agency. It actually does exist as feminists suggest, but it also really requires context to make any kind of judgement about. With that in mind, it gets a huge amount of attention by trying to force all instances of it into a predefined mold, and even inventing context where it doesn't exist. Case in point. Go ahead and look this up on google. Remember the quotes. "I want to be objectified" You'll find that many people actually want to be acted upon, which is curiou…
/r/MensRights12/07/14 12:43 AM
2

It seems utterly monolithic, how do you go about chipping away at that attitude? I'm not sure there is a way, because it's been true throughout most of history, and to a large extent, is still true. With a few exceptions, prostitutes are typically women with male clients. That's about as open market as it gets.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 11:06 PM
1

Oh sorry. This kind of thing makes me upset. It's not meant for you.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 09:03 PM
3

It's not even just that. Not identifying the source of the problem is, in fact, a good thing. It's called intellectual integrity. If you don't know what the problem is, you have no business conjuring up a bogeyman. The correct answer in this instance is "I don't know". Say it with me.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 12:22 AM
4

I'd like to know how they're measuring "entitlement", because the men in this study don't sound entitled at all. It sounds more like they've been manipulated and deceived by women and so have a view of them as being manipulative, deceptive, and untrustworthy. Not that all women are these things, but that's just about the opposite of entitlement. On the other hand, "needing extra care" is just about the definition of entitlement.
/r/MensRights05/07/14 12:01 AM
2

Women will rediscover MEN with compassion, understanding, and the ability to get what you need from them with less effort and more satisfaction for both of you. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on this. You could call phrasing, but it seems more like they intend this to be about women getting what they want and need from the relationship in ways that benefit everyone. If that's what it is, then I don't see anything wrong with it. People go into relationships because they want or need som…
/r/MensRights04/07/14 03:02 AM
-1

That's more or less the gist of my view. Both sides have their points, and that's a whole other discussion for a different thread on a different day. The problem here is that they've argued their view so badly to the point of ironic absurdity.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 04:43 AM
5

It's intended to be a smug response to pro lifers. In reality though, women have all the choice here while men have none, so it ends up being a better argument for the other side.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:32 PM
10

... considering men don't have a choice.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 11:26 PM
2

Kind of a shame, because they've got a decent and interesting game. I'm also not real sure where they're going with this: we're a fairly left-wing group, and we don't hide our politics or claim to be unbiased. I'd say I'm "fairly left-wing", and there's no real shortage of conservative feminists either, so the only conclusion I can then draw here is just that they have no idea what they're talking about. That combined with the "open and inclusive" hypocrisy makes this whole thing come off as ign…
/r/MensRights27/06/14 09:33 PM
0

It wasn't sampled properly though. aged 18 to 22 It may not be totally meaningless, but it's very hard to say this age group for this study translates into all women as a group.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 06:12 PM
3

There are a few different types of feminism, that much is true. Could you give some examples of types that don't agree with concepts like patriarchy, rape culture, or gender as a social construct? I think you'd find that we're left with equity feminism, which is rejected by the vast majority.... and that's about it.
/r/MensRights21/06/14 11:31 PM
6

It's a matter of paradigm. The possible options are either chivalry or equal treatment. Not both.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 04:30 AM
3

Could someone possibly explain how this start from a position of believing women doesn't conflict with this without prejudice to a fair and impartial investigation ?
/r/MensRights16/06/14 12:10 AM
1

Yeah maybe. I'll take the hit for a bad analogy.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:54 PM
1

Right. It seems like semantics to me though. I guess the question remains if that counts as "oppression", which is usually understood to have an oppressor/oppressed dynamic. Personally, I like TracyMorganFreeman's explanation much better, but I think we can all agree it was shit for everyone.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 07:19 PM
1

Actually it's not my model. I was arguing against this model using its own terminology.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:58 PM
1

That was a joke.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 06:53 PM
-1

Well, I can kind of see this if you're going with the "everyone was oppressed" line of reasoning, but my own usage of the word here, and the one I see as most common, requires a defined "oppressor" class. I could even maybe agree that it's possible I'm assuming others use the word with an assumed oppressor/oppressed dynamic when they're not, but frankly, I don't think that's likely in this case.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 10:34 AM
2

Women as a class oppressing men as a class would require the same thing as the reverse. A culture would have to come up with it, and then somehow spread the meme to other cultures. The big difference is that it's at least possible for that kind of thing to happen now, what with global communications. I'm not sure if I'd call what's going on now to be a "Matriarchy" though, in part because the concept of worldwide oppression for thousands of years is just so asinine I really don't want anything t…
/r/MensRights24/05/14 08:58 AM
18

I think it's hard to blame them on this. There's plenty of research to show gender symmetry in domestic violence, but most of what actually gets published suppresses that reality. I still think you should bring it to their attention with some stats; I just think it's hard to blame someone for holding a position based on the biased or faulty evidence they might have been fed. The real monsters here are the people that suppressed the research in the first place.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 01:22 AM
5

Men and women each have issues that the other side doesn't have to worry about as much, but to some extent, trans people have to deal with both sides simultaneously, as well as additional stuff for being trans. It's a little more complicated than that.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 08:26 AM
0

Are cats oppressed? They can't own property, or decide who they get to live with. None of what you're describing is oppression. Sorry. Throughout most of human history, we had a couple of hard truths that needed to be faced. The strength of a society is largely based on its population, and women can increase that population, while men can't. This meant that if a society needs to lose one or the other, they're going to send the man off to die nearly every time. Another hard truth throughout most …
/r/MensRights15/05/14 05:29 PM
1

Ah, but then it's not a social construct. Bravo! You've just dismantled rape culture, and about half of feminist "theory".
/r/MensRights14/05/14 09:00 PM
1

I have about five minutes right now, so I'm going to respond to as much of this as I can in that amount of time. A cultural meme is information that gets developed over time, rather than just magically coming into existence. When I talked about the name "Bill Smith", I was using one (intentionally anachronistic) example of a cultural meme which actually works very well to illustrate the point I'm making. The fundamental act of naming something can't be claimed as a social construct because all c…
/r/MensRights14/05/14 08:36 PM
1

Not only haven't they been, but it's physically impossible - as in, that would break physical laws. Allow me to plagiarize myself from previous comments. Memetic transmission is the means by which a social meme is propagated. In order for such a meme to be propagated, someone physically has to propagate it. Here's an example: If the name "Bill Smith" was discovered in the writings of ancient Sumerians, and also in ancient Mayan writings, we'd think something is very, very, wrong. Those civilizat…
/r/MensRights14/05/14 06:14 PM
0

Of course it is. That's basically what I'm saying.
/r/MensRights13/05/14 05:27 PM
1

It really is her choice, and I don't think it would be right to try to impose your values on her, but that's not really what happened. You questioned it without actually trying to force the issue. Even in a best case scenario where all relevant parties are completely aware of what's going on, it still has the potential to put you in the middle of a legal battle - for multiple reasons. This isn't even a women's rights issue. While it would absolutely be fair for you to get upset that she's sleepi…
/r/MensRights13/05/14 02:47 AM
1

I'm trying to help, but I only get one downvote too.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 06:33 PM
9

Pretty much the quintessential example of discrimination as far as I'm concerned, and probably the most destructive. You don't get an opinion because of how you were born? I can't even imagine how this kind of thinking gained traction to the point that he can openly say this without fear of becoming unemployable.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 05:08 AM
2

I'm not sure if it would be very good or very bad for her to get into politics. Could go either way, really.
/r/MensRights01/05/14 03:33 AM
4

I feel you're on to something with your last line, so much of grades are based on daily work, and I definitely feel like guys don't take that as seriously. Obviously there must be a reason to explain the difference in test scores and grades. Found this one pretty interesting. If the boys aren't taking the daily work seriously, and the tests are supposed to measure their ability, then I'm taking this to mean that the boys are actually right to not take it seriously. Assuming of course this is wha…
/r/MensRights30/04/14 06:39 PM
3

Truth be told, I can understand this, and I don't even have that much of a problem with him. He's trying to change something, which we should all know is one of the fastest ways to make enemies, and he's pretty confrontational about it. Feathers were bound to be ruffled.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 01:43 AM
4

'Yes' Can Mean 'No' Too I can actually go along with this. Was there a gun pointed at someone's head, combined with an order for them to say 'yes'? Oh, there wasn't? Well, this is awkward.
/r/MensRights29/04/14 01:30 AM
3

I tend to agree, but the pay gap/glass ceiling approach is only going to make men work even harder to keep up. In fact, if this approach goes much further, I think we'll see one of two things happen. Either men will be pulling 80+ hour work weeks just to survive rather than get ahead, or they'll find a woman to do the providing because she gets preferential treatment that he could only dream of.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 07:38 AM
8

Ever take your clothes off and run backwards through a cornfield?
/r/MensRights25/04/14 08:31 PM
1

After just skimming through this, it's called fraternizing in most places, and a small CSS refactoring is barely even code. CSS is not a programming language, and refactoring generally doesn't change the function of something. It's just writing the same thing in a different way for readability or possibly efficiency purposes.
/r/MensRights22/04/14 06:39 PM
31

You know, this is actually marginally better reasoning than "rape culture".
/r/MensRights11/04/14 11:51 PM
1

It's a march that feminists have to try to take back the word "slut" while demanding that people accept slutty clothes and slutty behaviors. I'd even be ok with that if it wasn't blatantly hypocritical. See, they can say "slut" no problem, but if anyone else uses it, even in a non-discriminatory, gender-neutral way, then you're a misogynist. I don't think they know what "taking back" a term entails. Also, even if you don't actually have any problem with the way they dress, you're assumed to, and…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 03:17 AM
3

This kind of thing is pretty common. Unfortunately, their options are to run a sexist daycare center, or to go out of business.
/r/MensRights07/04/14 06:30 PM
11

Feminism generally draws from Feminist "theory", which involves an imaginary system of oppression against women for the benefit of men. There are a few people out there who self-identify as feminists but don't buy into this. Those people are usually branded as anti-feminists.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 06:25 PM
3

What the everliving fuck. Einstein didn't even like some of his equations, but he proposed them anyway because they work. I remember specifically that the concept of time not being a constant, whereas the speed of light is, made him very uneasy.
/r/MensRights01/04/14 06:27 AM
6

It's correct to put "theory" in quotes because it's actually not a theory in any scientific sense. A real theory requires something called "falsifiability", meaning that a set of testable circumstances are presented, the outcome of which will either prove or disprove your hypothesis. The way this "theory" works is basically the way religions work. Anything can be presented as "evidence" that it's true, and if anything surfaces to refute the claims, you can just say it's The_Patriarchy/God/FSM's_…
/r/MensRights31/03/14 10:28 PM
1

There was one other reason, but it's equally bull. He was quoted as saying "What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman".
/r/MensRights31/03/14 07:48 PM
2

I find myself in a pretty strange position on this one because I don't even like the song, but there's really nothing offensive about it. It'd be just another bad pop single without all the fake outrage.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 07:38 PM
2

Without harping too much on the many benefits of not getting her pregnant to begin with, it's possible to leave the country. It might not be your best option though, unless the payments would really destroy you financially. If it's between imminent jail and starting out fresh on the other side, it might be worth it, but do your homework if you're really set on it. You clearly have internet access, so it shouldn't be too hard to find out which countries will ship you right back, expat jobs, cost …
/r/MensRights31/03/14 07:33 AM
6

Great Expectations. Pip gets routinely beaten by his older sister and caretaker growing up. He goes through hell and back for a girl and a woman that don't give a damn about him. Despite being the understanding, and all-around swell guy that he is, he ends up a bachelor that Estella eventually deigns to settle for.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 07:09 AM
1

Fist bump, bro
/r/MensRights31/03/14 06:29 AM
3

Let me start off by saying I'm so liberal I'm Canadian. Well, I don't know if I'd say I'm that liberal. ;)
/r/MensRights29/03/14 03:30 AM
21

several millennia's worth of social programming and oppression I'm really tired of this, so apologies in advance for the ranting to follow. It's physically impossible for millenia's worth of social programming and oppression to exist. I can't even stress that enough. It's physically impossible. Memetic transmission is the means by which a social meme is propagated. In order for such a meme to be propagated, someone physically has to propagate it. Here's an example: If the name "Bill Smith" was d…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 08:26 PM
4

I completely agree, which leads to one of my disagreements with the broader MRM**. If his son, and the many others with similar conditions, are to receive the care they need, it's most likely going to come from the government. Pure individualism, the invisible hand, and the rational agent may not hold the answers he needs, but that doesn't mean feminism does either. ** That is to say that many (not all) here seem and tend to hold socially conservative views and/or have a strong dislike for all t…
/r/MensRights28/03/14 07:39 PM
2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzmpXz5d2z0
/r/MensRights27/03/14 05:13 PM
2

If all men's problems are caused by a patriarchy, and MRM is a hate group because those problems (that are supposedly caused by this patriarchy) are being blamed on women, then there's really no separation here. Within that worldview, it's all very much linked together. Essemd's suggestion remains, and it's a good one.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:19 AM
2

I'd actually be more or less fine with many of the downsides of being a man listed here. My real issue is that the prevailing mindset seems to paint men as living one big party, while women are perpetual victims. I don't expect all men's rights issues to be solved, even within my lifetime, but if they could be treated as real actual issues, rather than as punchlines, I'd call it a win. What I'd personally say I "represent" is equal attention paid to men's and women's issues.
/r/MensRights26/03/14 08:27 PM
7

"I'm tired of talking to men" is a deeply.... deeply.... sexist thing to say under just about any circumstance, so it makes sense that she'd try to pre-emptively defend it. No matter how you spin it, any "justification" from that point on is going to revolve around trying to shut half the population out of the conversation based on some sort of prejudice. Probably the most indefensible point there imo is the physics analogy. In all reality, the laws of physics rest on pretty tenuous ground. If h…
/r/MensRights24/03/14 01:50 AM
5

There are many words I can think of to describe it, but I don't think beautiful is one of them.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 05:09 AM
1

ofcourse she isn't. then why is she applying for a job that needs it? Because it's a reasonably cushy job that pays well. If you can bypass all of the difficulty in actually learning the material, then there's no reason not to apply.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 03:40 AM
1

I've met women that really do know how to code. Trouble is, they were getting truly exorbitant paychecks for the same work, and were typically fast tracked to senior positions.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 03:31 AM
18

At this point, I think it's actually harder to get into STEM jobs as a man. There's tons of competition for everyone, but women seem to get much more support at every stage of the game.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 10:31 PM
3

Just now? I guess better late than never.
/r/MensRights20/03/14 06:35 AM
2

It's a tough and complicated issue. Contrary to what some armchair neurologists will tell you, it actually does exist, and some people do need the medication. I'm sure there are people who get a diagnosis just to get pills for parties or extra pocket money, which is a problem. There are also others that struggle to get by without help, but could really use it. edit: grammar
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:41 AM
1

If this gets passed there's almost no limit to how ridiculous it can get. I can see the pigment tests now.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 02:18 AM
1

That's kind of the problem. To generalize (not much though) the "academic" body that comprises feminist "theory", a grandiose explanation for some inconvenient occurrence gets presented, usually blaming men. Then circle-jerking commences until credibility is attained, hopefully bypassing the scientific method entirely. No testing needed.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 11:00 PM
1

They have and outright dismiss it... usually without any real reasons. The only thing I can take from this meandering "rebuttal" is that anyone who criticizes the accepted causes of slut shaming is literally Rush Limbaugh.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:42 PM
10

Maybe an anonymous complaint. Spend some time on it. Check for spelling and grammar. Then point to the fact that it's anonymous because you fear reprisal, and allude to what this then means.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 10:32 PM
3

So, feminist here. Ok, so I'll probably disagree with you on plenty, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to talk about. I've found that most here will agree or disagree with you on specific points rather than get caught up on what else there is to argue over.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 09:44 PM
2

Sigh. Buddhists might try to teach you to "place others' well being before our own", but the Buddha taught that personal experience trumps doctrine. The fact that I know more about Buddhism than actual Buddhists kind of irritates me.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:04 PM
1

I know it's technically a logical fallacy, but I'm still going to have to call slippery slope on this. While it's possible to use a graphic content warning to useful effect in an academic setting, there just comes a point in most disciplines where a strong stomach is needed to progress. History is littered with brutality. Politics are ugly. Surgery isn't pretty. Economics can be depressing and disheartening.
/r/MensRights05/03/14 06:46 AM
10

I thought this was satire It just has to be... right? Maybe it's the translation? This is the point where my mental gymnastics kick in to prevent me from losing my last bit of faith in humanity.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 07:24 AM
1

Fair enough. I wouldn't really know. I watched this pretty much ignorant of the story behind it, and just went on what was presented. What I had to assume was that NCCL really believed in free speech as a concept, and let anyone in on principle. If they excluded others, I have to wonder why that didn't make it into the interview.
/r/MensRights26/02/14 06:48 AM
11

Maybe I don't have much background information on this, but it didn't look like she got destroyed at all. Frankly, I thought her position was very reasonable. If NCCL was allowing any organization to join for a nominal fee, then saying she was affiliated with a pedophile organization would be like saying I'm affiliated with SRS because they're also on Reddit. This sounds more like textbook free speech. You don't have to agree with what someone's saying in order to agree with their right to say i…
/r/MensRights25/02/14 01:03 AM
102

The last time I helped out a woman with her luggage was about 5 years ago. I saw her struggling up a flight of stairs, and brought it up to the top for her. She thanked me, and as I was walking away, her (I'm assuming) mother comes out from nowhere and loudly questioned her about what I'd said to her. Then she started yelling at me while her daughter was trying to calm her down. I don't think I'd risk putting myself through that again just to be a courteous citizen.
/r/MensRights24/02/14 02:37 AM
5

Aimless sexism and ageism in the same article. Do you think we could try for racism too? Then we'd have a trifecta.
/r/MensRights19/02/14 08:04 PM
1

I actually hadn't thought of it that way, but I totally see your point here. Beliefs shape reality, even if they're wrong.
/r/MensRights14/02/14 08:26 AM
3

Not to be contrary, but yeah, sometimes. This is why the gifted schools tend to not give out grades or have predefined lesson plans. They expect that you'll be learning at your own pace, and they know that you'll probably just be hindered by a hard curriculum. For me, all this was in addition to the regular classes, and the regular teachers knew all of this. They didn't take kindly to disruptive questions being asked in their classrooms either. Q: What's the most effective way to break a kid's s…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 11:48 AM
1

Of course not. She's just taking back her 33%.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 08:30 AM
2

No, I actually think I understand what he's saying here. There's a reason why treatment of boys in school is a commonly talked about MRA issue, and the gifted kids are often very good at seeing through this BS.... without the age and wisdom needed to know which battles to pick. It can be a dangerous combination.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 07:40 AM
2

That's true, but this all gets a little more complicated once you bring in comparative advantage. I was trying to avoid a wall of text.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 06:39 AM
0

Ask damn near any "gifted" kid, the school system held them back and made them bored. I don't have to, because I was one, and pretty much exactly what you described happened to me. I lost my eligibility for the "gifted" school after failing multiple classes from the regular school. Actually, I don't totally disagree with you, so I think at least part of this is just a misunderstanding. Maybe it was that "some schools are better than others". Personally, I completely agree about the accreditation…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 04:18 AM
0

+1. There isn't enough information on the biological differences between men and women to know exactly which decisions are from hormones or brain structure, and which are from societal norms. We know that those hard differences exist though, so there's no sense in assuming that men and women will make the same choices if given the same opportunities. I'm not sure if I can agree with everything that Judgybitch says here, but she's got a point. I think lots of people assume that geniuses are going…
/r/MensRights04/02/14 02:54 AM
14

Partially agreed, but some of this doesn't follow. The smartest person in the world could be born in the slums of Ethiopia right now, and no one would ever know or care. What this means is that even with genius, there still has to be something approaching a level playing field in order for anyone to benefit from it. We tend to see public education as the great equalizer, but the reality is that some schools are better than others, and some parents are better able to provide than others. There's …
/r/MensRights04/02/14 01:32 AM
1

From what I understand, the cancer risk is greater from receptive sex. I also remember hearing that many gay men were opting into these shots, so it could be a fear that promoting the vaccine for men would be promoting homosexuality in men. Maybe someone else knows more about it, but if this is true, it could be more about orientation policing.
/r/MensRights03/02/14 10:08 PM
3

I've seen a few of these, but this one is the most blatantly nonsensical. Let me see if I can put together an award.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 05:56 PM
30

Is it sarcasm or trolling? I don't understand. It has to be one of the two right? I'm saying it's both because that's the only way I'm sleeping tonight. I don't even understand how anyone could read this with a straight face.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 05:53 PM
2

Are you seriously suggesting that feminism = women's rights? Feminism exists to promote women's rights, and for other purposes...
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:36 PM
1

It's actually not bad, but I feel compelled to nitpick over the enthusiastic consent part. I mean, what if I'm asked "Hey, you want to have sex?", and I reply "Eh, sure whatever". Are we supposed to call that rape now?
/r/MensRights30/01/14 02:21 AM
3

You're conflating feminism with women's rights. They're not the same thing.
/r/MensRights30/01/14 12:20 AM
6

Yep, I remember watching this when it first came out back in 2001. Anita Sarkeesian even talks trash about this in one of her episodes.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 02:16 AM
16

You know, this is a surprisingly accurate flowchart. It shows that if you're for equality, and you don't buy into the historical revisionism, or the logically inconsistent "theories", or you'd just rather talk about something else... for any reason... you're not a feminist. Ironically, this is by a feminist, and completely goes against the commonly held "definition" of feminism. I can't even get upset over this, because it's actually a gift.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 07:30 PM
17

+1. Being totally fair, I could even see requiring men to pay for half the abortion fee to opt out (usually between $500-$1000). If she then decides to have it anyway, well that's her choice and her financial obligation.
/r/MensRights09/01/14 06:54 PM
10

I'm just at a loss here. Their thesis is about men and boys being forced into a rigid social role at a much higher comparative rate than women and girls, yet this is somehow indicative of "patriarchy" and women not being "really free".
/r/MensRights03/01/14 08:57 AM
2

IMO, there should be some sort of choice on the teaching method and also on what subjects to take. Not everyone learns efficiently from lectures or busywork, and I don't see a good reason to force a "well-rounded" education on everyone. Like it or not, it seems Adam Smith's vision of specialization won out. Obviously some basics should be mandatory, but I think more overall learning would take place if kids were allowed to focus on the subjects that really interest them.
/r/MensRights03/01/14 07:34 AM
5

While I'd like to see both men and women be able to take a homemaker role, I just don't see that happening anytime soon. If she stays at home, she could take everything in a divorce, and if a man stays at home, the result might actually be worse. Realistically, dating women that don't have a career can be risky for men, and I think you'll find that being feminine or a 'good girlfriend' doesn't necessarily have to mean changing your career goals. Some of this just depends on what kind of relation…
/r/MensRights22/12/13 05:17 AM
1

No, actually. When I post replies, I expect they'll be read by others.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 02:07 AM
1

According to the link from ILoveHate, this one might not be called rape. Illegal? Yes. Inappropriate? Oh, absolutely.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 01:17 AM
2

Interesting, but it might not mean what they believe it means. Omega-3 actually is fat, so by going on a "low-fat diet" these men might just be trading out the harmful fats they used to eat for more beneficial types of fat. It'd be better to compare this with a higher fat diet that gets an optimized ratio of polyunsaturated fats.
/r/MensRights22/11/13 12:52 AM
2

You've got some good information there so I'm going to go point for point here. the Seattle Times article is talking about all income rather than just wages. This one seems true, and I guess I'm going to have to go track down some more compatible figures. Thanks for pointing this out! I remembered that about 30-50% of American millionaires are women I was actually already being careful here to differentiate between wealth and income, as I've already seen that baby boomer women control over 60% o…
/r/MensRights21/11/13 03:09 AM
1

It's a percentage of the median, so the short answer is no, but the really interesting part about this is that it almost doesn't matter whether they are or not. The purpose of this exercise isn't necessarily to give an accurate reflection of anything. It's to show that if you believe X, then Y is the result. If you believe that women earn 77 cents for ever dollar men do across the board, and also that women only account for a small percentage of top earners, then that necessarily means that most…
/r/MensRights20/11/13 08:05 PM
7

I suppose so. Facts make me feel better though, so maybe this is my combat enhancer in a war of feeling.
/r/MensRights20/11/13 04:13 AM
1

Yeah, I meant in the show. This apparently made the Paul Bunyan Wikipedia page under "Popular Culture".
/r/MensRights20/11/13 01:06 AM
1

Ever see That 70's Show? Laura Prepon's Paul Bunyan hands get played up for laughs quite a lot there. Imagine how funny it would be if she wasn't attractive enough to make the cover of Maxim.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 09:28 PM
5

Thanks for your support and solidarity. As for the generalizations... eh. If you said all men are assholes because you were upset and didn't really mean it, I wouldn't take too much offense. That seems to be what's going on here.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 10:00 PM
2

So, basically you're refusing to go look up the fact that not for profits legally can't turn a profit for anything other than expansion, that the recipe for vasalgel has already been released, and you're complaining that you won't get a sperm keychain. I'm just recapping here.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 12:08 AM
7

The "stuff" costs less than the syringe used to inject it. That's been talked about for a while now. The reason they're asking for donations is because they are an NFP and don't want the strings that big pharma would attach to an investment. Besides that, you clearly have no idea how investment works in the US. You need to be an accredited investor to invest in a project like this and expect a return. That basically means you need to have $1 million minimum.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 09:22 AM
4

At least part of this is going to be because people are marrying older now, so married men will generally be older on average than unmarried men. It would be more meaningful if you break it down by exact age. Aside from that, it could have something to do with the family man image, but that's hard to account for.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 08:19 AM
1

Ok. Why don't you explain this to me then... We've got Socialist International, of which most Social Democrats are members. It's even mostly Social Democrats at this point, so you can't really say the Democratic Socialists are controlling the major decisions. You could possibly say that the name is a holdover, because it's been around for a while, so that's not really enough, but... In 1992, the Party of European Socialists, and the European Community of Socialist Youth were formed. This was 20 …
/r/MensRights03/11/13 03:13 AM
8

It was somewhere around the time I was told that any problem men might have can be compared to the owner of a Ferrari complaining about a scratch.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 02:07 AM
1

I'm not sure I've got enough Picard facepalms to properly respond to that. Why don't you take a look at my discussion with Forgotten_Son?
/r/MensRights02/11/13 11:47 AM
1

I know the SDAP was Marxist. It also existed for six years total. While Sozialdemokratische does translate into Social Democratic, and the same description is used of the modern SPD, the SDAP would not be considered a Social Democratic party in the modern usage of the term. It was a Democratic Socialist party. The primary difference between those two ideologies is revisionism vs revolution. The SPD won out, and with it, Social Democracy. Again, this was largely to do with Eduard Bernstein, who b…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 05:57 AM
1

I'd love to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but you're not letting me. Historically, Social Democracy split off from Democratic Socialism with Eduard Bernstein's concept of Evolutionary Socialism. He had numerous criticisms of Marxism right from the start. It was really never Marxist.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:30 AM
1

I'm not even debating that. Marxism is the idea that stateless communism can be achieved through socialism and social engineering. Socialism is actually an older idea than communism, and I wasn't conflating the two.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 04:03 AM
1

I'd prefer to trust Eduard Bernstein.
/r/MensRights02/11/13 12:02 AM
1

I'm having trouble finding one. single. source. that doesn't confirm exactly what I've said - that is, Social Democracy is a more centrist form of socialism. They're even members of Socialist International.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 10:25 PM
-7

Social Democrats are socialists. They are center left, but socialism encompasses a pretty wide range of political beliefs. Source: My ex-girlfriend is German and is a member of the Young European Socialists.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 10:42 AM
3

Fair correction. That's what I was talking about anyway. When there's no fear of bankruptcy, prison, custody battles, status loss, etc., all that's left is that maybe, just maybe, you actually want to be together.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 07:39 AM
3

I could repeat the words of the reasoning, but I don't think I'm ever really going to get it myself. I just think the best relationship is one where there's nothing keeping you together, and you're still there.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 03:25 AM
3

Fair enough, but if there's a serious discrepancy in screening and treatment, it makes sense to raise awareness. That's about all that can be done anyway. It's not as if a poster can make heart disease go away.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:40 AM
59

I can't say I'm against this one, because it seems that the risk is about the same for men and women, but women are less likely to be screened and treated. If that's all true, then they have my blessing to go red for women.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:25 AM
7

Please don't take this as me trying to tell you what to do, but I'd personally just leave her. Immediately. I'm not a big proponent of marriage to begin with, and I find it very controlling to add the pressure of what sounds like an ultimatum on top of that.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:43 AM
6

It also doesn't account for age or income from sources other than work. The old paradigm was that women stayed at home safe and sound, while men go out to earn for the both of them. It's hard to say who had it worse under that plan because there are pros and cons to each, but the boomers largely followed that plan and now baby boomer women control most of the wealth in the US. Curious. The new paradigm is for everyone to enter the job market, and now young women out-earn young men. Curiouser.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 04:14 AM
2

Eh. I'm sure plenty of feminists actually believe that women are worse off. I just found it very telling that the people out there dreaming of a matriarchal fantasy world are using some of the same arguments.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 03:56 AM
5

I just thought this was interesting.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:52 AM
1

The lines "i know you want it" are interpreted by some Right. You just named the problem. The lyrics and choreography were interpreted by some to be rapey when a number of other very likely interpretations existed. In short, a really bad assumption was made, and an angry reactionary campaign, including a parody video, was launched. I'm talking about sexual objectification, not s&m. I'm not sure how clear the connection was here, so to be safe, I'll just lay it out. The reasons why someone might …
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:01 AM
1

uh, the "blurred lines" controversy was/is about two things: a perception that the lyrics might be "rapey" "What a pleasure it is to degrade a woman" For both of these, interpretation is key. None of the lyrics describe rape; they've just been interpreted to be "rapey". The line "I know you want it" was never identified as a response to a lack of consent, so conclusions were jumped to, and blanks were filled in with the rapiest of possible circumstances. It also seems that Robin Thicke likes to …
/r/MensRights26/10/13 12:59 AM
1

Both men and women are going to be sexualized because sexuality is an important and deeply rooted part of (almost) everyone. With the rare exception of asexual people, we're very much defined by things like gender and orientation. I'm fairly sure I won't get much argument there. What I see as a problem isn't so much the sexualization of men or women, but the reactions to its expression. A good example is the recent trouble with Blurred Lines. If you're arguing against men being dominant, and wom…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 10:12 PM
2

If I had to give one perfect example of sexism, it would be considering someone's view worthless on an issue because of their sex. I'm even pro-choice, but that's fucked up reasoning.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:07 PM
16

Wow. Just wow. I don't even think she realizes that her behavior is a very legitimate reason for him to take the shy non-confrontational approach he did. If I had to guess, he probably doesn't ask many women out, and she just completely validated any reasons he might have had for that.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 05:14 PM
6

In an article about the 'Godfather of Hipsterdom', this quote has to be forging ahead into new frontiers of irony. I think it's going on the fridge with a mustache magnet.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:27 PM
2

I'd actually agree with you for small towns or in circumstances where people meet through mutual acquaintances, but it's possible that my view is colored by the fact that I live in a city. I just expect that most people on a first date won't be subjected to any of the societal controls you mention, regardless of how they met. You're right though that anonymity is a very complicating factor, and I guess it's interesting to see even more implications than I was expecting.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 10:35 PM
4

That's a common view, but I just don't see it. In real world dating, you have basically no up front information. You have a person's appearance, and maybe a few witty lines to go on. With online dating, you get to filter out people very quickly before ever seeing them. There are pros and cons to each, but I know plenty of women use online dating sites specifically to maximize their chances of meeting men they really want to meet, or to save time on the whole thing.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 10:02 PM
3

I can't speak for everyone, but as a guy, I can say I've had a pretty good experience with online dating. That's not to say I didn't see everything Emily Moss wrote about. I did. I even think she did a good job of outlining what men go through. That said, most of this is just the normal dating routine magnified by instant communication and relative anonymity. While I empathize with your story, it seems that your Irish redhead was using tactics that are much older than the internet.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 09:50 PM
1

The only conclusion I can draw here is that you read about the MRM!!!!! as thoroughly as you read the title of this post.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:23 PM
28

There's a couple of things here. She's expecting that any time she wants sex, any guy should just jump at the chance. It's a little more than that though, because it seems she's got this idea of women never being rejected so ingrained that any response other than "Yes, ma'am" is taken as rejection. Not something I'd dump her over, but it's interesting that she seems to almost be having a moment of realization that this is something guys actually go through pretty regularly.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:04 AM
3

Nice anecdote... and that's why this page exists.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 09:33 PM
3

Thanks for the info, but, well, is it really so much to ask that they spend 5 minutes to make it look like it was designed in the past 20 years?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 09:27 PM
3

This is my favorite part. Some would argue that young girls are degrading themselves, bringing themselves down to men's level. Any chance that college kids in general just do stupid things because it looked like a good idea at the time?
/r/MensRights23/09/13 06:47 PM
1

I was more talking about SRS, but I'd say that patriarchy "theory" is hateful, and to believe it without hating men you basically have to not think about its implications. To be fair, I don't think most feminists spend much time on it.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 03:39 AM
12

I'll give the commenter you replied to a little credit, because some of this is true. One is a hate group and one is a civil rights group. There is no equivalence there. They are not opposite sides of the same coin. The more this is highlighted, the better.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 02:26 AM
3

Woman is an orthographically correct word, she's hurling unprovoked insults, and she's spouting unsupported accusations as fact. Who do you think is wrong?
/r/MensRights18/09/13 08:58 PM
2

Right. There are so many good examples, but I was trying to avoid a wall of text. I personally think the fact that any realistic attempt to change gender involves altering hormone levels with easily referenceable effects on personality is a very good one.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 04:31 AM
3

I am not seeing any being listed. Fair enough. There's a list of them over on the right. I am not seeing any feminists denying these things exist. Which things? You just said.... just now..... that you didn't see anything listed, so how do you even know what feminists might be denying or not? every feminist I know acknowledges men have problems as well Yes, and they'll also blame the patriarchy for those problems. "Patriarchy hurts men too" teaches us that all of men's problems can be blamed on …
/r/MensRights17/09/13 07:35 PM
1

Here's an interesting book on the subject, that doesn't worry too much about morality, or what readers might want to hear. In fact, I laughed when one of the comments criticized the "flawed patriarchal Western-centric narrative". The prevailing idea here seems to be that "loose" monogamy is the best tradeoff of factors for most pre-industrial societies.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:42 PM
8

This isn't new at all, and some would even call it the "ideal" strategy for women from an evolutionary standpoint. She gets the genes she wants without having to sacrifice anything. Nice to see some figures.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 01:50 AM
1

seemed very sexually immature to me They also always saw their behaviour as complimentary Lots of seems this way or that, and perceptions of seeming rapey. Got any more objectively rapey actions? Got any objectively rapey statistics? Culture can be very important; I'm not denying that. I just think it's dangerous to start applying very subjective feelings and seemings onto a culture in a way that should ever lead to any expectations of legal action or policy change.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 11:03 PM
5

That's actually worse. He doesn't have to really do anything for her to feel that way, or for his perception to be that she feels that way.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 10:06 PM
1

As for consequences, what exactly do you mean? It diminishes agency, and Ms. Eberhardt even seems to get why. If you tell someone that you have a boyfriend/girlfriend so they'll leave you alone, you're allowing them to believe that they might have had a shot if you had a choice, but you don't have a choice. Not everyone will believe that, but you're allowing them to, and many will. You might even think it's a fair tradeoff, and that's fine. one in six women experience either rape or attempted ra…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 09:13 PM
2

I'm actually one of the "lefty" MRAs you might have heard of, so I don't agree with everything in this link, but I think Thomas Sowell is talking some real wisdom here. Compared to what? At what cost? What hard evidence do you have? Get the best tradeoff you can, and accept the consequences of your own actions. That's my view anyway.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 08:22 PM
3

Both telling the truth and lying about a boyfriend/girlfriend are reasonable solutions, imo, and guys do have to put up with the idea that we "always want it" which isn't so very different. I've also had girls not take no for an answer, while we're trading anecdotes. My problem is with not accepting consequences. Making up a story is the easy way out, and it can save some hurt feelings. If you do that, I think you should expect that it's going to diminish your agency and accept this consequence,…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 07:45 PM
3

Male privilege is “I have a boyfriend” being the only thing that can actually stop someone from hitting on you because they respect another male-bodied person more than they respect your rejection/lack of interest. It is basically a real-life example of feminist theory at work–women (along with women’s choices, desires, etc.) being considered supplemental to or secondary to men After talking about respect and agency, she then contradicts herself with: And the worst part of the whole situation is…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:24 PM
16

I've seen worse. She even has a legitimate complaint with a reasonable solution. It's just a shame that getting from start to finish had to involve damseling and man bashing in between.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 05:58 AM
5

This would be a perfectly valid and reasonable response if feminism was just a movement about helping women get equal treatment in areas where men were traditionally getting a better deal. It's not. Today, feminism revolves around the idea that the patriarchy is holding women down. In order to advance women's rights they need to smash the patriarchy. So, what if you want to call yourself a feminist because you actually believe that "At its core, feminism is the belief that all women deserve to b…
/r/MensRights05/09/13 11:57 PM
3

You don't even seem to understand the definitions of the words you're using here. I think you should go read The Communist Manifesto. You don't even have to agree with it. I don't.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 07:34 PM
3

Have you ever seen or read Trifles, by Susan Glaspell? It's an early feminist play with a message that I actually found very helpful. Basically, what I took out of it is that there were some women's issues that weren't being addressed which, in itself, was a problem. Why is that relevant? Well, the article here is very sensationalist, first of all, but it's also (badly) trying to make the point that Trifles did. The real difference here is that these issues are no longer being ignored. On the co…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 12:01 AM
1

So, how would this get reconciled with the halo effect? That's what I immediately thought of.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:36 PM
1

Sources vary.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 07:18 AM
2

Alright, I apologize. Might have jumped the gun there.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 02:56 AM
1

Edit: Sorry. If there's statistically significant data to back it up, then it's fact, regardless of how inconvenient it might be for you. If there's no statistically significant data to back it up, then it's just another failed hypothesis. I'll suspend my belief in it until I can see some data, but it's not, in itself, a logical argument. It's a (possible) social phenomenon, so there is no scenario where it's a "fallacy".
/r/MensRights21/08/13 02:43 AM
2

Might be unlikely, but if you have a student paper, it seems to me that this would be something they'd want to write about. Even a fluff piece could be read by parents or a local news station and draw some attention. I'm really not trying to scare you, and I even hope you're successful with this, but I thought it'd be something worth considering.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 11:59 PM
1

You might even consider the chance that a backlash could come from outside your incredibly apathetic community.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 08:06 PM
3

Also experience from a specialization/divison of labor standpoint. If you're statistically more likely to spend more time taking care of kids, then you'll have less time to specialize at the highest tiers. Just adding. Edit: While women are statistically more likely to spend more time taking care of kids, It'd be more accurate to say that less time at work in general equates to less experience, which is also statistically true.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 07:09 PM
3

I'm interested to know if there's a name for that phenomenon. Some data I could look up, maybe? Edit: Preferably a meta-analysis was what I really wanted if you know of it.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 06:37 PM
1

The words "biggest problem" and "sparks outrage" are antithetical to "normalization" or "tolerance" at a societal level.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 03:12 AM
1

First, all of those are subcultures, as none of them represent society as a whole. Also, you used the words "small" and "no effect on society at large". Not me. Everything has some sort of effect on society at large, but to paraphrase Ryanami, the presence of crooked CEOs doesn't mean we're living in an "embezzlement culture". Second, if any of them actually condoned or blatantly tolerated rape, we wouldn't have seen forced resignations, defrocking, studies on prevalence, statements of apology, …
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:32 AM
0

There's much, much more evidence of racism than rape culture, and the dialog on it isn't really suggesting that anything is getting worse, just that racist attitudes and assumptions still exist. Again, if you're trying to say that some circles, or subcultures, tolerate or normalize rape, fine. I can agree with that. On a systemic or societal level? Not so much.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 01:04 AM
0

Seemed that way to me too, and it seems that you're now implying I didn't read your earlier comments.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:41 AM
6

I can't even make it through this meandering and contradictory nonsense. Thanks for the summary.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:16 AM
1

If there were any truth at all to the rape culture rhetoric, we'd have seen the rates go up. They haven't. In fact, all violent crime, including rape, is much less common than 20 years ago. There's a very public outcry against the rapes perpetrated by Catholic priests, as well there should be. I could even agree that rapes are more common, or more tolerated, in some circles than in others, but that doesn't imply that it's normalized or condoned at a societal level, which is what the term is bein…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 02:06 AM
2

You've made some good points here, but: There is nothing new under the sun. and: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you, that they "didn't read", or that they "don't understand".
/r/MensRights16/08/13 09:45 PM
2

I was more or less agreeing with at least the sentiment until I got here: The result of all this is that many men, even kind and well-meaning men, believe, however subconsciously, that women's bodies are for them. I'd say that she doesn't really know what men are thinking, and that commenting on someone's body doesn't imply some kind of gendered ownership. A woman saying something like "But I like short men!" doesn't imply that she thinks men's bodies are for her either.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 09:24 PM
2

From a hard determinism perspective, you could say that, but I think it's easiest to conceptualize it as social factors + biological factors. None of those factors are totally isolated; that's just understood.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 09:13 PM
2

It's "good" in that it gives publicity, and at least tries to be fair and balanced. It still gets plenty of things wrong, and some of his biases are plain to see.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 10:37 PM
1

So, if I can understand this correctly, you're saying that if a difference is hard to explain, then it must be discrimination? In most sciences, you have to actually prove something exists in order to be taken seriously. The burden of proof is entirely on whomever is making the claim. Math has field axioms. Physics has laws. Things like this have been painstakingly derived by extremely patient people looking for real truth. Now for a hypothetical. Let's assume that the high end of your insinuati…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 10:50 PM
2

This I can agree with, and if someone wants to talk, I've been plenty willing to talk, time allowing. These points probably are a misunderstanding, albeit one that gets perpetuated by (clearly) never having made any attempt at talking it out. That said, I'm the kind of person that will immediately reverse a stance if you can bring me some hard evidence or point to a legitimate logical hole. I find anecdotal arguments, straw men, and ad homs to be tiring at best. The number of feminists I've enco…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:42 AM
1

No. Asking me to "find common ground" with people like this would be like asking me to compromise with her that only 5 or 6 of these are true. In the strictest sense, there exist self-identified feminists who have rejected unsubstantiated and logically inconsistent "theories" like patriarchy, but those people are very rare, and tend to have been branded as anti-feminists by the overwhelming majority. In any case, if this was all just a semantic misunderstanding, you'd have had me at tumblr. How …
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:02 AM
1

I'm having trouble wading through all the New Age garbage to find something worth even writing about. If you're gay, fine. Please don't tell me that somehow makes you more advanced than me. Also, if you're arguing against someone else shaming you for your orientation or values, it might not be such a great idea to shame them for theirs. This group really does seem to be a good strategic ally to Feminism. Edit: I get that it's an old group, but he seems to be pushing this manifesto as relevant an…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 11:19 PM
3

This is perfect irony. The article is holding a mirror in front of its own writers, without them even realizing it. If some men might be suspected of not taking their hypothetical pills, could women always be trusted to? Welcome to my world!
/r/MensRights07/08/13 08:20 PM
11

Feminist scientists recently announced that rape is no longer the greatest threat to society, due to last week's discovery of super rape.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:15 AM
3

Yup. The great part about that quote is it only takes 1 confirmed case to prove it wrong. Now that it's referenceably and provably bullshit, what then?
/r/MensRights10/07/13 08:20 PM
2

Probably not, but it's hard to not see a parallel between this and the post about the girl who cried rape at a con. Bottom line imo is that you can't just make a 'joke' like this and expect it to not be taken seriously. Edit for clarity: I think the punishment is extreme, and I'm not saying it's the same thing as crying rape; just that there's a parallel, and that he said something he really, really, shouldn't have.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 04:25 AM
1

There are so many places where your analogy breaks down, so I'm only going to focus on a few of them. First of all, technical knowledge is something you go out and learn, which implies choice. Jail time is something done to you, and often unjustly. There are plenty of stories of women getting out of jail time just for being women. A man will not, I assure you, get into a technical position without at least some real actual technical knowledge. The main positions that caused the pirate party to e…
/r/MensRights05/07/13 06:29 PM
3

I won't speak for the altruist part, but heavy tech skillz are plenty weighted towards men. If women don't like that, I'd suggest they go learn how to code.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 01:40 AM
-1

Tried and failed.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 09:33 PM
7

That's helpful to show how this kind of thing happens over the longer term, but I'm not sure it's even going to help with this, because this is a derivative disparity. Not as many women in tech --> Not as many women in the pirate party You could argue back and forth all day whether the underlying causes are just or not, but that's not going to change the fact that fewer women actually have tech degrees and jobs which translate into skills. The pirate party is looking for people with demonstrable…
/r/MensRights04/07/13 09:29 PM
19

It's really just a result of the ratio from the IT industry. This is the same party that has a "pony pause" rule in Germany. They're even trying to get women in and the pool to draw from just isn't conducive to a 50/50 split. I'm calling nonsensical shaming on Frank Aarebrot.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 06:57 PM
1

Those people tend to either not dig too deep or get branded as anti-feminists.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 01:03 AM
3

I'm not coming in from the same ideological direction that it seems most are, i.e. the individualism/collectivism conflict. That said, I see only one officially approved "equal rights" movement, and it's failed me at every turn; both in theory, and in practice. It's fatally flawed, and I want it replaced with reason.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 12:16 AM
1

That's one of the problems, sure. It's an us vs. them, which sets up "othering". I tend to see it as a good old fashioned case of cognitive dissonance. I'd even be more or less fine with "strange men scare me a little bit, sorry". It seems though that the feminist norm is to take this unsubstantiated feeling, use it to incite the belief that all men are inherently and objectively scary, and that something needs to be done about them. I don't even want to think about what might happen if anyone s…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 04:21 AM
10

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure I'll get downvoted for saying this, but I think that even if you broadly disagree with someone, you can agree with specific points.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 11:39 PM
3

I'm still holding out for Vasalgel.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 11:20 PM
1

By "assumption" I'm basically referring to Schroedinger's Rapist - meaning the treatment as a potential rapist until proven otherwise.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 11:06 PM
13

I think that it's more likely that men will be creepy towards women This is where we're going to have to disagree.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:42 PM
1

Halfway reasonable, imo. I'd like to think that no rational person would suggest that a feeling, without the backing of any objectively aggressive behavior, is justification for a label or legal action. It seems that some are suggesting just that though, and that's where the outrage is coming from. I also think being legitimately concerned about safety shouldn't equate to an assumption that all men are out to rape and/or sexually harass, which is another assumption I tend to see.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 10:37 PM
1

Who should be trusted with the power to go around disqualifying arguments? That's a whole other talk, and one that I'd be happy to have another time, but the short answer is that just thinking you're right isn't enough. I've been putting off sleep long enough, so I'm extending a friendly digital handshake for now.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 11:22 AM
1

Well, I'd argue that: The existence of the underground railroad implied critical mass, and also the inherent lack of feasibility in the existing system. Not necessarily slavery in itself, but at least this system of it. The abolitionist viewpoint was that the slaves were people rather than property, so they actually weren't punishing slave owners by helping slaves to escape. Edit: I'm pretty sure you'll try to catch me on this one, so allow me to pre-empt it... You could potentially argue that d…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 09:52 AM
1

Feasibility is logical, so I just lumped it in without explaining it, but you're right, that system is a stopgap. I could even argue that all systems everywhere are stopgaps. I won't. Before I derail the conversation any further, one of my points is that allowing abortion by those that want it is much more feasible (and therefore more logical) than trying to prevent it. That's not enough on its own, but it's combined with critical mass and a logically consistent viewpoint. It's a stopgap. I'm ag…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 08:28 AM
1

My argument wasn't really "if you don't think it's ethical, don't do it", which is why I gave you a hard time. I'll concede that looking back at it now, I can see how it might be interpreted that way, so I'll try to expand some more. One of the few ways anything can be declared as "morally wrong", and therefore get written into law, is that the majority of people decides that it's wrong. One person isn't enough, because people very commonly have conflicting views. We tend to think that many or m…
/r/MensRights01/07/13 07:36 AM
3

I see it showing equal treatment, which is great. I guess I was looking for either women getting some unfair advantage, or a previously unfair advantage being removed.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 05:52 AM
1

Great answer! I'm not sure if you're referring to all theft, or robbery specifically, but there's tons of debate about what constitutes theft. If the vast majority of people didn't consider robbery to be a crime, then it wouldn't be in the books.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 05:41 AM
2

It's an interesting story, but I don't really see the connection to men's rights. Maybe I'm just tired.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 01:49 AM
-1

Define life, and define human. You're killing things right now. It's a value judgement, and one that those on the pro-choice side are perfectly content to leave up to the individual. If you don't want to get an abortion because it conflicts with your values, then don't. No one is suggesting you should.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 01:06 AM
1

About half of these are pretty common. I'm not sure where to begin.
/r/MensRights01/07/13 12:49 AM
2

Maybe so. My point is that the preferred approach to circumcision here seems to be that men should be able to make that decision for themselves when they're old enough to understand the implications. As it happens, that age roughly corresponds to the age of consent, and the age that people start becoming sexually active. Therefore, even if circumcision actually results in a lower HIV transmission rate, it's only going to be meaningful at about the age that a man could be expected to make the dec…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 07:44 PM
2

Even if that figure is completely accurate and directly applicable to industrial countries (not so sure myself), we're to assume that a baby is going to have sex.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 06:53 PM
5

i haven't watched a video of her until today. Most of what I wanted to say is already here, but this part might be a little bit of a consolation for losing, well from the sound of it, basically your community. “It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.” ― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
/r/MensRights28/06/13 06:42 PM
2

Might be my location (city), but If I even mention that men might have problems too, the responses usually range from "Yeah, but women have it worse" to an outright shaming attack for the mere suggestion. Very rarely do those responses ever really acknowledge that men might be worse off than women with anything. At this point, I see this kind of environment as, in itself, a men's issue. Edit to add how I deal with it: I mostly just keep quiet or change the subject. To me, it's not worth losing p…
/r/MensRights28/06/13 04:25 AM
5

Confirmation bias. She sees what she wants to see. She's clearly getting the better end of the deal, and all she sees is sexism against her.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 04:13 AM
3

I usually suggest actually testing something rather than just believing it. This one's tricky though, because I know there's some danger involved. Here's something to consider.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 09:17 PM
11

? It's a P.T. Barnum reference meaning that bad publicity is still publicity.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 07:53 PM
11

Honestly, I kind of expect that response too. Here's a (potentially very dangerous) social experiment. Try expressing some men's rights views that you agree with. Nothing extreme. Maybe that men's rights are human rights. Observe the response from feminists you know who claim to not hate men. Edit: On second thought, don't do that. I don't want to be responsible for ruining a career or a relationship.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 07:46 PM
15

The takeaway is that Wil Wheaton knows what it is and thought it worth tweeting about publicly. Write whatever you like, just make sure you spell my name correctly.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:55 PM
26

The top three responses here (right now) are "typical", "standard feminist response", and "old news". This kind of thing is so common that it's just expected. There's no outrage, because we've seen it so. many. times. That sort of leads people to believe that no, the majority of feminists do not, in fact, support men's rights too.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 06:40 PM
1

I was expecting two mutually exclusive interpretations. In the one you named, she's his wife. In the other, she's not. There is no way to cover every situation in a single picture so you take the one where that shows the "safest" situation. It says if it can happen here it can happen anywhere. I'm not completely sure what you're saying, but I think I have an idea so I'll try to answer you. There are "safe" situations. SchalaZeal01 says they're "pre-approved". I get that. I also get that they can…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:37 PM
1

I'm inclined to believe this is just an interesting correlation. A large chunk of the pay gap (about a third) is attributable to the difference in hours worked. Not skills or knowledge, just the amount of hours. Besides that, knowledge of facts and figures isn't the only kind of skill. If anything, this data might show that if men are better with facts and figures, then women must be making up for that deficiency by beating out men in another skill area.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 08:12 AM
2

I was going for a double meaning. That's one, and the other is that he doesn't want to cheat. In any case, lots of people here don't seem to like this approach, even though feminists have shown it to be very, very, effective.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:35 AM
0

I agree that the world isn't rosy, and I personally think it's a very realistic and cynical outlook to expect that public acceptance of a given fact is largely dependent on the way it's framed. I think there are a few issues here, and I also think that in order to get any of them accepted, you need to budget them. What I mean is that you can pick one or two to focus on right now, but if you try to lump all of them into one picture, the whole thing is going to be dismissed. You can always just us…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:11 AM
-10

I don't throw around credentials, even if I could, because it's an appeal to authority, and it really doesn't have much to do with the validity of your statements. It's also just kind of pompous. Winning hearts and minds is just a little more complicated than handing out facts. Sometimes you might need to play into commonly held beliefs or cultural norms. Sometimes, statistics even discredit those beliefs. It just doesn't matter. They exist, and my argument is in favor of erosion. Your understan…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:48 AM
-8

Yawn. Check my other posts in this thread.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 12:03 AM
13

Oh, you got my reference?
/r/MensRights22/06/13 11:08 PM
5

All those things are possible, and you can say no to anyone for any reason. That's not the point. The point is how best to get people to believe it. Put up a poster with an unpopular message that's framed in a way that reduces its believability (even if stats and facts show likelihood), and you're going to be met with mock and shame by the majority, rather than by those with a vested interest in mocking and shaming.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:54 PM
15

Here's an idea. Maybe one where she's really good-looking, but she's pushing him up against a wall and he looks uncomfortable. Maybe have the camera panned to show his wedding band. The text box could say something like "Rape is rape, no matter what you look like." Just something to work with. Let it not be said that I ripped into you without giving constructive feedback. Edit: You could also say something like "Do you know what a rapist looks like?"
/r/MensRights22/06/13 10:16 PM
-8

It's much less likely for him to turn down sex with her if she's attractive. He could, and it's rape if he does, but it makes the picture less believable.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 09:47 PM
29

The text box says "no", but his eyes, and probably the eyes of the audience, are saying "oh, hell yes". She's hot, she doesn't look like she's pushing him into anything, and they look like they're having fun. It's just not believable.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:43 PM
1

Maybe. I like to give the benefit of the doubt.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 08:07 PM
89

I see where you're going with this, but .... well... I'm not sure this photo is going to have the effect you want.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 07:21 PM
1

He's arguing that straight men should marry each other to avoid the risks of institutionalized bias in favor of women. There's no need to make up a straw man.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 06:59 PM
3

Then you and I differ in our views on conflict. The worst that could happen is a flame war with pen names behind any number of proxies. Pixels and ems, not Streichholz und Benzinkanister. MRM seems pretty image conscious these days, so even that's fairly unlikely.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 06:36 AM
8

Which definition are we using? Patriarchy could just mean a system where positions of formal authority are held by men, and lineage likely falls along male lines. Language evolves, and with the way it has already evolved, it's just naïve to use that definition. Typically, in feminist parlance, and frankly modern parlance, it's used to mean a system of oppression against women for the benefit of men.
/r/MensRights22/06/13 06:16 AM
1

I'm curious if your gripe is more with objectification or with harassment. To me, sexual objectification could be just not assigning value or identity through omission - "I don't know anything about him/her, but she/he makes me hot". Not much of a problem by itself, imo. It could also be deliberately denying value or identity outside sex - "Your only use is as a talking fucktoy". That's a lot more malicious. It seems (maybe I'm wrong, which is why I ask) that you're more interested in the unsoli…
/r/MensRights22/06/13 12:04 AM
7

Imo, it's about power and control. I don't really see any but the most extreme forms of objectification to be much of a problem. Both men and women usually want to be seen as attractive. That said, if you can control the context under which others can express their attraction, you can use that to your own advantage, at the expense of those who find you attractive.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 09:28 PM
0

Is House of Cards also a feminist show?
/r/MensRights21/06/13 08:55 PM
5

It's pretty simple cognitive dissonance. When they're trying to co-opt you, the definition they use is something like "you agree women should have equal rights to men". They just assume that this means you agree with all of their theories because it just follows that "equal rights for women" means that women have always and everywhere been oppressed, and gender is a social construct.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 05:23 PM
1

Fair. While we're tying up loose ends, I'm not implying that my feels are a good reason to distrust the claim's validity.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 08:04 AM
1

That's all fair and reasonable, but it's really part of the police's job to be skeptical. Add that to the fact that eyewitness testimonies are considered "notoriously unreliable", and I think it's pretty easy to see that this is just plain not about the evil police playing their part to oppress women. Even if eyewitness testimonies are, in actuality, more reliable than presumed, this is how they're trained for reasons that are not entirely BS. It's just a difficult situation for everyone, and ye…
/r/MensRights21/06/13 06:38 AM
2

Going by the (admittedly not conclusive) results on dom/sub preference in BDSM, it seems most women want a strong man to take charge and fuck them. Interestingly, it also seems there are way more submissive men then there are women who want to dom them. Everyone wants to bottom, basically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_and_submission
/r/MensRights21/06/13 05:13 AM
1

Some of what you're saying sounds reasonable, but it seems to me, (at least in my experience.......) that the feminists who show up here think that MRAs are well-intentioned, but wrong about <insert rhetoric>. Maybe there's some kind of conscious/subconscious conflict going on, but I tend to avoid psychoanalyzing people to that extent on the internet, or at all really.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 04:51 AM
1

I was talking in general, rather than about feminists specifically. As you say, taking a generalized approach might not be best here. I wouldn't know. Got any reason to believe that more hardlined tactics are more effective specifically with feminists that are just starting to question the herd? I know I can't convey tone over the internet, but I'm not goading you. It's a serious question.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 03:01 AM
1

Again, you seem to think I was trying to throw the weight of my qualifications around. I'm not sure why, because they were never named or implied, so there's not much to refer to here. I was saying that this is what I've seen when someone (not me, to answer your loaded question) makes a comparison to a widely reviled group like the KKK or white supremacists. This may absolutely differ from the ... experiences ... of others, which is totally fair. Translation: I was trying to be nice. I'm not goi…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:16 PM
1

For future reference, if someone says "in my experience", they're generally referring to their own lived experiences as opposed to some kind of axiomatic truth.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:29 PM
1

I'm not sure if you're asking for an anecdote, or if you're really, seriously, expecting me to dump my life story onto reddit.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 10:13 PM
1

In my experience, people don't listen to anyone comparing them with a KKK member or a white supremacist. It doesn't even matter if you're right.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 08:50 PM
8

If you're too hard on someone that shows the first signs of waking up, you might just force them back to sleep.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:31 PM
3

I guess my concern is that if you rail too hard against NAFALT, it's going to come back as NAMALT when feminists inevitably try to pin the actions of a few rotten apples onto the whole group.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 10:24 PM
6

This is great for a bunch of reasons. MRM needs to avoid being painted as anglocentric, but it also needs to avoid being painted as a loud and angry wing of the Libertarian Party.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 09:02 PM
3

Not sure I agree. Christina Hoff Sommers still identifies as a feminist, and she's listed right here under recommended reading. Also, most MRAs aren't going to approve of Brutal Antipathy's or WBB's antics. I think it's fair to say NAxALT with a few caveats. That doesn't mean you're right. It doesn't mean those at the top of your group are right. The "good" people in your group could very well be in the minority.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 08:39 PM
26

She absolutely did. This is the kind of idiocy we're dealing with. Grab a seat.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:28 PM
9

You've got me curious now. What do they say about her? I just don't see much to attack. I mean she's a single mother, and "she don't need no man". She's pretty seriously far removed from a traditional gender role. She's smart......and pretty......... Even TVTropes shows how she subverts every trope. What is there to attack?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 06:15 PM
3

Define "enthusiastic".
/r/MensRights18/06/13 01:27 AM
2

Facepalm.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 11:21 PM
6

I've seen this kind of thinking before. Apparently, it's ok that more men are homeless than women, because "survival sex" is just as bad as homelessness. What are women who have "survival sex" trying to avoid? Oh, nothing much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_sex
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:28 AM
5

Was it in response to people giving credit to single mothers on father's day?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:15 AM
1

So, if it's a market that's been milked since forever ago, it seems there's a need to be filled. I also think this might be one way of circumventing the social stigma and denial of victimhood. Imo, most men will take a slap or even a punch to the jaw without making much out of it, but if you mess with his work, then we've got a problem.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 08:26 PM
5

Sometimes, you just have to have a place to go. Imagine you're not just being yelled at or assaulted, but she's undermining work that has to get done. You have a few hours to get your report/presentation/code just right before hopefully getting a few hours of sleep. If I were in charge of this sort of thing, it'd be a 24 hour Kinko's with bunk beds.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 05:59 PM
3

Not sure I even understand the premise, because it just seems glaringly obvious to me why women would have menopause. You get physically weaker as you get older. The whole process of childbearing and birth is physically taxing on a woman's body to the point that until modern medicine, it was common for a woman to die giving birth. If you're old enough that you most likely wouldn't survive pregnancy, and even if you get lucky it'd be harmful to the baby, why would a family/tribe/village spend the…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 08:34 PM
1

I really hope I'm not just being naive in saying this, but I do believe that logic and reason can win. Damn, though. Sorry to hear that you're being docked for using the single most proper term possible.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 09:11 AM
3

There's plenty of reason to go. First of all, he said it fulfills a requirement, so maybe he just wants a degree. Second, why would it be a bad thing for a critically-minded person to hear some of the crazier feminist theories? Unless you're arguing from some kind of abyss stares back into you standpoint, he should learn all he can, and then speak truth to nonsense.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:58 AM
16

There's no difference between this and SlutWalk. None. If women can wear whatever the hell they want, and I'm not even going to argue with that, you can wear a tank top for damn sure.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:51 AM
4

Men's enjoyment of basically any sexual act can be considered misogynistic. Even if you want a woman to dominate you, some will say that "perpetuates female oppression". http://books.google.com/books?id=Wx043SdtPIcC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=dominatrix+is+female+oppression&source=bl&ots=LG8lZKD4SE&sig=GUzZ4I3JQGAKROb5tjpQIQhO7Bw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hFWxUYqLF7PpywGRuIHICQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dominatrix%20is%20female%20oppression&f=false
/r/MensRights07/06/13 03:42 AM
1

To be fair, a "large societal benefit" should probably involve a larger monetary benefit. Hard to say what effect that would have, as more men, who typically prioritize pay, would likely sign up for those careers.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 03:22 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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