TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

the_raptor Archive

View 0 posts and 695 comments by the_raptor on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
12

Why should weaker men? Plenty of male POGs who wouldn't cut it in the infantry. That is why I want physical standards by job role. It'll be amusing to see all the flabby guys who get into the non-combat jobs.
/r/MensRights13/10/13 09:42 AM
13

fjfgu
/r/MensRights05/07/13 03:14 PM
21

But it is only sexist if you make fun of women's appearance or behaviour! Most of the stuff said about Abbot could be called "sexist" if you use the weak standards being applied to comments towards Julia.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 03:49 PM
9

If you'd heard some of the crap she's put put up with, like being asked if her partner (not husband) is gay on live radio, you wouldn't be quoting the sensationalist claptrap that the Herald pushes. Oh yeah, nobody heard about that, it was hushed up and kept under the carpet! The Herald alone didn't do multiple stories on it! /s
/r/MensRights17/06/13 03:45 PM
9

Argue against her politics all you like, but this whole business where political commentators dump on her like some Manhood Academy troll, and then shout her down for calling them out on is fucking twisted. Name and link to the statements made by these "political commentators".
/r/MensRights17/06/13 03:43 PM
1

IANAL, but that reads to me like gender segregated housing is okay, and that a college or similar institute could deal with another entity that only provides housing to one sex. But the college still needs to supply gender segregated housing in proportion to the gender of persons seeking such housing.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:37 AM
3

Jail time time for assault is uncommon unless it's habitual Which in this case it is, they had even both previously been sentenced to 4 months in jail for DV. Jail usually doesn't help but when someone has multiple suspended sentences for assault I think they should do a little time.
/r/MensRights24/03/13 04:40 AM
1

When did I suggest it did?
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:14 AM
3

The Catholic church is going to be so happy to hear this!
/r/MensRights20/03/13 02:25 PM
3

Those arguments aren't off limits, the problem is you acting as if I made them. I am not your convenient strawman to bounce arguments off, either address what I said or fuck off.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:58 PM
3

Mate, you are making up quotes and saying I said them, turn off your subtext detector as it is malfunctioning and picking up shit that just ain't there. People's choices are restricted by the cultural memes they adopt about themselves, and that applies to man as much as women ("men don't cry", "a good man is a provider"). Countering those memes doesn't require discrimination against a particular gender. Many men kill themselves not because anyone forced them to, but because those men have judged…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:08 PM
3

I can't see any point in setting quotas, but if qualified women aren't entering STEM because "girls aren't good at maths" type stuff that actually costs a nation by reducing the pool of good STEM graduates. And as there have been significant shifts in the gender ratio of STEM sub-fields I doubt the ratios are solely determined by innate qualities.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 12:41 PM
8

The question is whether the lack of interest is innate or caused by things like "girls aren't good at maths". I think the reason why many women leave STEM is due to innate factors of being a woman (eg not wanting to put up with the career grind when they have other options), but the reason why so few enter in the first place is much more open to debate.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 05:34 AM
1

Yeah Sandusky was a big story because it involved children and an organisational conspiracy.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:38 AM
4

How the shit can people not be aware of the Indian bus rape? I have been going out of my way to avoid reading about it (because I find graphic descriptions of rape upsetting) yet I still know the details because it was all over the media here in Australia. Sandusky I mainly heard about from Reddit. Also that guys theory is stupid, people care more about Sandusky because he raped kids. Serious crimes against children are taken more seriously than those against adults.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:37 AM
8

What countries explicitly? Britain is one of the toughest countries in regards to gun ownership and it isn't exactly a low crime country. Norway which has much lower crime and is generally considered to be among the "most developed" countries doesn't have stringent gun laws.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 04:42 PM
1

Only if the percentage of female war reporters is the same as the percentage of female reporters. I doubt it is.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:48 AM
17

That was my favourite part, the assumption that only women are victims of rape. Pretty telling for a comic meant to be having a go at MRA's.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 10:35 AM
9

Advocating for equality requires you to be anti-feminist (or at least what passes for feminism these days).
/r/MensRights24/02/13 10:56 AM
2

Nearly every anti-DV group is feminist. If they are singling out men you can be guaranteed they are feminist. Anti-DV campaigns are one of the major ways feminists groups get funding (which probably explains why they don't like to examine the actual facts about DV).
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:16 AM
2

I usually hate "I don't see how this is an MR issue" but in this case there isn't even mention of sexism or Feminism (the closest is LGBT issues). Just because this woman is an entitled bitch doesn't mean this is an MR issue. If she demanded entitlements over men it would be an MR issue, but she didn't. "Woman behaving badly" isn't an automatic MR issue.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 12:47 PM
11

The Catholic church has official theological positions on most subjects, so it isn't hard to tell who is within the standards of "orthodox" and who is "heterodox". A lot of Feminists like to believe the fiction that they are an open movement that supports free speech when really they have as restrictive dogma as any organised religion.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 12:41 PM
6

Yes, the victim mentality and false statistic usage of Feminists aren't an MR issue. The fact that Feminists use those to get anti-male laws passed isn't something the MRM would be concerned about. /S
/r/MensRights13/02/13 11:14 AM
1

I said "probably" for a reason.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 12:04 PM
1

Trademark not copyright, and trademarks only apply to certain markets. Unless onlulu.com starts selling books they can probably use the name.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 11:31 AM
0

I think people might be falling for the "victims of sexual assault become abusers" fallacy.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 04:01 PM
4

They are fucking kids, they have no clue what they are doing, they have not assimilated all the social norms, and they thought this felt good. Nah, this is a classic sign of sexual abuse. Might be something else (eg the little girl snuck a peek of mum and dad having fun) but most of the time this stuff happens it is because of sexual abuse. A kid might play with themselves because it feels good, but sexual activity with other kids is not normal.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 03:59 PM
2

Narcissism.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 09:14 PM
3

OuiCrudites appears to be having a go at the Catholics because eliminating feminism isn't priority 1 for them. I don't think OuiCrudites gets that political capital isn't infinite and that in a country like the US the Catholic church can't get its way most of the time.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 04:54 PM
26

His ex-wife was granted custody and Mr Rodwell paid £300 a month maintenance for the children for the next four years. SNIP He added he would have been happy to have a close relationship with the children as a stepfather, but said his ex-wife would not allow this. Yeah! What a scumbag! /s
/r/MensRights13/01/13 04:15 PM
1

The clinical treatment for pedophiles is usually a drug that severely reduces libido (like Zoloft) and not chemical castration. Colloquially I thought "chemical castration" was anything that reduced sex drive, it is just these days we have some drugs which are safer (like Zoloft) than the heavy shit they used to use. Personally having been on Zoloft and other SSRIs I have to say the libido effects are very mixed and I wouldn't rely on that for treating sexual deviancy.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 05:58 PM
2

In general, a non-pedophile who molests children doesn't care about the child, they have little to no empathy and some do is specifically to hurt the child. This group has varied characteristics, not all of them are full blown sociopaths. Many of them are highly situational offenders (step parents etc) unlike pedophilic offenders who normally seek out victims. A pedophile is different, they tend to have not just sexual, but also romantic feelings, a desire to love and protect a child. This creat…
/r/MensRights12/01/13 05:19 PM
8

Yeah I can understand why people call it pedophilia, I just think the word shouldn't be debased (as it matters clinically) and so I try and correct people.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 06:07 AM
21

Nope. Technically being attracted to mid to late pubescent children isn't even pedophilia, it is ephebophilia. Secondly, plenty of molestors do it because of a power trip or because they are just that horny and don't care. This is important practically because a child molester that has a sexual interest in adults is much easier to rehabilitate than a pedophilic child molester (whose sexual appetites can't be fulfilled in a legal manner).
/r/MensRights12/01/13 05:56 AM
22

She had oral sex with her daughter. Thus she's a rapist and pedophile. No, she is a rapist and a child molester. Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 05:27 AM
2

Maybe. I think the "You are a princess/queen who deserves everything you want!" marketing is the cause though.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 09:24 AM
5

You should not be legally obligated to use restraint. Yes you should, unless you are arguing that men are animals that can't control themselves once provoked. If someone throws a punch I can understand throwing a punch back, but that is proportional, it shouldn't be acceptable to escalate to the point where someone is getting curb stomped for throwing a punch.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:42 AM
9

My mum was a 70's feminist and worked in a match factory and then fruit picking. But you are right that modern feminists seem incredibly entitled (probably has to do with the huge rise in narcissism over the last few decades).
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:33 AM
2

When did this split happen? Because Feminists like Germaine Greer or Andrea Dworkin certainly spouted the some bullshit in the 70's that "modern" Feminists do. Don't be deluded that just because "women's lib" was the catch phrase that those were all "good" Feminists.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:01 AM
3

No True Feminist.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 04:51 PM
3

The point is that modern Feminism is not about "equal rights for women", it is about female supremacy. If OP outed herself to mainstream Feminists she will likely be insulted and shunned for having "internalised misogyny". Being an egalitarian Feminist is like being a non-theistic Christian. It is trying to follow a belief system while rejecting the fundamental assumptions of that belief system.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 04:53 AM
3

There is also the alternative explanation that men are willing to "marry down" for youth and beauty to a degree that women aren't. The successful professional male in this mid to late 30's will happily marry a 20 something woman of lesser status.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 03:28 AM
1

In India, the outrage extends much further than mere feminist groups. I never said it didn't, I said they were responsible for getting the story in and keeping it in the media.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:46 AM
-2

Furthermore, the article (and by extension the OP) are attempting to demean the protests in India over rape in order to further some sort of agenda. No, the OP is pointing out that the protests over the Indian bus rape are part of someone else's agenda. Those events were horrific but how many times did a similar thing happen this week all over the world? Why is this event out of all those others all over the world media? The answer is that Feminists groups are using that tragedy to further their…
/r/MensRights31/12/12 04:56 PM
0

That's the whole point, she stood up in a male-dominated field and accomplished just as much as they ever did. Except she didn't. She did things men had done a decade before in harder conditions. If you want an example of a woman that held her own in a male dominated field you would need to look at someone like Admiral Grace Hopper (wrote the first compiler and was instrumental to the creation of COBOL). Earhart was a PR stunt.
/r/MensRights26/12/12 04:26 AM
3

Do you think it would be accurate, then, to refer to sex as a "tool" in an offender's arsenal? That is how I have always thought of it. In contexts like warfare it is quite obviously used as a tool (eg a village might be threatened with rape unless they pay "taxes" or some of the men "volunteer" to join up). Maybe things like this contribute to why we have no males reporting. It is because a) men are expected to not be weak and in general complain less about assault, b) being a victim of male-ma…
/r/MensRights23/12/12 09:29 AM
3

I don't think Gawker give a shit about feminism any more than they give a shit about gaming or sci-fi movies. Those are just fronts to push ads.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 04:11 PM
8

It isn't strange. The value of advertising is dropping and outlets have to get viewers anyway they can, which includes playing to the prejudices of your audience and abandoning any pretence of objectivity.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 11:15 AM
2

Nevertheless , what the research didn't account for was 'full venting'. That's to say that yes , venting gets you angry because you neither solve the problem nor exhaust your anger. What you say is true , I've also seen the studies but if you take venting to its ultimate end , what tends to happen is that the individual actually exhausts the neuro-chemicals involved with triggering anger. Once that happens , endorphins are released and the individual 'feels better'. Just because you feel better …
/r/MensRights21/12/12 07:06 PM
0

If you tried other methods of calming down you might not have to let out some of the aggression as often.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:31 PM
7

Yup. "Other people just make me angry" type excuses.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 06:14 PM
10

I believe the evidence is that there is no such thing as "venting". Acting out anger just makes you angrier as it reinforces the related neural pathways.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 05:09 PM
12

He should leaf her!
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:37 PM
1

Which is what I said in another post.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 04:45 AM
8

If streets are safe for women, they'll be safe for men too. Most victims of assault in public are male. Women are already much safer on the street than men.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 02:19 AM
7

we're focused on stuff like making sure the streets are safe at night For men and women? 'cause down here in Australia the feminists only care about female safety at night.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:54 AM
6

Some women do the same thing. Either they have shitty taste in partners, have no self-esteem, or they are just used to being treated badly (eg mommy or daddy issues).
/r/MensRights19/12/12 10:25 AM
13

"News just in: Members of the group StormFront make racist comments! More at 11".
/r/MensRights17/12/12 11:01 AM
4

You may want to look up the term "Commander in Chief." The President still isn't "the military". If this was a Wikipedia article But it isn't, it is the New York Times, a paper that Wikipedia considers a reputable source. They are inferred to be guilty when they are observed conversing with shadow governors and insurgent commanders and carrying out duties as would a member of certain targeted organizations. So executing civilians is okay as long as there is some circumstantial evidence? Sounds l…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 01:12 PM
4

1) The military classifies military aged males as military aged males, not militants. You are misinformed. I never said the military was doing the classification. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2 "It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration offic…
/r/MensRights16/12/12 12:42 PM
8

Civilian casualties are highly detrimental to the U.S.'s reputation, so extra care is taken to avoid them. No, extra care is taken to classify all military age males as "militants". The regular US military might care about not killing civilians but I honestly think CIA and SOFor don't give much of a fuck if the drone program is any indication.
/r/MensRights16/12/12 11:08 AM
7

I think what he was trying to say is that if someone is being sexually assaulted, then they will resist. Which isn't true. Some people just shut down when threatened. This is one of the things that perpetuates prison rape. If the victim doesn't resist to the death they are considered to have wanted it and are now marked as a "homo".
/r/MensRights14/12/12 03:04 PM
0

I think he might have some pain in his buttocks.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 01:57 PM
3

I said PUA was sketchy and he told me how his variant of PUA isn't, so I should have said NAPUAALT.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 11:36 AM
4

No True PUA.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:37 AM
5

I ask, however, what's more weird -- making a conscious effort to improve your ability to be social with both men and women while learning from others who have been walking the same path for much longer than you, or continue using a losing strategy to have success socially? Most people don't like manipulators, it is as simple as that. Most social strategy involves manipulation but people don't like those who are blatant about it. PUA is as "creepy" as books teaching business people how to manipu…
/r/MensRights14/12/12 05:17 AM
6

Because PUA is about manipulating people. Most people don't like manipulators.
/r/MensRights14/12/12 04:30 AM
9

Their whole premise is that the world would be great if it were just a bunch of lesbians swanning around. Now, now, they acknowledge that until medical science has advanced they would need to keep a handful of men around for breeding purposes. I for one welcome our new separatist lesbian overlords, and remind them that as an profligate commentator I can be useful for rounding up men to serve in the breeding pits and underground mines.
/r/MensRights11/12/12 03:15 PM
2

Nice burden of proof you got there. See this is how it works mate, you don't just get to declare things are true. For the purposes of discussion I will accept that "progressive taxes" are class warfare, now it is up to you to prove that flat taxes aren't. You have no morals/ethics. So the only morals and ethics that exist are your own? There isn't much point in trying to explain why private property is important to a person like you. You mean a person who can follow a line of argument contrary t…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 12:53 PM
7

I wrote a lot about how you misused those logical fallacies but then I got bored. I don't care what you see or what you perceive. Okay, then I don't care what you see or perceive. Progressive taxation is a form of class warfare. Prove this. Also prove that flat taxation isn't a form of class warfare. It creates tonnes of moral hazards for productive people and lots of parasitic niches for unproductive people. Prove that not allowing unproductive people to parasite from productive people is bad.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 10:13 AM
11

If you want to you can see class warfare in everything, it is like the patriarchy. Flat taxation looks like class warfare to some people. But as the goal of class warfare is usually seen as eliminating the "wrong" classes, I don't see the Australian taxation system as class warfare.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 08:21 AM
6

Some do, many just hear "men's rights" and project their fears based on what they know feminism really is.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 07:44 AM
10

Well many people have pointed out that feminist fears about men's rights groups look just like projection.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 07:05 AM
8

No actually what you said was a strawman. It is only revolutionary ideologies that require creating "class struggle". Australia has a socialist bent for example with universal health care, an extensive welfare system, enforced collective bargaining, progressive taxation etc. We have achieved most of what the socialists fought for and even the economic liberals know they have to make a case within a largely socialist system (eg the political argument is about who should get welfare, not whether i…
/r/MensRights10/12/12 06:44 AM
19

The funny thing is you can flip the gender and it is an accurate description of feminism. “Women’s rights” groups are a growing phenomenon, with “women’s centres”, and “women’s issues awareness” clubs appearing on campuses. Manipulating women’s anxieties faced with neoliberalism and austerity, “women’s issues” groups ignore the poverty, racism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia blah blah blah
/r/MensRights10/12/12 06:36 AM
5

You said those accounts should only be used to troll and posting legitimate information to /r/mensrights is trolling SRS.
/r/MensRights10/12/12 05:07 AM
2

But that is trolling SRS...
/r/MensRights10/12/12 04:48 AM
6

Evolutionary psychology often makes predictions concerning the adaptive purpose. No they often speculate about the "why" behind the "what", but so does every other science, and making some bad speculation doesn't invalidate the actual facts. Radfems dismiss ideas like behavioural differences between the sexes by attacking the speculation not the actual facts. P.S. Such speculation is often navel gazing but sometimes leads to a new testable hypothesis.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 11:16 AM
1

Cracker and Honky are the least offensive insults ever. I mean "whitey" gets me going a bit, but if I hear cracker/honky I just laugh.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 03:52 AM
5

Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?
/r/MensRights02/12/12 03:50 AM
1

But really, it's her body. I would maybe support this argument if it got applied to anything besides abortion. Feminists whine about female "slavery" while demanding male "slavery" (aka child support, tax payer funding for their clubs). Also, good luck trying to argue "it's my body you can't punish me for neglecting my children!" after the kid is born.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 02:35 AM
2

Yes, it is "invisible male" syndrome. There are plenty of easy to find studies on sexual assault against homeless women, but when men are included these studies start to refer to homeless "people" and the focus is still on female victims. http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/wrap/w7.html Box 2 in that report has some breakdowns by gender.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 02:19 AM
1

http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/crm/61-80/crm066.aspx
/r/MensRights19/11/12 12:02 AM
15

Sexual and non-sexual assault is a huge issue for homeless men.
/r/MensRights18/11/12 06:45 AM
2

So they wouldn't have fund raising walks because of physically disabled students? Or hell even really obese students. Also girls can grow facial hair.
/r/MensRights16/11/12 04:02 AM
17

He got something like five million German soldiers killed. An entire generation of German men were basically wiped out on the Eastern Front. That is better than the Holocaust but not by much.
/r/MensRights15/11/12 12:32 AM
3

Poe's law. I have seen enough girlfriends make these demands seriously.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 07:21 AM
3

How long until 4Chan is running scripts to spam this service?
/r/MensRights14/11/12 06:41 AM
4

"Responsibilities" was item 5 of 8.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 06:40 AM
0

It isn't about my feelings it is about the fact you either had no idea what was said in the video, knew and lied, or are really stupid. Take your pick! Also you can go fuck yourself with that mind reading stuff.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 10:22 AM
1

At no point does anyone even say "this man should have helped this women". Except you know when the reporter says that a police officer said "this man should be charged criminally". 4:10. And then the reporter goes on to imply the man's alleged actions were unethical and immoral. It is not even slightly implied that the reason people are disgusted is because he is a man. Didn't bother to read the second half of my post huh? If that is so don't bother replying either.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 09:47 AM
15

Guys can get away with black easily if they go Goth/Metal.
/r/MensRights13/11/12 08:41 AM
2

This is not a case of gender inequality Yes it is. Societies expectation is that men must sacrifice themselves for women and children. This guy might be a coward but he has full rights to be a coward without people saying he should be prosecuted for being a coward. this has nothing to do with men's rights (the topic is raised at no point in the video) No duh, because society is largely blind to its prejudices towards men. When men and women get treated differently people rarely say "I am doing t…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 05:59 AM
17

Yep four comments (at time of writing) demonstrate the communities opinion! Fuck off troll.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 09:59 AM
3

Also there is the fact that the MO for traffickers is to hold the family of the victim at ransom by threatening retribution if the victim seeks help.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 12:29 AM
4

I would start giggling and try to make balloon animals.
/r/MensRights05/11/12 01:01 AM
3

Well under the Duluth model OP is an honorary man anyway.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 12:06 PM
1

This just in... art styles changed based on developer. The first three games were the same developer. It's the entire point of the conversation. No it isn't, I can have a conversation about portrayals of characters in video games without being concerned about how women feel about it. I guess we'd better make her look like the average female American yea? 5'6'' 175 lbs, borderline obese? Want to strawman some more? I don't see the masses of male video game players bitching about not having 30" in…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 12:27 AM
1

If you are going to choose a game to harp on for flaunting sexy ladies for the sake of sexy ladies, choose dead or alive, or leisure suit larry. Halo just doesn't do what you are accusing it of. Yeah except I never did that. All I said was that if you think there was no design change you need your eyes checked. There are legitimate reasons for the design change beyond "teh sexies", but it wasn't simply a case of advancing graphical quality.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 03:02 AM
7

Maybe, but feminists will typically reject any evolutionary psych argument out of hand.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 02:59 AM
1

Fair point, however in halo 1 they did NOT do this I know, and that is a design choice, not a fact of the systems they had at the time. If they wanted a Cortana with big tits and hips they could have had one. If someone in real life looked like cortana does in halo one they would be receiveing medical attention/long term care. I never said her proportions were overly realistic (and I didn't ever say freak), but for a computer generated character they were clearly going for a waif look (eg Audrey…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 02:22 AM
1

I dismissed it because you cited nothing and what you said goes counter to what I know. I played tons of games during that period so I know what was and wasn't possible to do with the graphics of the time.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 01:27 AM
1

Next time come up with an actually convincing argument.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 01:11 AM
2

If Doctor Manhattan's physical attributes had in anyway represented the average male's dick, then perhaps it would be comparable. It represented a larger than average dick, which most men will not posses. Because he adopted an idealised physical representation. That is not the same as a characters design shifting towards idealised physical representation through several different portrayals. If women feel inadequate because some other women posses larger assets, that does not make the visualizat…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 01:06 AM
2

Cut scenes that are rendered in engine meaning that they are no different than rendering the same scene while playing The fact they are cut scenes mean the amount of polygons on screen can be precisely controlled and isn't as variable as in normal game play. This means higher poly budgets can be allocated if wanted. As for her hips: In halo 1 cortana looks anything but human. Her proportions are completely wrong - Massive head, cylindrical body, emaciated arms and legs So a waif, like I said. In…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:57 AM
1

They could have still built a curvier looking model at the time. Cortanas look in Halo:CE was entirely intentional.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:33 AM
4

Cortana pretty much never shows up except in cut scences. And making wider hips is a trivial amount of polygons so you are really reaching with that explanation.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:32 AM
5

Mate, it has nothing to do with "graphics improving", they changed her body shape significantly between 2007 and 2012. It was possible to do a game character with big tits and dem hips before 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_or_Alive_Xtreme_Beach_Volleyball Now the developers might have a reason for the change other than sex appeal, but claiming it is just because graphics are more advanced isn't going to fly.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:21 AM
1

character design is pretty much the same Get your eyes checked. 2001 Cortana is a waif, 2012 Cortana is a full figured woman. I actually think the developers might have a decent reason for it (a reflection of Cortanas rapid growth), but I did prefer waif Cortana.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:34 PM
3

That isn't comparable. If Doctor Manhattan's physical attributes had evolved like Cortanas have over a series of releases it would be comparable.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:32 PM
16

Trees are good people, leaf them out of this. COME ON!
/r/MensRights31/10/12 07:37 AM
0

Yes, but Walmart etc generally can't legally record you in a "private" moment. I also imagine that many people might be put off by such disclaimers on a private residence.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:02 PM
0

Such a disclaimer probably has no legal validity in most jurisdictions.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:56 PM
11

Fixed it for you.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:55 PM
11

socialism is the redistribution of work from mostly males to mostly females In their fantasies it is, the reality might be a bit different from what these middle-class women imagine.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:53 PM
10

It actually reads as an argument for socialism where housing and a basic stipend would be provided. Thus freeing women from the "tyranny" of needing a man to support them (except of course most of the taxes that pay for the government handout still come from males).
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:33 PM
22

Penis bad, womb good. Transwomen may still have, or once had a penis, therefore they are evil soulless rape machines. Transmen reject the womb and want a penis, therefore they are evil gendercidal traitors. /s
/r/MensRights29/10/12 02:29 PM
3

As I said much earlier, I don't support the "when a man and a woman get drunk and have sex the man is a rapist" meme. That doesn't mean I approve of guys who take advantage of drunk (falling down drunk) women. There is a point of drunkenness where people can't give informed consent, but that should apply to both parties.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:38 PM
2

You don't mix shots with beer. That's alcohol abuse, to say the least. Lol, that is called a party for under-30's Australians. Of course I live in an area where bars have restrictions on selling shots because of alcohol related violence.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:29 PM
1

I never mentioned using anything but alcohol. Putting a couple of extra shots of hard liquor in a beer or mixed drink adds up quickly for most women.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 01:22 PM
1

A university town.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:47 AM
1

Multiple times a weekend in my town.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:41 AM
0

Spiking drinks is pretty easy and most people can't tell alcohol concentration by taste.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:33 AM
0

Coercion and deception.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:21 AM
0

Actually I was saying that people who have to get others drunk to get some action are pieces of shit.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:06 AM
-1

If you can't control your actions while drunk then don't drink That is the point. Being drunk makes you not able to control your actions like a sober person. That is why drunks are looked down upon. Are you drunk right now?
/r/MensRights29/10/12 11:00 AM
-6

If they can't make a decent decision while drunk, then they shouldn't DRINK. Do you even understand the physiological effects of alcohol? No one can make a decent decision while drunk, it impairs your ability to reason.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:50 AM
8

Not all rape accusations are of the "She was drunk and couldn't legally consent" variety. I actually think that scenario is at least a form of sexaul assault*. What I am against is when both parties are drunk but the man is still held responsible. Also, I didn't read the original thread so it could have been a case where the victim was too intoxicated to extract themselves and never consented (even under coercion). * If you have to get people drunk so that they will have sex with you, or coerce …
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:34 AM
18

The source is part of the merit. Rags like the Mail twist stories all the time, and if a story is real it will be in more than just the Daily Mail.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 10:25 AM
4

Oh witness tampering as well! Seriously, this is a terrible idea.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:44 AM
9

This seems like horrible advice. "Local man arrested for raping and filming intoxicated women!"
/r/MensRights29/10/12 04:47 AM
5

Feminism only took off after the middle class exploded in size for a reason. Not many women wanted the right to work 12+ hour shifts down a coal mine.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 04:20 AM
2

For all your claims that you don't want to be political, you're inherently a right-wing group This guy is right wing, I am left wing. Anyone who brings that "only right wingers truly support MR" crap here gets downvotes from me. Fuck off with your cherry picked examples used to confirm your own biases.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:53 AM
1

but don't judge someone else's reasoning when yous is the same. People aren't. They are pointing out the lie of "feminism is for gender equality!" or "Men need feminism!". Feminism is about female rights, but they try and dress it up as if it is about equal rights for all. The MRM is open in that it is advocating for men's rights. That doesn't mean people who participate in the MRM are only interested in MR, I don't call myself an MRA precisely because I would rather call myself an HRA and not b…
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:16 AM
1

And this is why I hate feminism. Western feminism is entirely selfish and focused on the issues of white middle class women. Yet they try and pretend they are humanitarians who care about others.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 03:16 AM
1

I don't. If your statement was true teen pregnancy and STDs woouldn't be an issue. Kids brains aren't mature until the mid-20's, which is why 17 year olds engage in more risk taking behaviour than 25 year olds.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:58 AM
1

Nowdays they even encourage personal Bible reading, they didn't when the split happened.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 12:48 PM
1

Gay men who don't have partners that remove most of their body hair.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:57 AM
7

I think most Christians that actually read the Bible don't stick around very long. Most Christians are told what is in the Bible by their pastor, and are then told what to think about a given passage. Yeah, sorry bud but evangelical Christianity (the one most American atheists get annoyed at) places massive emphasis on personal and group Bible study. The whole protestant side of Christianity grew out of people annoyed that the Catholic church discouraged personal Bible study.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:50 AM
1

If the theory of developmental causation is true it seems likely that mutations of male developmental genes on the Y chromosome are more likely to cause issues than mutations of female developmental genes on the X chromosome.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:17 AM
12

They do that because SRS kept harassing the /r/feminism mods until they snapped. It is more a "FUCK YOU!" to SRS than genuine support.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 11:54 AM
1

Yep, it is quite common that even feminists that fake being okay with this choice still talk about it in negative terms. Apparently you can never be a fulfilled human being unless you grind your body and soul into the gears of some corporate machine, lol.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:38 PM
2

Well he is privileged to not live his life in, invented and delusional, fear of one sex.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 02:34 PM
5

Webmail shouldn't, which is what most people use. If you are paranoid just create a burner account with fake details and access it through a proxy.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 01:59 PM
2

What the author of the article fails to take into account is differences of personality. Only women are allowed to have different personalities. Men must obey masculine stereotypes or be declared unfit for breeding. /s
/r/MensRights22/10/12 05:24 AM
2

Two separate incidences of being followed - which does not look the same as someone taking the same route home Yeah, the average person can't tell the difference between that. I have seen plenty of women decide I am following them just because I am male and large and walking down the same street. The only way to tell if someone is really following you is to make several diversions and stops to observe them following you. Which the average person doesn't do when scared that someone is following t…
/r/MensRights22/10/12 04:41 AM
1

This theory doesn't hold true for all people and many kids grow up modelling aspects of the "wrong" gender without turning out to be transgender. Without controlled laboratory studies of child raising it is impossible to assert this theory is true with confidence.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 11:48 AM
1

I can isolate it to the parts of the brain that aren't the hypothalimus No you can't, you can isolate increased blood flow to areas of the brain involved in people either performing specific religious activities or thinking about specific religious concepts. gender is innate If that were true the expression of gender would be universal amongst all human species.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:53 AM
1

No, religion is not biological, because religion is something that occurs in a neuroplastic section of the brain. If you think you can isolate "religion" to one area of the brain you don't know enough neuro.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:37 AM
1

It wasn't the reason I stopped. I stopped because I couldn't afford it any more due to increases in the cost of living, yah poverty! They called me up about another campaign and I gave them a one-off donation towards it, but later I realised I didn't like the concept they are pushing now and wouldn't donate in future. Which sucks as it is hard to find a children's charity which is efficient, effective, and not a front for charismatic whackjobs (I am a Christian but I am not paying so some Wester…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:15 AM
-1

The charity is Plan and they are for both genders, I used to sponsor a kid through them, but they have been running this "I am a girl" campaign for a year or so. TBH it has turned me off supporting them in the future because the reason I choose them was because they didn't just give the money to one family, they pooled the money to improve a whole village. Focusing on half the population is a move away from that kind of ethos. If the campaign language wasn't sexist, ie just about improving acces…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 04:01 AM
2

More than one creep shots sub was banned last week. There was a bunch of alternates that all got bombed at the same time.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:51 AM
5

The sub was banned along with a bunch of others, mods can't ban their subs they can only make them private.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:40 AM
28

What? You didn't like Sister Act? Or Guinan on Star Trek: TNG?
/r/MensRights16/10/12 11:06 AM
14

Also I doubt those quotas apply to shitty jobs like trash collection or sewage plant operators, so therefore can never actually be "equal".
/r/MensRights14/10/12 01:10 PM
12

Or we'll get a ton of no-hopers in careers they hate, creating stuff that's no good, for employers and team-mates carrying them They are already there. Plenty of non-technically gifted people got into IT when it was overhyped and have been wasting other peoples oxygen ever since. Some of the women just think it is acceptable to shift the blame for their own incompetence onto men. There are sexist men in IT, but most of the claims of sexism are because IT people tend to not like being bullshitted…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 01:08 PM
1

Yes, one side of my family was poor Irish. They were usually the lowest social class amongst white people and so married non-whites on occasion.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:23 AM
1

Sweet, I am something like 1/64th Chinese, time to rock the minority card!
/r/MensRights14/10/12 06:09 AM
2

I don't support mandatory sentencing because it is draconian. I would rather not punish everyone just because some women get lighter sentences. I think society would be better off by making the justice system less harsh to men instead of just making it "fair".
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:11 PM
4

The issue is that it is entirely nebulous being based on the prejudices of those running the legal system. There isn't a law that can simply be struck down. The MRM is already challenging those prejudicial attitudes society has, but the Feminists are fighting just as hard to entrench "penis bad, womb good".
/r/MensRights13/10/12 01:48 PM
5

But don't you understand that all the media scrutiny is so much worse for a woman than having to do jail time!!1111elventy /s
/r/MensRights13/10/12 01:45 PM
5

kgkgkgk
/r/MensRights13/10/12 06:23 AM
2

Learn to read. I said "baulk at killing children for writing propaganda". There is a big difference psychologically between knowing that you are dropping a bomb that could kill children, and personally shooting a child in the head.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 01:24 PM
3

Are you functionally illiterate? One of the terrible things the Western Allies did was strategic bombing for minimal to no military purpose.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 07:14 AM
4

Killing child bystanders in an attack isn't the same as targeting children for assassination. When the US hires a gunman to walk up to a Taliban school girl and shoot her in the head for spreading pro-Taliban propaganda get back to me.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 06:52 AM
6

She was/is a collaborationist with the occupying power. Go do more research, the Pakistani Taliban aren't the Afghan Taliban. The Pakistani Taliban are fighting against the Pakistani government because they want an extremist Islamic state in Pakistan, not because the US/UK/etc are fighting in Afghanistan. In WW2 someone like that would have been shot as a traitor By the Nazis maybe. The Western Allies did terrible things but even they would baulk at killing a child for writing propaganda for the…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 06:26 AM
4

17 (18%) women in the intervention group and eight (12%) women in the control group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0·36). Cumulative probabilities of female HIV infection at 24 months were 21·7% (95% CI 12·7—33·4) in the intervention group and 13·4% (6·7—25·8) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·49, 95% CI 0·62—3·57; p=0·368). But they stopped the trial early due futility (aka too damn many infections in the circumcised group) and so made no claim about an increase in infection rates…
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:52 AM
6

Like misogyny wasn't already the catchphrase for media in Australia. I have to ask though, these weren't the same urinals that are actually the Rolling Stones emblem are they? http://www.ibtimes.com/lip-shaped-urinals-cause-uproar-german-rolling-stones-museum-402718
/r/MensRights10/10/12 07:16 AM
2

cis as a latin prefix makes no sense on a non-latin word. Like English obeys rules.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 12:57 AM
25

Car insurance companies do not play a sexist game. They charge people based on the statistics. That isn't the point. The Feminists get up in arm about any discrimination against women, even if it is based on statistics (eg wanting gender balance in physically demanding jobs such as police and firefighting). Also, while the insurance companies do base it on the statistics, in effect they punish the males who don't have major crashes the most, because the ones that do crash usually don't keep payi…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:42 PM
6

Jess_than_three and viviphilia at least engaged in reasoned debate and citing sources instead of just throwing insults. That puts them head and shoulders above the usual suspects. I have my views and people aren't going to change them by going the "but it makes people feel bad!" route.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 10:39 AM
4

That doesn't have much to do with what I said. People need to defend their own damn statements and stop acting like there is a conspiracy out to silence them, or that disagreement is bullying. The reason certain rightists here get so heavily downvoted is because they say idiotic things like "if you are left-wing you don't support mens rights". They turn a problem with both sides of politics into a partisan pissing match.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:00 AM
3

You horrible white oppressor!
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:57 AM
5

Personally, I do think that it's problematic for example when people use words like "faggot" and "tranny" and whatever, slurs, basically, although I think that there's a line - and I think that for example getting upset about someone calling something "dumb" is on the far (i.e. ridiculous) side of it. I agree with that. First, you said that "those people infest 'progressive' groups", which I took to mean (and I apologize for the apparent miscommunication) that you meant that people who wanted yo…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:37 AM
6

I'm a progressive myself So am I. And I've virtually never seen anyone take that position - I've heard it ascribed to /r/lgbt, and to SRS, but I haven't personally seen it happen. Really? You haven't seen SRS constantly use "cis-male" as a term of disparagement? And you have never had people "correct" your language? Never seen a whine about someone using moron/retard etc? I didn't say 90% of progressives were like that, merely that those people exist in every progressive group. They live to get …
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:12 AM
3

Except that is the sort of thing this sub was set-up to fight. The automatic assumption that penis owners are barely controlled sex maniacs who could snap and start raping at any moment. If cis-female lesbians are allowed in there so should trans-female lesbians.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 06:03 AM
7

I say that it's silly because only the most ridiculous of people would ever expect you to use it all the time. Yet those people infest "progressive" groups.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:46 AM
4

The issue of gender is more complex than you appear to understand. No, I understand it is complex, I was just asserting that your definition of "biological women" covers everybody and therefore ceases to be meaningful. Incorrect, which you would have realized if you'd read the link I posted. I read that link, maybe you should read it too. "It has often been said that in sexual differentiation in mammals, the female is the "default" developmental pathway, in the sense that elimination of any of s…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:42 AM
8

Do you think schizophrenia is in the brain, as most scientists believe, or is it in the mind, as you appear to be suggesting is the case with trans? Of course schizophrenia is in the brain, all behaviour comes from the brain, including gender dysphoria. I am just not convinced that fact means all behaviour and feeling is "biological" (which implies genetic predestination). If one had a hypothetical androgen insensitivity in the brain, it is easy to see how, biologically, that person would be bio…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 05:21 AM
9

"HUURR People disagree with me! BULLIES! DURR" That is what I see from "out spoken" rightists and traditionalists on this sub.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 04:51 AM
6

The organization of the brain is biological. Thus, gender identity is biological. By that argument so is religion and everything else people do. But there are known biological differences, as explained in the papers cited above. Since our science is not yet advanced enough to read people's minds Notice anything incongruous here? If there are known biological differences those could be examined to determine gender, no mind reading required. Most I have ever read about gestational hormones results…
/r/MensRights09/10/12 04:27 AM
8

Trans women are biologically women What? No they aren't. Either femaleness is genetically determined and we say trans-women are women out of politeness, or everyone is a biological woman. The word "cis" makes trans people visible, which is why trans misogynists don't like it. I don't like it because using it all the time makes as much sense as always stipulating that someone is a non-Christian\non-Vegan\non-black\non-Jew\non-Neal Patrick Harris fan etc.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 03:36 AM
6

I encourage the LGBT community to separate from the feminist movement to prevent from being sucked into their black hole of hypocrisy. The issue is that the L's in LGBT are usually the most nuttiest Feminists. As homosexuality becomes more accepted in society I actually expect the LGBT movement to split over this.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 02:14 AM
2

Well it is trivial to turn off subreddit CSS. I usually have it off because too many subreddits abuse it.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 06:19 PM
3

This would be a men's rights issue if Gender had featured at all. It did, the early media coverage of this case was hysterically biased towards the mother until the judge slapped a newspaper down. The mother and grandmother were trying to use the publics sympathy for mothers to force the justice systems hand.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 02:43 PM
7

Question: How did you not notice your balls didn't feel or look "normal"? I mean I am no expert on testicles but I have seen enough from medical texts and animals to realise what a scrotum with testicles should look like. I don't mean to be insensitive but this seems as bizarre as a woman not knowing she is pregnant until she gives birth.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:04 AM
2

The thing that bothers me is all the armour. If you want to learn self-defence you need to learn how to take blows not just dish them out.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 04:56 PM
3

Is individual or couple happiness a good predictor of future divorce? That is the question you should be asking. Honestly, "happiness" is such a subjective concept that I would never take research on it too seriously. Unless you are measuring concrete factors like divorce rates it is way too easy to make the data say anything you want.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 07:50 PM
5

Those sites got banned for vote rigging, not for being controversial. Reddit has massive influence and unethical companies try and manipulate the system to increase their ad impressions.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 07:57 AM
9

Reddit would be much better with a blank ban on dailymail post. FTFY!
/r/MensRights27/09/12 04:44 AM
3

I have lots of respect for philsophy majors, that is usually a very rigorous course. It just isn't treated in the job market with any more respect than a random BA even though it actually teaches critically needed skills. And women's studies avoid rigorous philosophy by dismissing it as "dead white men studies" because there own philosophy is so logically weak.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 05:59 PM
10

Still probably run by the women's studies faculty. This sounds more like an excuse for someone to expand their kingdom than actual concern for students.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:44 PM
14

Still the same bloody basic idea. Not many university students are going to be from communities where non-consensual groping is acceptable. Sexual deviants do this stuff because it is deviant.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 04:43 PM
0

I'm thinking that "migraines" here is code for "hangovers", which a sports drink could help with.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 09:43 AM
2

Oh god that original study was so fucking worthless. HIV is a life-long problem and you only need to catch it once, doing a short term study is completely meaningless to the argument of whether circumcision should be used to prevent HIV.
/r/MensRights26/09/12 09:12 AM
2

I believe some of the ethicists involved identify as feminists, feminists vehemently defended the ethicists involved, and the ethicists main focus was on the mother's "rights" not just on an abstract concept of when a baby was considered to have human rights. IMO it was an argument firmly set within a feminist world view.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 04:20 PM
3

Shaming tactics, attacking the "privilege" of the speaker and not their argument (in the oppression olympics gay male > upper-middle class white female), dismissals like "he is just angry because no woman would sleep with him", lunacy like "MRAs just want rape to be legal" etc.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 02:44 PM
2

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/philosophers-claim-over-moral-right-to-kill-newborns-sparks-outrage-20120301-1u61l.html
/r/MensRights24/09/12 02:39 PM
12

Even if you are pro-choice you should know the academic feminists have defended post-birth "abortion". The whole "a fetus isn't really a person" thing is just a smoke-screen for hardcore feminists, they just believe that a woman's "rights" trump the right of any other being.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 12:05 PM
15

That won't work because gays. That is why gay MRA's are the best MRA's IMO. The usual feminist attacks just fall dead against a gay man. And even attacks that work, within radfem circles, make the feminists look like awful bigots to the general public. Gay men will want to use artificial wombs, feminists won't be able to stop them. MRAs cheer for joy.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 12:00 PM
33

I notice that sperm banks and artificial insemination haven't made men obsolete Sperm banks don't pay child support.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 11:56 AM
1

Yes, but the argument I have seen feminists make is that any choice a woman makes that could conceivably benefit a male partner is due to the man dominating his partner. It becomes about a man having any power over a woman even if the woman voluntarily gave him that power.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 03:45 PM
2

but often about one partner establishing official control of the other's income, as a control mechanism. So what is wrong with this if one of the partners has a repeated pattern of financial irresponsibility?
/r/MensRights22/09/12 03:01 PM
8

Arab culture. It isn't acceptable at all to be a bottom, but being a top is only slightly off. Pretty much the same ideas that the ancient Greeks had.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:30 PM
1

No-fault divorce isn't just "no reason" divorce. Those are seperate concepts that feminists try to tie together. Anyone should be able to divorce for any reason, they just shouldn't get the same rights in settlement if they break the marital contract in extreme ways (such as adultery).
/r/MensRights19/09/12 12:17 AM
5

If we don't have alimony or no-faults divorce, people get trapped in unhappy marriages. Lol, no. This isn't the 1950's, women can get jobs just like men can. Women want alimony and no-fault divorce so they can continue having a man provide for them even if they don't hold to their side of the bargain.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 12:21 PM
2

The point of this "emotional abuse" stuff is to control weak willed individuals by asserting your comments are authoritatively true even if they aren't. It isn't really logical argument, it is usually claiming logical argument but actually using intimidation to get the other party to agree with you. This only works against the stupid or weak willed. Anyone who can logically dissect an argument or who can access third party verification is largely immune.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 10:34 AM
13

The guys that think all men are quick to resort to violence think that way because they figure all men must be just like them. DING DING DING. The stories of misogyny, violence, and rape I have heard from ardent "male feminists" has lead me to believe that they think all other men are scum like them. I suppose if you are constantly struggling with your desires to rape or punch women then it would be easy to buy into feminist dogma.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:07 AM
8

Yeah they are going to get Julian anyway they can. That's fine though as there are plenty of Julian Assanges in this world, the powers the be really don't understand how this phenomena works.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 04:34 PM
2

SA kicked them out a while back after first corralling them in their own sub-forum (clever bastards).
/r/MensRights16/09/12 03:07 PM
6

Some women do deserve to be beaten up. As do some men.
/r/MensRights16/09/12 01:24 PM
2

They aren't likely to take you after 30, but most countries don't exclude people until the 50's.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 04:12 PM
3

It was actually Japan I was thinking of. They, and middle-eastern countries, are usually the offender when I hear about one of these cases. But I do get on Japan's case* on Reddit, it is just that people don't seem to care. * Ror example about how they are racist but polite so nobody calls them on it, which is what is causing their population crisis because they won't allow enough immigration.
/r/MensRights15/09/12 02:15 AM
6

I didn't say he ran away, I said she was lucky he didn't. In divorce cases with mixed nationalities one party running away with the kids to their home country is frequent, and there are a lot of countries which will favour their own citizens over foreign nationals.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 04:00 PM
40

I have heard plenty of stories of men doing that. I bet men and women do it in similar amounts, it is just that women are so massively more likely to get custody that skews the apparent ratio. But this woman should be bloody happy. She is apparently wealthy enough to regularly travel to see her children and the father didn't run away to a country that supports parental alienation.
/r/MensRights14/09/12 01:53 PM
1

Isn't that what SRS is for?
/r/MensRights12/09/12 12:11 AM
2

Yeah, the entire world isn't America. Atheism, or at least foxhole theism, is dominant in most Western countries.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 12:13 PM
0

Knowing our fucktard politicians and how deeply embedded femicrazies are here I wouldn't be surprised to see them attempt to pass a law to remove discretion in cases like this.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 12:30 PM
9

Yep, I can't wait for the schisms and sectarianism. "Our logic is superior!"
/r/MensRights04/09/12 12:00 PM
5

Exactly, if she had said she doesn't like to date first/second generation Chinese immigrants because they are more likely to have misogynistic culture it would be understandable. Saying she won't date any person of Chinese descent regardless of how long they have been "Westernised" is just trying to spin personal preference about physical appearance into something it isn't.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:49 AM
1

post birth? do you mean partial birth? cause abortion isn't really the same unless one thinks a fetus is an infant, a debate I will not get into. Oh no, this was full on "a newborn isn't really a human because it don't think no good" argument. http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/philosophers-claim-over-moral-right-to-kill-newborns-sparks-outrage-20120301-1u61l.html As I understand it, there's not really evidence that infanticide was practiced in Europe before Christianity You mean apart from Sp…
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:00 AM
1

because infanticide never became an accepted practice After Christianity came to dominate Europe you mean. Before then infanticide was accepted in many European cultures. And now that many of us live in post-Christian cultures it is becoming acceptable again even though very few admit it (see the academics recently trying to defend "post birth abortion").
/r/MensRights29/08/12 07:06 AM
0

It also depends what you mean by "equality of outcome". Modern feminism is mostly pushing for mandated gender/race ratios, whereas other people would solve that issue by skill building and encouragement. I am completely against the former, but I don't mind the latter in cases where numbers are really low for a particular group to their determinant (eg if say east-asian migrant women have mostly poorly paid insecure work you fix the issue by targeted skill building programs, not by mandating that…
/r/MensRights25/08/12 03:07 PM
3

I don't think many people here are arguing that the "Matriarchy™" is the cause of all problems, but feminists are directly reponsible for lobbying for pro-female laws, shouting down male issues, and shocking displays of gender hatred. I doubt many MensRights posters think the world would be a utopia if feminists/women went away, men are plenty good at damaging each other, but the major cohesive force that is damaging males today is modern (female-supremacist) feminism.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:38 AM
9

Yeah except no one asks that question about labial circumcision even though the labia serves a similar purpose, and presents a similar risk, to the foreskin. And if we just care about costs we would be better off removing all childrens genitals, storing eggs and sperm, and only allowing authorized reproduction by responsible tax payers.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 10:23 AM
1

I don't know why kids hate Captain Picard.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 07:56 AM
2

Or just mute all voice comms and close chats. I don't find they add much to public servers. Then again I don't play on consoles which seem to have the worst player base if I take peoples complaints seriously (I have never run into the "nigger faggot motherfucker" 14 year olds regularly on PC).
/r/MensRights18/08/12 05:40 AM
3

I can't believe the GNAA is still around, that is so early 2000's. Though Gayniggers from Outer Space is a pretty good movie to watch while drunk.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 10:52 AM
6

Sorry, this is incorrect. YouTube's takedown system goes far beyond what is required by the DMCA. Google tried to do a "don't sue me bro" by giving the MAFIAA more than they legally had to.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 07:14 AM
8

Women don't usually hit on men. That is another part of male privilege: being expected to do most of the initial effort to establish a relationship. P.S. It is always hilarious when a "rape culture!" feminists reaches the age at which she stops getting "the male gaze". So much butthurt.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:43 AM
4

I dunno, usually I suspect single attractive women of being crazy more than I do single unattractive women. At least I know why the unattractive ones are single.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:41 AM
5

Every political theory is anti-government until it is in control.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 10:38 AM
1

Thanks for those links, they were very informative.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 04:45 AM
1

That said, there is still an ongoing and heated debate about just when a fetus should be considered a baby, even among (supposed) experts. A fetus only stops being a fetus after birth. "Baby" in this context is completely unscientific, but if you show people pictures of fetuses they will usually identify it as a baby (see people putting up ultrasounds of their babies on Facebook). Most of the serious pro-lifers are completely fine with killing what people identify as "babies" to the point of sup…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:44 AM
5

Even if people are dumb enough to believe the rate of child molestation on aircraft is high enough that precautions need to be taken, the easy fix is to just leave empty seats. "Think of the children!". Check. Not sexist. Check.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 07:11 AM
8

People even get butthurt about "nicking" where they just do a small cut to the clitoris to make it bleed a little.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 06:38 AM
1

Well there was. Due to pregnancy young women as a group are much more expensive to insurers than young men and there has been a lot of whining about that recently.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 12:07 PM
1

hlhlhlh
/r/MensRights12/08/12 03:48 AM
8

It would be nice for Dawkin's to realise you don't need "organised religion" to have "religious" zealots, and that getting rid of supernaturalism isn't going to get rid of those zealots.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 10:28 AM
12

Yeah most psychs don't take Freud seriously. It is taught as part of the history and development of psychology and some of his concepts have been absorbed into other theories.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 10:26 AM
78

Well that is classic DV abuser talk. Even when it is man on woman it is "She made me so angry". The core problem with these people IMO is that they don't see, or refuse to see, that no one is responsible for their behaviour but themselves. EDIT: This is some good justiceporn.
/r/MensRights04/08/12 01:11 PM
1

Modern feminism comes directly from radical Marxism. The basically re-wrote Marx with "women" in place of "working class".
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:52 AM
0

And probably half of them are almost-rapists or actual rapists that feel bad about what they did and desire to do and project their sickness on other men.
/r/MensRights02/08/12 02:33 AM
8

IIRC the original study was ridiculously short and many men dropped out. That is what is so damned offensive about this issue, the "science" was fucking awful. But what does that matter they are just dumb africans. /s A trial of this degree of invasiveness with such poor science would never pass an ethics board in the West.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 12:38 PM
2

I'm just pulling my statements from the Bible Out of context maybe. Tithing isn't well supported by NT texts and the whole point of Christianity was about questioning the powers that be, and many many texts in the NT go on about doing what is right not what leaders tell you to do. You need clericalism or a cult of personality to get "no questions allowed!" Christianity.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 09:14 AM
3

Yeah, I am shocked how many posters here have obviously never seen the aftermath of a real fight or even any wound about the level of "boo-boo". I have seen people absolutely soaked in blood from a nose bleed.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:54 AM
3

That is one punch or a hard slap.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:53 AM
6

Am I the only one who doesn't see any open wound that would create this amount of blood? That is a minor nose bleed (or possibly a cut under the eye) at best. It looks like a few streams of blood and a lot of mess from tears. I am surprised by the amount of people here who have apparently never seen a real wound.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:51 AM
2

He didn't beat her to a bloody pulp. She has a black eye and some very minor bleeding (probably from a cut under her eye or from her nose). I have seen worse from a single punch.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:47 AM
2

I wouldn't. As ryguy_1 says above actual soldiers (that would show up in statistics) are historically relatively rare and in most ancient wars non-combatants did the most dying just as they do today. Now if you put it as "men defending women from violence" vs "death in child birth" it is a completely different story (most people have more female ancestors than male for a reason).
/r/MensRights01/08/12 04:48 AM
2

Seeing feminists argue against logic based on this kind of reasoning has on a couple of occasions made me want to take a shotgun mouthwash. It is honestly the stupidest argument I have ever heard.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:09 AM
3

I still maintain that the primary issue will always be that men are larger, stronger and more durable than women — in such a fundamental way that even if an exceptional woman can match an athletic man's physical prowess technically (lift the same weight, run the same velocity, etc.), the woman's body will begin to deteriorate significantly faster during (identical) prolonged periods of extreme physical stress. The Chief Physician of the Australian Army agrees with you.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 02:20 AM
6

People are so fucking stupid. If an attack really happened then these guys were at the same time incredibly smart (ninja home invasion and leaving no sign of forced entry) and incredibly stupid (spray painting insults and then trying and failing to burn the building down). Occam's Razor says she is a nut-job who cut herself up for attention.
/r/MensRights29/07/12 02:45 PM
1

Yeah I love when people who have never been in a life threatening situation talk shit about those who have been and didn't react like heroes. I am lucky that the few times I have been in life threatening situations I get ultra-focused and am able to function (and then afterwards get the shakes real bad). I don't blame people who freeze up or just run because that is all lower brain functions, it isn't a choice. I look at it from an evolutionary POV and can see that fighting, fleeing, or freezing…
/r/MensRights28/07/12 04:15 AM
1

It has currently been so long that any STD's should have surfaced. I don't know of any STD that can evade detection for more than a year.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 12:31 AM
3

These are so far outside of what comes to mind when the word "rape" is used, that the only real credible explanation is it's all a sham for extradition purposes. Nope, the other possibility is butthurt feminists who want to bring a powerful man to heel. I am an Assange supporter (even though I think he is a bit of a dickhead) but I think originally it was about feminist revenge and the US only got involved much later if at all.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 12:30 AM
8

What you have said is the complete opposite of my experience. Anyone who doesn't resort to threats of violence before resorting to violence is an idiot*, it has nothing to do with bravery. I really doubt you have ever used your "advice" in a bar because unless you are an impressive fighter you would have gotten your arse kicked by drunk guys looking for an excuse to fight. * Not only are there legal implications from using violence, but our whole society is based upon maintaining order primarily…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:15 PM
4

Nice try Matthew Broderick!
/r/MensRights23/07/12 12:12 PM
13

Godwin's law doesn't count when the comparison is actually apt.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:46 AM
4

Yeah, and feminists propagate it with "take back the night" campaigns. The reality is that a woman is massively more likely to be raped at home during the day by an acquaintance then on the streets at night by a stranger. That is part of the amusing interdependence feminist campaigners have formed with the traditionalists they oppose.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 11:42 AM
15

I'm saying that women are constantly sexually objectified whereas men are not. Yeah see that isn't true, women just might be quieter about it, but women's media and the media in general is full of male sexual objectification. I regularly gauge other men's sexual attractiveness and I am straight. There is a reason the growth area for eating disorders is teenage males. Women have to live with an ever-present and deserved fear of being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and men don't. Utter rub…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 07:03 AM
23

I'd find the constant objectification degrading Yeah 'cause women never talk about attractive men in an objectifying manner. and the inability to go where I want at night (alone) without rightfully fearing for my safety insufferable. If you are a man you already should fear for your safety in that circumstance. The chance of a man being assaulted in that situation is a few order of magnitude higher then the chance of a woman being physically or sexually assaulted. The "women should be terrified …
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:35 AM
16

Most of those problems are already shared by men, are nullified by personal responsibility, or have largely been eradicated in the West. Considering women in my generation are better educated, higher paid, have lower rates of suicide, and will live longer then the men of my generation, I would be fine with some more equality.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 06:10 AM
8

These women are gold-diggers. Splitting the bill is probably a good test to figure out what kind of person you are dating for both sexes.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:40 AM
19

Don't order lobster then.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:37 AM
7

I didn't know so many bronies were actually successful business men.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:37 AM
4

They do also claim men want their partners to look like Sarah Jessica Parker... I laughed at that. She is not only a butterface but a butterbody.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:35 AM
15

I actually wish this were true because it would see a lot of problems males face taken seriously.
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:32 AM
5

You are just assuming her trauma is the cause of her irrationality.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 01:23 PM
21

It isn't an excuse, it is an explanation on what triggered her issues. I have known many other traumatised people who don't lose the ability to behave civilly. I just think it is tasteless to use retarded when referring to any mental disability I wasn't referring to any mental disability. Having shitty logic isn't a mental disability.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 01:15 PM
37

Saying her issues are because of another mental problem, namely retardation, is a little too close to home. Pretty much no one uses "retard" to refer to actual mental disability, it is used to mean something like "very stupid". Nearly all insults which refer to intellectual capability started life as terms for mental disability. Also her rape is not an excuse for her behaviour.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 01:01 PM
2

God forbid that there should be a world oil crisis during a freezing Brooklyn December, and then see how long it takes for the lovers of Xmas to turn savagely against the Jews, who, of course, will be to blame. How do you find this shit? But I think it is disingenuous to call one pro-theocractic Israel blog "the pro-circumcision lobby". I mean the author is in favour of anti-circumcision laws so that all the Jews will go to Israel.
/r/MensRights18/07/12 08:27 AM
3

/r/ShitRedditSays has claimed to be a circlejerk for a while now. The issue with that excuse is they have "serious" discussion subreddits as part of the "fempire" that say the same kind of retarded shit.
/r/MensRights15/07/12 06:15 AM
6

At university? The class I had with the man-hating lecturer was only an intro class so I just finished it and moved on. The only other class she taught which I was required to take was an advanced OO design class and by that point most women had quit (IIRC there were two left out of twenty or so). This was right as the Dot.Com bubble popped so lots of people who started that course bailed when they realised they weren't going to become millionaires easily.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 06:16 PM
8

Well yeah that is what happens in Australian universities, feminist ideology is very well entrenched. When I was doing an IT course at uni there was a female lecturer who ran the "women in IT" program who always came off as a man-hater in class. So my sister and I submitted the same assignment as an experiment and surprise surprise my sister got a notably higher score. That was my second experience with man-hating teachers, I had a high school teacher that managed to get nearly all the male stud…
/r/MensRights14/07/12 06:03 PM
2

Anti-depressants don't work that way.
/r/MensRights14/07/12 11:26 AM
5

out of the mouth of babes etc.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:43 PM
42

Or intentional comedy as Cordelia is supposed to be fairly ignorant.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 01:53 PM
1

Neither did Felicia Day, she created a very popular web series about gaming. She isn't just some boobs hosting a gaming show by decree of corporate suits. This guy was an arsehole towards a celebrity he knew nothing about. He was sexist because he assumed Felicia Day was just a "glorified booth babe" because he knew nothing about her and she was female and so he made an assumption. The problem of women becoming gaming "celebrities" for having tits is real, but this guy not only called out the wr…
/r/MensRights01/07/12 11:38 AM
20

"Men are privileged, white men are especially privileged. Therefore they should not receive any help. Black men are privileged, but less so than white men and so giving them small amounts of help is acceptable." This is why opponents of the MRM think it is the ultimate insult to call everyone here a heterosexual white male under the misconception that this will shame us and destroy our ability to argue our position. I can forgive their misconception because merely mentioning privilege is usually…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:10 AM
1

Your stereotyping of pedophiles and child abusers only show your incapability of grasping reality and your need to resort to prefabricated categories and stereotypes, which are far more easy to deal with. No it shows that categorisation has been effective in researching and understanding many different aspects of human behaviour.
/r/MensRights30/06/12 05:30 AM
0

There used to be, it was once extremely popular.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 06:30 AM
2

Nice generalizations and stereotyping you made there. Those were qualified statements in case you can't tell the difference. Saying "a lot of reddit users are white heterosexual males" is a qualified statement based on statistics, not a stereotype or generalisation. Saying "redditors are white heterosexual males" is a stereotype/generalisation. Embrace reality not blanket generalizations and terms that do not exist in the real world. You don't believe clinicians categorise pedophiles and child a…
/r/MensRights28/06/12 04:07 AM
1

http://expertscolumn.com/content/close-child-sexual-abuser That is a non-scholarly article (I'm having trouble with pay walls) that covers the common motives. I'm looking for a suitable scholarly article.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 02:12 PM
4

Saying all rape is about power is wrong, but some people do get off on having power over others even if not in a sexual context.
/r/MensRights27/06/12 02:03 PM
3

Thank you! Pedophilia (or ephebophilia) is about primary sexual orientation (ie attraction to children/teens over adults), the diagnosis isn't about child sex abuse. Plenty of child abusers are not pedophiles and aren't sexually attracted to children. They do it for power (ie they enjoy hurting people, children are just easy targets) or because they would fuck anything with a hole. A lot of "true" pedophiles are so disconnected from society that the chance of them harming a child is minimal. The…
/r/MensRights27/06/12 05:59 AM
2

You need to watch more. They are definitely playing with tropes and gender expectations in regards to the "good guys". The only real good guy is Terry, though Jason is a jerk with a heart of gold.
/r/MensRights26/06/12 09:49 AM
3

http://www.vice.com/read/dublin-is-a-paradise?GalleryImage=55623 This is the one. I replied to the wrong* comment. * Me fail English? That unpossible!
/r/MensRights25/06/12 06:05 AM
8

Those men have ID tags and radios. They are probably cops or bouncers. It is Vice guide so I can't tell if shitty jokes or retardation.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 05:07 AM
3

Actually Olympic Curling with Roy & HG doing commentary is pretty good.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 03:48 PM
2

I only mildly care if it is an international event and my country might win.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 03:38 PM
1

I agree with you. WBB posts serve to counter the stereotypes about men ("only men rape" or "only men commit domestic violence"), but lately far too many posts have been about that and the subreddit begins to look as if it is for whining about women and not promoting men's rights.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 09:34 AM
3

I agree, that is why I don't call myself an MRA. I just want men's issues to be taken as seriously as women's issues. The only time I think women's issues are largely bullshit is when it is wealthy white professional women, because what they mostly complain about is how hard it is to have a career and children. Oh you poor things, being forced to choose, the huge manatees!
/r/MensRights09/06/12 08:26 AM
3

Is it social pressure to tell your partner that you will not care for a child that is not yours? Yes. Tsking at someone who litters is social pressure. Social pressure is actually a more important force in peoples behaviour than written law. That is why the Feminists shame men who refuse to be Good Femimen™.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 12:54 PM
-5

Yes and by knowing the male can use social pressure on his partner which is enough for radfems to call it "control". My point is that radfems don't just want to stop men controlling their wives sexuality, they want to give all the power to women.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 12:38 PM
11

I would say it is male fear of pedo-hunts.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 12:29 PM
-7

Patriarchal lineage was part of the "patriarchy" in Western cultures. It is actually an idea that prior to paternity testing could only flourish in a patriarchy because a child's mother is always certain but the father is not.
/r/MensRights06/06/12 12:24 PM
11

But it is patriarchal. A core idea of patriarchal system was lineage passing through the male line. Children would get their father's surname, the first born son would get the property etc. And so men would control women's reproduction so as to ensure their line. The radfems don't just want to get rid of the abuses of the past, they want to create a matriarchy where lineage is through the mother and it is illegal for father's to demand a paternity test. Women will have all power around reproduct…
/r/MensRights06/06/12 11:57 AM
4

I don't see how that is pertinent to what Jon Stewart does. He does political satire, citing sources does not make it serious journalism even if the show is a pretend news show. His objective is to get laughs not to accurately report the news. The fact that his show often has better analysis than serious news shows is an indictment of the other shows, not evidence that The Daily Show is trying to be disingenuous. Really the right-wing pundits he and Colbert make fun of should just stop living th…
/r/MensRights05/06/12 08:57 AM
3

Oh look I hate when they frame it like this, but the reality is that showing the financial cost gets governments to actually do shit while "we should reduce suffering" gets some kind mumblings of support and no real action. And it shows businesses that doing right by their employees is good for the business.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 07:18 PM
3

Wow, that gif makes it look like he flattened here, in the video she is a bit stunned but still fighting back after the punch.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:25 PM
2

As they were in most armies that haven't integrated. The Australian army is going to job based PT standards (and it will be funny when fat blokes get into non-combat units like fat women already do). Of course the problem is that there is some evidence that women who can hack the PT standards still suffer joint and ligament problems at a higher rate then men.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:50 PM
4

It has been a long time since males outnumbered women in psychology. There were two men including myself in my psych classes in 2009 (and this is Australia, psychology courses are usually done by people who will go into practice, not just as a bad choice in major).
/r/MensRights29/05/12 11:13 AM
3

Yeah except rape can never be stopped. There will always be someone who rapes someone else. Same as murder and drug use. And men get annoyed at these messages because they are focused at men. Women have just as much responsibility to teach their kids not to rape as men do. It is pushing the perception that rape is caused by males and that large numbers of males are rapists*. The message isn't just "stop rape", it is "don't rape anyone with your penis". It isn't telling men to adjust their buddie…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:09 AM
9

No it isn't, my brain is capable of not using it to rape women. That still doesn't stop the guys who think rape is okay, and I see little way to use my penis to inform them that rape isn't okay.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:04 AM
6

That isn't the argument. But the pro-cutting argument has been that circumcision is good because it helps women, so this article is aimed at countering that belief.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 03:35 PM
2

And in return men got certain privileges. Now that those privileges have been removed it is time for women to shut-up (about men who don't want to die for them) or sign-up (for the military/police). It might be "natural" but the primary method of enforcement was shaming behaviour by females.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 09:45 AM
2

Please don't tell me that males aren't still expected to defend females with physical violence, because we are. Any man who is attacked while with a female is expected to protect her from injury, or face massive ridicule (these stories regularly make the popular press). It is easy to look at the physiological differences between men and women and figure out that men protecting women is so ingrained that it has had notable impact on the evolution of human males.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 07:12 AM
13

I am glad that since they removed the legal prohibitions against women joining the military that they now make up 50% of the forces. Oh wait, lol, they only make up 13.4% of the active US Army, despite being eligible to serve in 70% of positions.
/r/MensRights28/05/12 03:34 AM
5

Like Kara Hultgreen? Or that female Captain that finally got pulled from command after years of complaints about her abusiveness? The USN is a poster child for feminist bullshit getting people killed and ruining men's lives to cover for the inadequacies of incompetent women.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 06:45 AM
2

I have heard about that and I can only imagine how insulting it must feel. You get paid crap for often dangerous jobs with long periods separated from family, and they expect you to help cover government funding for charities.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 06:39 AM
11

Circumcised Ugandan men, and the study only ran over two years. That means the long term and universal applicability of the study are doubtful. And it is no where near as efficacious as just wearing a fucking condom. Considering the poor state of public health promotion in Africa and the poor quality of education I also wouldn't be surprised if many circumcised men hear these messages and think circumcision makes them immune to STD's.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 08:22 AM
6

Yes, climate studies are a branch of sociology. /s
/r/MensRights20/05/12 08:16 AM
18

That is why the nutsofems are trying to push that burden of proof in American colleges for rape cases. That way they can acclimatise men to their under-class status for a few decades and then roll it out in the legal system.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 07:53 AM
21

You had to be able to prove in court that the abuse occurred, and the standard of proof was higher than "a women said it was true" (also in the time before no-fault divorce women usually didn't have the money to pay for a competent lawyer). There are also other types of abuse besides physical.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 07:45 AM
15

Yeah there is no way you can separate the impact of no-fault divorce from the general anti-domestic violence campaigns over the same time period.
/r/MensRights20/05/12 06:58 AM
44

Prior to "no-fault" divorce you either needed a reason to get divorced (eg adultery, or physical abuse) at all, or if you didn't have a reason you wouldn't get alimony (pretty much women only), or might even be punished. This meant many women stayed in abusive or unloving marriages because they had no skills and couldn't support themselves. The problem is that today most women do have skills and jobs yet the divorce system overwhelmingly improves their position because they get half of their hus…
/r/MensRights20/05/12 06:57 AM
15

It's the "it doesn't count when men do it to men" gender wars bullshit. Only violence across gender counts apparently /eye roll.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 02:28 PM
10

That first quote is some of the funniest shit I have ever read.
/r/MensRights17/05/12 01:58 PM
4

My first post had a crime avoidance tip for men.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 01:00 PM
7

I hope you weren't referring to me as being "idiotic". No, just the Feminist tactic of calling crime avoidance "victim blaming" and refusing to relent when show evidence that individual behaviour can increase the chance of being a victim.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 08:07 AM
5

Sorry, but that is an idiotic statement that Feminists pull out any time people point out the correlation between specific behaviours of victims and subsequent victimisation. The criminal is always at fault, but that doesn't mean that certain behaviours don't increase the chance of being a victim. For men hanging outside bars at 3am in the morning is a good way to increase your chances of getting curb-stomped by drunks, for women engaging in binge drinking increases the chance of being sexually …
/r/MensRights16/05/12 07:49 AM
1

It takes a lot of money to run a foster parent program. Governments prefer to stick kids with family members or close family friends, even if they are neglectful. Also institutional care systems have been pretty much demolished because of the shitty way they were run.
/r/MensRights16/05/12 07:43 AM
12

All you have to do is ask any woman about high school. Hell, my mum works in a female dominated work place, where the average age would be pushing 40, and female bullying is common. Male bullies usually just rough their victims up and do some crude taunts. Female bullies construct elaborate psychological tortures to attempt to destroy their victims confidence.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 05:16 PM
5

But it's important that people in a serious relationship get the benefits marriage offers. Why? If the institution of marriage has fallen from a life-long foundation of society to just being a temporary life style, then why should the single people fund the temporary life-styles of married couples? IMO remove all legal benefits to marriage.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 03:59 PM
2

No probs guy.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 11:07 AM
2

If you don't want to get your SO pregnant, and you are totally emotionally/financially unprepared for the possibility of her getting pregnant, than you are a boy. Your SO could stop taking the pill with the intent of getting pregnant and you would be stuck with the responsibility of a child with no choice.
/r/MensRights15/05/12 09:00 AM
13

And under the current legal regime in most Western countries her advice is 100% correct. Men have no power to correct "mistakes" and share a large financial burden for minimal privileges. This means vaginal intercourse is more than just a little harmless fun for men and they need to be prepared for that reality. P.S. This is why I wish they would hurry up with the male pill. The rage from Feminists because more men will have almost responsibility free sex is just a bonus.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 06:32 AM
12

I think it is because it seems to imply the responsibility is entirely on the man Yeah except in context it doesn't. The first post by the girl mocks men who have casual sex and then act surprised if it results in a pregnancy. This girl doesn't say anything that I or other people here haven't said before: If you don't want to get a girl pregnant then wrap your dick. Anything else is childish laziness where men boys abdicate their responsibility to regulate their fertility.
/r/MensRights14/05/12 06:17 AM
13

Yep, the whole reason Orwell wrote books like Animal Farm was because he got to experience what it was like being the wrong sort of socialist when the Soviets were consolidating power. His books aren't warnings against left-wing politics, but against those who will do anything (including re-writing history and asserting that there is no objective reality) to gain and maintain power, like the Soviet Communists and mainstream Feminism. P.S. But I would note that the modern concepts of "liberal" an…
/r/MensRights11/05/12 07:27 AM
10

'cause those silly Africans won't wear the condoms provided obviously. /s The arguments for circumcision as an anti-HIV measure reeks of paternalistic racism/cultural imperialism. The supposed benefit of circumcision in HIV prevention is tiny compared to wearing a condom.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 01:08 PM
0

Have you done work/research in this area? To what extent are courts all over the map on this one? I have done a bit of research, and the real issue isn't so much the courts (which are mixed) but that school administrations go to ridiculously biased measures to appease what they think the law means (eg cancelling boys sporting programs if they can't run a male and female team or competition). From what I've seen, the argument for the clause about under-representation is that the drafters of the b…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 05:21 AM
2

The application isn't what I am talking about because it is all kinds of fucked up. As you noted the application in different jurisdictions varies from being gender neutral, to being completely biased in favour of women (eg cancelling football programs because girls don't sign up, and putting the money into female focused sports). My point was just that the regulation seems clearly designed to favour women, as if the goal is just equal opportunity there is no need to add in the "historical injus…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 04:57 AM
1

However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. Code for "females only". They could have written that simply as if only one team is offered then both sexes are allowed to try-ou…
/r/MensRights08/05/12 03:25 AM
1

You don't have to factor in volunteers, because they're voluntarily committing time. For a total economic analysis you do.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:31 AM
4

I always liked Paul's line about those who said Christians had to become circumcised. Galatians 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
/r/MensRights06/05/12 02:36 PM
1

What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about efficiency of welfare delivery mechanisms, not about charity vs taxation.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:48 AM
20

clearly her and I have EXTREMELY different views on the definition of "suspicious"... what the fuck is suspicious about a man BRINGING THE CHILD TO THE DESK!? Possession of a penis. It is a serious risk factor in being suspected and convicted of crime.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:44 AM
30

Oh those wacky racist Japs!
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:43 AM
24

Just like "suspicious male with a small child" and "male with a child".
/r/MensRights06/05/12 07:34 AM
0

The ONLY responsibility the government has is to provide for the National Defense, to deal with foreign nations, and to allow the INDIVIDUAL to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not everyone is American. And even in America your description only covers the federal government, state governments have always had wider mandates. Communism, and socialism has never worked, sooner or later you have more people living off the teet of the government than you have people earning an income…
/r/MensRights05/05/12 04:07 PM
-2

No it isn't. Really go look into charity finances. Churches etc are only "efficient" because you aren't factoring in the pastoral staff and volunteers into the cost, which a full analysis would.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 04:01 PM
1

Not American, not European.
/r/MensRights05/05/12 12:42 PM
1

People who take shock jocks like Rush Limbaugh seriously kind of scare me.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 01:26 PM
2

Also, a woman shooting? Ha! Women don't know how to use guns(!) Women alllll HATE violence! Most people have no idea how crazy a pro-guns women's (or gay) group drives your typical Feminist. Which is funny as hell because if the Feminists actually believed their own rhetoric (about all men being on the verge of raping women at every moment) they would want all women armed. Guns make physical strength irrelevant.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 12:38 PM
7

Showing the common double standard was part of why I said it. The rest was mostly because "dickhead" and "cunt" are part of the Australian vernacular and I had to speak out against an obviously anti-Australian attitude.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 07:35 AM
6

Setting that up costs a lot to administer. They tried that sort of scheme here in Australia for Aboriginal people in remote areas. The problem is you either have to restrict it to specially certified shops that only sell "necessary" items, or have a bureaucracy just to trawl through transaction logs. A better idea is to just use reality based assessments of how much raising a child costs and set that as the maximum child support. Shit, like private schools and riding lessons should be worked out…
/r/MensRights04/05/12 04:04 AM
14

If you can't make your point without using gendered insults, we don't want you there. You are a dickhead.
/r/MensRights04/05/12 02:05 AM
2

Female interest in sport isn't known to be genetic, all the research I have ever read says it is social (and that was health promotion research not feminist wank rags). The problem with Title IX, apart from anti-male implementation, is it punishes boys for social issues outside of their control (eg if there was enough female interest to run a male and female team there would be no problem, the problem is that with the lack of female interest the male team gets cut).
/r/MensRights04/05/12 02:02 AM
3

And athletes descended from certain African tribes have displaced non-African athletes from many top level track and field events due to a distinct genetic advantage. So why don't we have racially segregated sports as well?
/r/MensRights04/05/12 01:46 AM
1

I was being a bit sarcastic. I think corporal punishment still has its place in child raising, but punching is right out. I am glad my parents didn't listen to fuckwits like this guy because I probably would have been an "effeminate" child by his standards (I mostly preferred playing indoors, didn't like rough play, and cried when upset).
/r/MensRights03/05/12 07:49 AM
5

I think he is suffering from his own repressed homosexuality and should be cut some slack. No seriously, that is pure closet case language.
/r/MensRights03/05/12 06:57 AM
5

I think that playing the "oppression Olympics," i.e., worrying about who is oppressed more, misses the point and is counterproductive. I wasn't. I was arguing against massive generalisations like trying to lump all men/women into groups based on sex and then giving advantages to one group based on aggregate statistics. Individuals should be helped because they really need help, not because they are a member of a group which is slightly worse off then another group (eg your typical college educat…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 12:47 PM
18

Exactly. Feminists have to use sexist generalisations because if they didn't then the fact that the most oppressed group in society is lower class men would strip middle class feminists of relevance. Middle class feminists are whining about a mythical 25% pay gap (actually more like 5%) when lower class men face imprisonment, homelessness, disability etc, at massively higher rates then any other group. When you look at non-white lower class males in particular their problems make the predominant…
/r/MensRights02/05/12 12:33 PM
6

Well the Liberals are a combination of economic liberals and social conservatives, so the name sort of makes sense. The funny stuff is that they are usually in coalition with the National party which is rural and protectionist. Labor are right of centre these days (to steal the xenophobic socially conservative vote) and slowly bleeding the left-wingers to the Greens. It all just proves that modern politics has degenerated to the point where ideology doesn't matter, just what can get you elected.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 03:39 AM
7

Stereotypes are usually built on a core of a truth. For example most men are more heavily built and physically capable than most women. The problem comes when you try and apply a stereotype as if it is true for every member of a group, eg belittling a less physically capable man for not matching the stereotype of male physicality. There is a significant group of women who easily become irrational and user their emotions as a weapon against anyone who questions their irrational delusions. But the…
/r/MensRights01/05/12 01:29 AM
9

The rhetoric is about "equalising" the wealth/health/status of women by taking from men. It is like communism, you take from the rich and give to the poor. The Feminists can justify any injustice against men by claiming it is to help correct the "historical disadvantage". The core issue is that those pro-women policies never go away when women start to equal or surpass men. For example it is quite clear that women academically equalled men in the 80's and have been surpassing them ever since. Bu…
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:55 PM
9

Thanks to SRS I no longer know what "misogynist" means. They use it to cover the range from people advocating lobotomising women and locking them in the kitchen, to people using "cunt"/"whore"/"slut" as insults, to men who just don't automatically give women extra rights. Are we going to ban gendered insults? Are we going to ban insulting any women ever?
/r/MensRights30/04/12 12:46 PM
13

I have read various stories about how the group of sex workers most at risk of being killed or abused is young males. And homeless young males often resort to sex work to survive. Yet in most media stories about these kinds of prostitutes they are rarely mentioned, and usually when mentioned are still subordinate to the female angle (hell, even the wikipedia article is shitted up with feminist wank).
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:08 PM
1

The people who do these kinds of jobs have similar personality traits no matter the gender, which is why I find it unlikely that women would "calm" the situation. It would be fratboys and sorority sisters. Sure less prostitutes maybe, but that will be replaced by agents hooking up.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 11:38 AM
2

You are probably right, but it is an open secret that having women in the military has cut down on military males use of prostitutes. Western military commanders unofficially supply prostitutes to deployed forces was common until the 80's-90's, but today is pretty much verboten. Of course being an Australian I don't see what the problem is with supplying soldiers with prostitutes.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 04:44 AM
1

I think the implication is that the agents would have just fucked each other instead of hiring prostitutes. If that wasn't the implication than the statement was just very dumb, but about what I expect from people who think making prostitution illegal is effective in anyway.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:14 AM
8

I wouldn't be surprised if we got to the point where life expectancy regressed, especially for women. In many countries rates of smoking are higher in young women, and alcohol abuse by women is high and increasing (despite most women being less physiologically equipped to handle it), and many people have truly terrible diets. Considering these things take decades to show themselves in the statistics I wouldn't be surprised to see a dip in life expectancy.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:08 AM
2

The idea is that a gold-digger and her spawn deserves to be kept at the life style they enjoyed while in a relationship with the sucker. It is truly marvellous how feminists hijack men's paternalism when it suits them. I hope men wake up and stop voting for feminists and their patsys before we have an outright "man tax".
/r/MensRights22/04/12 05:19 AM
2

Forget South African women, how about how many Western women refuse to recognise "forced female on male sex" as rape.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 02:36 AM
1

No, nothing wrong with acknowledging it, but people try and stretch out a few bitter people and trolls into being representative of the subreddit.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 02:28 AM
1

Why is the draft such a big issue to the MRM. It isn't, it is just an easy and completely incontrovertible example of how men are still expected to fulfil traditional gender roles. Your second point is ridiculously generalised. While men have through the force of evolution been adapted for warfare and heavier labour than women we aren't a homogeneous group and neither are women. Women can fulfil all sorts of support roles (the normal "teeth to tail" ratio in the modern military is 1 to 10, ten s…
/r/MensRights18/04/12 07:12 AM
8

Yes, but that is irrelevant. Women supported it then, and they usually support it now (you don't exactly see many feminists complaining that it isn't fair that women aren't "equal" in draft selection).
/r/MensRights17/04/12 01:38 PM
20

Most of the complaints against women in this forum is due to women who refuse to accept responsibility for their agency and expect men and government to pick up the slack for them. Most of the rest is due to women demanding full agency while trying to restrict the agency of men (eg the draft).
/r/MensRights17/04/12 01:15 PM
5

As in: "admit to the crime or go to jail for contempt of court" Funnily enough that still happens all the time. There was a case on /r/MR not long back about a guy who was sent to jail for supposedly hiding money from his ex-wife, despite the fact no one could prove he had the money (he claimed to have lost it in a business deal).
/r/MensRights16/04/12 11:42 PM
2

No it is pointing you to go read what I wrote again and comprehend the meaning. Universal ethics are a specific type of ethics, and one that is unusual amongst atheists IME. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ethics
/r/MensRights14/04/12 10:23 AM
3

Mens rights don't end with the law. And that has what do with this subject? And you were taking about responsibilities not rights. I'm sorry you don't want to engage in debate. That wasn't debate, you wandered in and started insulting me because of a comprehension failure. Telling you to go educate yourself on the subject isn't bashing.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 10:14 AM
3

Do you know what the word "universal" means?
/r/MensRights14/04/12 10:02 AM
3

That 18 year financial obligation is a legal obligation. I am sorry that I assumed someone posting in Men's Rights would have an understanding of the basics of child support laws.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 10:00 AM
5

And yet I was only talking about legal obligation. My point was that young men need to understand that unplanned pregnancy can leave them with an 18 year legal obligation. But I do enjoy an atheist talking about universal ethics.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 09:35 AM
4

You think your obligation ends when you are legally no longer responsible. Yes, as that is the meaning of the word in the legal context. Anything beyond that isn't obligation, it is freely given. You need to go educate yourself if you don't understand the difference between inequitable financial obligations (aka child support in most countries) and caring for your kids.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 08:14 AM
7

but risking 18 years of financial obligation . ob·li·ga·tion [ob-li-gey-shuhn] noun 5. Law. a. an agreement enforceable by law, originally applied to promises under seal.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 07:51 AM
4

At least once a week I see a AskReddit along the lines of "OMFG Reddit I thought my GF was on birth control, now she is pregnant!!11". Young guys can do some stupid shit, but risking 18 years of financial obligation because you won't take responsibility for your own fertility is something that just shouldn't happen so often.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 07:04 AM
1

It is a matter of whether you want to be an idealist or a pragmatist, and I am not arguing for either approach.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 05:51 PM
3

The point is supposed to be so all the women who have been abused can have a "safe place" away from the evil penises that at any moment could break into a rape frenzy. /s You are right that these places shouldn't be gender segregated, but arguing that is going to achieve nothing in most places and you will be painted as insensitive to abuse victims. Arguing for "men's centres" is something that is easier to do because it looks like basic fairness.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 04:54 PM
2

my point was this stunk of "good men are polite and quiet" crap, and as feminists do it you have to be biased from the start to call it "hate group" material.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:55 PM
1

The government can't refuse to associate with you. They can refuse to hire you for all kinds of soft reasons that will never see a court room. Most government jobs have character tests and if you have said something the government doesn't like you will fail them. You are trying to institute an academic punishment for a reddit post. And you believe there is a difference between "real life" and "Reddit". Someone who did what he did has shown they are not of fit character to receive an advanced deg…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:44 PM
1

I meant what I just posted. Sometimes I am succinct in the belief that people can gather my meaning.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:31 PM
1

He did not attempt to harm you, he attempted to annoy you. You suffered no emotional harm. You suffered no physical harm. You are unharmed. No, he attempted to show the "dark side" of the MRM. It wasn't a "lul I trollz u" post. That guy honestly believed he was doing good by attempting to deceive people and then lying about what people posted. The point was to harm the reputation of the MRM through lying and misrepresentation. Free speech means there are no consequences for what you say unless y…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:30 PM
1

But, I believe in free speech in all circumstances. So do I. But free speech entails accepting the consequences for what you say. Anonymous speech only exists if you are smart enough to stay anonymous, which this guy apparently wasn't. By analogy, would you call the university if he was smoking weed in his dorm room? Not even close to similar. This would be like reporting him for pulling the fire alarm and blaming it on a group of other students. His behaviour wasn't just affecting him, it was a…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:16 PM
4

As I implied in another post my point was this stunk of "good men are polite and quiet" crap, and as feminists do it you have to be biased from the start to call it "hate group" material. Plenty of non-hate groups expose the real identities of persistent trolls, there is no right to anonymity, especially when you are being an arsehole. Doxing is forbidden by the global rules of Reddit anyway and that should have been where the discussion ended. The first thing I did was downvote the doxer.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 07:06 PM
2

Pity I never said that, you are projecting your own biases.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:58 PM
0

He typed something that upset you and that won't be a lasting impact on your life (beyond about a week). It didn't upset me at all, I never fell for it, I regard all self posts on here with massive cynicism. And the kinds of attacks he conducted contribute to the negative image of Men's Rights, and could even get the subreddit shut down if done enough times. You're advocating destroying his career which will be a factor for his entire life. So if he did something criminal, instead of merely unet…
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:57 PM
3

Just sayin'. Why don't they get labelled a "hate group" for doing this stuff? Seems like another case of the scary menz have to sit in the corner and be quiet or else people will get scared. Also I think there is a difference between just saying stupid shit on the Internet and pulling a con job like that guy did. He doesn't deserve a degree for that kind of unethical behaviour.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 06:41 PM
2

Your typical white knight feminist. I mean the list basically boils down to "a man who will give you all the attention you want", which is why many of my married male friends no longer have lives.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 04:51 AM
3

I think it's clear that Six kills the child to save it from growing up in a post-nuclear holocaust world. See, that just shows how two people can see things entirely differently. The way Six reacts with shock and surprise when she snaps the babies neck always made me think that she was just naively "playing" with the kids neck (inline with the "its amazing that such a small neck can support that much weight" line) like a child might with a pet, and accidentally killed it.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 09:21 AM
7

I never said that it was good writing, just that it shouldn't be prohibited because of some peoples knee jerk reactions. I agree that often rape, along with killing children, is used lazily to signal that a bad guy is bad. P.S. In the BSG mini-series I am pretty sure Six accidentally kills that kid, I've always interpreted it to be showing her naivety about humans.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 09:07 AM
14

It is standard MO for "rape survivors" (ie people who publicly identify as such and make it a centre of their public persona) to be hyper-sensitive and misconstrue like that. God forbid you tell them it is they that needs counselling and not that the rest of the world needs to walk on egg shells around them.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:28 AM
16

Yeah, but so is having evil characters kill children or defenceless women, or frame an innocent protagonist for a crime he didn't commit. But some people act like rape can never be used in a story in case some rape survivor stumbles across it and is triggered. Which is just moronic, all sorts of people have all sorts of trauma (can't write about Batman because many people have been orphaned by criminals) and if writers avoided every possible trigger the stories would be boring. P.S. Seriously pe…
/r/MensRights08/04/12 07:24 AM
3

Cisgender is the neologism, not cis. Also whenever anyone seriously uses that term I start to tune out. They should start adding neurotypical and abled to their word salad of the group they are allowed to hate.
/r/MensRights07/04/12 01:07 PM
1

I can see the point in criticising people of the same "classification" as me if they use some apparent oppression of the group to act like shits. But that isn't the same as wasting time criticising every person in that classification who does bad things. I would note that people called out that semen-stealing troll the other day for the fictional assault on his non-existent girlfriend.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 07:17 PM
3

Yeah but criticising men who do bad things just doesn't seem to fit the purpose of this sub-reddit. It sounds like that "tell men not to rape" crap. I shouldn't have to tell other men not to abuse women, just like I shouldn't have to tell them not to commit armed robbery. Men aren't dumb brutes who need constant reminding to act civilly. The only time that should be a topic for men or women's rights is when people try and claim it isn't abuse or that it never happens. And feminists doing that is…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 06:39 PM
2

And I was explaining why people are suspicious. Most people I see using German for user names online are Storm Front types, and as /r/MR gets targeted by trolls all the time a name like yours makes them suspicious.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:20 PM
8

You are responsible for your own fertility legally and practically. If you don't want 18 years of responsibility for a child then wrap your dick.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:17 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_kampf People are edgy.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 05:15 PM
2

I think you underestimate the ignorance/stupidity of the average netizen.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 07:21 AM
5

Notice they kill their credibility right off by saying the SPLC listed MR a hate group. Creating a disingenuous lie with their original post here shows a lack of morality and a person totally devoid of ethics. Except that isn't what is happening. These fucking retards are passing around their narrative without bothering to fact check, as usual. They think the SPLC listed /MR as a hate group because someone told them that is what happened. Their inability to be sceptical of their fellow "believer…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 07:07 AM
1

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/11/23/the-resistance-has-begun/ http://theantifeminist.com/feminists-seek-legislation-over-sex-bots/ Some of the stuff they linked to originally is dead, and I can't turn it up in a quick Google search. And yes I have heard feminists rant against Real Dolls and Fleshlights. When a woman uses a vibrator to get off she is sexually liberated and doesn't need men, when a man uses a Fleshlight to get off he is an immature creep who just doesn't want to hear women's o…
/r/MensRights05/04/12 04:15 PM
5

Not if feminists make that illegal. And no I am not kidding, the need to ban sexbots was in the news here. Which blows my mind because we aren't anywhere near that unless a massive breakthrough happens. I guess it shows that they have realised their mistake and are trying to put men back in their place.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 01:34 AM
4

That sucks :(
/r/MensRights05/04/12 01:12 AM
5

Years ago I watched a documentary on the history of the pill which said that the original designers included the regular period in the pill schedule because they felt it was important for women's health to have regular periods. That was in the 60's so I have no fucking idea if it was actually required but I doubt it. And I have heard of women who have serious period pain (as in crippling ending up in hospital pain, not "I feel unwell" pain like most women I know) that don't take the placebos.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 01:00 AM
6

I don't think they do that often these days, instead they use ultrasonics to shatter the stones into tiny shards that rip through your urethra on their way to freedom. Drink lots of water folks!
/r/MensRights05/04/12 12:56 AM
3

I think they have done some limited experiments on fertilising an egg with the nucleus from another egg. Might have only been in lower animals. So many RadFems would cream themselves if that was commercialised for humans.
/r/MensRights05/04/12 12:50 AM
4

All PIV sex is rape! I have seen some of them argue that even gay males having anal sex is still either rape or oppression, and the same for lesbians using dildos. Who would think a few inches of roughly cylindrically shaped flesh could be so terrifying.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 06:49 AM
4

I don't see the issue. A man in that situation probably does feel entitled to sex, just like the woman likely feels entitled to emotional/financial support and probably sex as well. Most relationships are more than two free agents who negotiate each exchange like a business contract. Of course the RadFems who make this inane argument are against normative heterosexual relationships and so try and paint these things in a negative light.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:20 AM
3

I avoid that comparison because over use has reduced it to an empty hyperbole and subsequent knee-jerk cries of "GODWIN!".
/r/MensRights01/04/12 03:11 PM
4

As for the Erin Pizzey stuff--this is evidently the result of radicalists and does not speak for all of us. No one cares if it speaks for "all of us", the point is that sort of message is either endorsed or not shouted down by the majority of "feminists". Honestly at this point hearing people defend mainstream feminism is like hearing people talking about how Rhodesians weren't all racists. It doesn't matter that a few object, what matters is that the majority either agrees with the actions of t…
/r/MensRights01/04/12 01:44 PM
6

It isn't just men's rights, if the government fucks you over they very rarely compensate you for it. This more regularly affects men because of state collection of child support and men's higher imprisonment rates. But it is a good general rights issue to make people aware of. It pisses me off that governments still rely on the archaic defence of "sovereignty" (the king can do whatever the fuck he wants) when they fuck up.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 07:08 AM
0

I didn't say it was, I said people get sick of Internet Libertarians/Ron Paul supporters for injecting their views so often into conversations, and then I related how I had seen people do that repeatedly here. Thus pertinent libertarian comments get downvoted in backlash.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:23 AM
5

People get sick of Libertarians/Ron Paul supporters on the Internet who act like the issues with corruption of the major parties is solved by Libertarianism/Ron Paul. I mean even on this subreddit I come across very active posters who try and turn the MRM into the LM.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:16 AM
1

Seriously, PUA's think they are such hot shit. Getting drunk with women isn't "Game".
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:06 AM
1

Even without that problem the reality is that the amount of combat grade males in the population is dropping. The US Army had to reduce their initial intake standards to account for all the fatties, but at leas they still PT them until they pass. I can definitely see someone eventually reducing the physical standards for infantry just to kick the percentage of females up to double digits.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 10:32 AM
1

I know! The men in the unit can just carry the women's load for them! /s
/r/MensRights24/03/12 08:15 AM
1

Australia is going to be opening up all jobs to females and doing fitness standards per job. But I really doubt fat unfit dudes are going to get into support jobs like fat unfit women currently do*. However, one of the leading army doctors was saying the standards needed to be lowered because of women suffering knee/back injuries in combat training at a much higher rate than men. Feminist "logic" lol. There is an ad currently airing promoting the Australian Army Reserve which shows a female rese…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 08:06 AM
7

Basically, their ruling came down to the reasoning that since women are not assigned to combat roles, there is no need to draft them. That is asinine, in a real war the combat troop to logistics ratio is about 1:10 (currently that is reduced through the means of contractors, but that probably wouldn't be viable in a real war that requires a draft). It doesn't even matter if women don't have the same physical capacity as men, they can replace combat grade males in support roles. Personally I am a…
/r/MensRights24/03/12 08:02 AM
1

My thought process is entirely rational. You are lying to yourself, humans aren't rational and emotions in particular aren't rational. To be completely rational about your family you would need to be some form of sociopath. I'm not lying in the slightest. Early 20s is about as far back as I can find a woman sexually attractive, and I prefer 25 and up... 30 and up if I can really be picky. There are 15 year olds that look indistinguishable from early 20 year olds, that is the point. If you haven'…
/r/MensRights22/03/12 03:26 AM
6

Calls peodophilia a sexual orientation and compares it to homosexuality. It is, the actual medical definition is about sexual orientation not child sex abuse. In fact most of those who carry out sexual abuse of children are not paedophiles. I have seen some opinion from law enforcement sources that most "true" paedophiles never abuse children (as part of the psycho-pathology is issues relating to adults, which generally means they can't get access to children). This was even a class discussion t…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 01:21 PM
5

Your phrasing, however, clearly implies that you believe these journalists who are making comments about MR are all being controlled by a single source Nope, I didn't imply control and stated specifically in a follow up post that it wasn't control. You are even admitting that SA/SRS did exactly what I implied they were doing: sending "briefings" to a whole bunch of journalists. that they are not actually journalists Nope, I specifically said it had nothing to do with "bad" journalism just biased…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 12:11 PM
9

so the evil journalists Who said they were evil? Journalists are people and people can be manipulated. Do you not see the leap in logic from "SA doesn't like the subreddit" to "there is a well orchestrated campaign by numerous journalists to discredit us?" Except the first part should be "SA conducted a media campaign to force the Reddit admins to ban jailbiat and now have focused on r/Mensrights" and the second part should be "several media sources are doing biased reporting on /r/Mensrights th…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 11:01 AM
8

Maybe you need to got read up on SomethingAwful.com and see them talking explicitly about trying to get /r/MensRights banned after they ran a successful campaign to get jail-bait banned. Either they or their "friends" in the radfem blogsphere are running a campaign against us. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/r0m2d/hey_mras_i_just_thought_you_should_know_that_srs/
/r/MensRights21/03/12 09:42 AM
19

It isn't bad journalism, it is a well orchestrated campaign. Multiple apparently independent "journalists" all saying the exact same thing. It doesn't take a genius to realise someone is "briefing" these people.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 09:12 AM
6

I'm sure your opinions are relevant, but I'm also sure that if you were a father your opinions would be entirely different. And then. You wouldn't know rationality if it hit you in the face, apparently. Just typical "STAY AWAY FROM MAH DAUGHTER!" overbearing father crap. You need to realise your emotional thought process here is not rational. Sorry, but there is a huge difference between acknowledging that kids younger than 18 can be sexually attractive and wanting to date 13 year olds. Any stra…
/r/MensRights21/03/12 03:33 AM
1

You keep bringing up the term ethicist too. I don't know who you're referring to. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2012/March/Ethicists-Argue-for-After-Birth-Abortion/ http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full You'll have to site the story about a women who murdered multiple children and had a groundswell of people supporting this action. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110909/alberta-mom-suspended-sentence-110909/ Can't be assed finding the feminist blogs…
/r/MensRights20/03/12 02:15 PM
2

The "non-religious" argument is still about at what point "human life" begins. Currently the feminist rhetoric is that a "woman's right to choose" trumps any rights a fetus might have, but to reduce cognitive dissonance most people try and claim a fetus isn't a human anyway until some nebulous period post 20 or so weeks. The feminist idea is actually abhorrent to most people when taken to its logical conclusion as in the case of the ethicists who recently argued that women should have the right …
/r/MensRights20/03/12 11:12 AM
2

Evo-psych has unique problems even in psychology because it is mostly based on speculating "whys" instead of testing "what" or "how". It is hard to test tens of thousands of years of evolution in a lab, let along on human subjects. But a lot of "hard" sciences are just as bad when they use animal test subjects and then speculate about the effects on humans (especially when using an animal that only closely models one system of the human organism).
/r/MensRights20/03/12 10:13 AM
1

I have the right to find it sexy. Jokes on these "feminists".
/r/MensRights19/03/12 08:31 AM
1

You literally just repeated yourself. Yes, because you keep repeating what I posted originally as if you think you are telling me something new. And yes, I don't believe actual MRA's can be misogynists since that goes completely against what our movement stands for in the first place. The men's rights movement stands for equal rights for men. You can be an advocate of that while still being a misogynist. I replied to show you the DIFFERENCE between MRA 'extremists' who are praised by NO MRA's an…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 11:56 AM
1

I am simply saying that these people are NOT accepted within the community, whereas the feminist equivalents are ACCEPTED within the feminist community. Which is what I said three posts back and re-iterated two posts back, so why did you reply at all? And you are still trying to pull a silly "no true scotsman" by implying that misogynists can't be MRAs which is the same stuff I see feminists doing to attempt to disavow claims of misandry.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 11:29 AM
0

Most of what you are saying is what I said, with some "no true scotsman" tacked on. Is it really that hard to accept that some people who call themselves "MRA" are actually misogynists? You seem to be playing the exact same tune feminists play when misandry is pointed out amongst their ranks.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 10:47 AM
1

The point is anyone can claim the title "MRA" and still be a terrible person. Sometimes that is SRS/SA posters trying to "agent provacateur", but there are racists and misogynists that consider themselves part of the MRM. It doesn't matter that they aren't "representative", but they do exist and it does no good to try to pretend they don't.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 10:30 AM
2

Anyone can be an "MRA" or part of the "MRM". Personally I think the difference is that many leaders of feminism are batshit insane and mainstream while the crazies in the MRM are fringe dwellers (there are people in MRM who believe women should "GBTKitchen", just as there are crazy racists in MRM who believe feminism is a plot by the Jews or the NWO). The point we should be making is all the insane statements that come out of mainstream feminist organisations, academics, politicians, and other l…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 05:41 AM
15

No. Some of the mods these days may be religious, but in general Goons have never struck me as a group that is concerned about morality*. Old Goons would have attacked [/r/Atheism to get a reaction like any normal trolls. These days apparently they are only allowed to attack "bad" people. eg Goons attacking Second Life "celebrities by self-replicating code that produced swarms of flying pink dildos.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:06 PM
4

Yes, but that is the point of asking that question.It shows that reducing "privilege" to a single factor is obviously stupid. The conclusion therefore should be that you give any assistance to people based on their individual needs not on their inclusion in a group which on average is disadvantaged. However, those who have a vested interest in getting unneeded assistance don't like to face up to this.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 01:43 PM
12

Yes, and men are still far more likely to be violently assaulted. Seems to me like being sucker punched and curb stomped or dragged into the bushes and raped would both suck about as much as each other. Non-sexual violence can make you feel as helpless and violated as sexual violence. Women live in fear because society, backed by feminists, tells them to live in fear. It has nothing to do with reality (where the most likely rapist is someone they already trust).
/r/MensRights16/03/12 12:06 PM
2

The "suggestion" to upvote or at least not downvote a linked post in SRS is because they know their memberships natural inclination is to be a downvote brigade but having "offensive" posts downvoted defeats the purpose of SRS (which is to highlight the offensive things Redditors say). However while they often stick to that rule for the initially linked post you will see massive downvotes in the linked thread by anyone disagreeing with SRS-orthodoxy. And of course if you actually go to SRS and tr…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 11:55 AM
4

Seriously? Someone got some mild down votes on Reddit and it is "only serves to show people the crazy fringes"?
/r/MensRights14/03/12 04:15 AM
5

It is worse than illegal in university. If it was just illegal you would get a fair trial.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 11:20 AM
2

Even better here in Australia where the industrial relations regulator recently decided that private sector "social workers" had lower pay then the government sector due to sex discrimination as that field of work is predominately female. Never mind that men working in that field got paid the same as the women. The reality is that it was self-selecting discrimination as few men would be allowed by their wives/girlfriends to work for such low pay, especially in a "non-masculine" role as social wo…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:57 AM
1

Because white upper-middle class women will be the greatest beneficiary of this just as they are of other "affirmative action" campaigns that target professional women. That group scores 2/3 for "privilege" and doesn't need a helping hand (but usually gets it over groups that actually need help like poor black males).
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:25 AM
6

This is not off topic, because it shows how such fraud is being committed in academia. Not really. "Women's studies" and associated disciplines aren't taken very seriously inside academia. That is a circle jerk highly politicised discipline which leads to the honest academics being afraid to question the dogma for fear of being ostracised even if they can prove their argument. In most other disciplines you might be slightly ostracised for going against the grain, but if you can prove your argume…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 12:53 PM
23

You guys are so mean! My heart is bleeding for these poor white upper-middle class women who have suffered for so long! They only have salaries 3-4x higher than the lower class at present, how are they supposed to cope without director salaries? /s
/r/MensRights05/03/12 12:48 PM
-1

DING DING DING! And there you have it, folks... the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Sorry, I think that is an abuse of "No True Scotsman". The "No True Scotsman" fallacy involves secondary or even tertiary indicators like not having salt in your porridge. However if someone wasn't born in Scotland, and doesn't have Scottish heritage, I don't think it is a violation of "No True Scotsman" to say they aren't a Scotsman let alone a True Scotsman. P.S. If I wanted to troll right now I would go over to /r/A…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:59 AM
-1

No, actually that's the entire point. The point was that Christianity is a big bag of multiple choice, with super shitty parts and some nicer ones. Christians come in an equally assorted variety, ranging from assholes to decent people. Sorry I don't buy that reasoning. A Christian is a follower of Christ. If you are ignoring what Christ said (which was mostly about love and self-sacrifice) in favour of taking OT stuff out of context then you aren't much of a follower of Christ. Anyone can call t…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 11:39 AM
-2

Uh, did you see my quote from Revelations? Yes, which comes under "lets pretend statements about God apply to Christians". I see you enjoy selective quoting. I'm sorry, but who was supposed to be responsible for the ripping open of pregnant women's bellies God. That part of Hosea is from Gods POV talking about what God will do. There is also a Psalm where the writer wishes their enemies childrens heads would be dashed against rocks, but again that isn't a commandment telling Jews or Christians t…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:30 AM
-1

I'm sorry but I fail to see your point. Two of those are about what God will do in judgement, therefore not relevant to Christian behaviour as Christians are neither responsible for judging or condemning sinners (which is a shock to some Christians). And half of what Jesus went on about was replacing laws such as those in Deuteronomy with the "Golden Rule". I know skeptics like to play the game of "lets ignore the New Testament" and "lets pretend statements about God apply to Christians" but you…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 04:03 AM
-1

This is a good point. A lot of movements suffer from the No True Scotsman fallacy. Christians will point out that homophobes and racists aren't "true" Christians. Some feminists will similarly reject that "true" feminists could hold opinions or act in ways they don't particularly like. In reality, there is no sacred dogma defining what all feminists must agree on. But there is some basic stuff that Christians must or they are as Christian as Richard Dawkins ("love your neighbour as yourself" and…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 02:44 AM
0

It can't be a hate-crime against men because men are 49% of the population and therefore a minority ... wait I think there is something wrong with my argument. /s
/r/MensRights26/02/12 11:15 AM
4

The lawyers logic is flawed. Lesbians and Gay men are similar but not identical classes. Saying a Lesbian can't hate Gay men is like saying a person of African ancestry can't hate a person of South American Ancestry because of their race. They might share a darker shade of skin than Europeans, but they aren't the same class. But I agree that "hate crime" laws are ridiculous. Most of the time insults are directed at the victim simply to demean them, they aren't much good for revealing motive.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 01:03 AM
7

There are many forms of FGM. What is mostly practised in Indonesia for example is mostly just a slight blood letting.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 11:16 AM
23

Not having to do with Islamic religious requirements, is not the same as having to do with Islamic cultures. In a highly religious culture all sorts of things get conflated with religious requirements. And the evidence is that FGM isn't just confined to a part of Africa but is wide spread amongst Islamic countries. Male circumcision is so prevalent in America because of Christian culture despite circumcision being explicitly made not a requirement in the New Testament.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 10:49 AM
19

That isn't exactly true. The highest prevalence of the worst forms of FGM is in North Eastern Africa, but it happens in the Arabian peninsula and even Indonesia. I don't believe there is anything in the Quran which requires it, but I don't think it is true to say it isn't associated with Islamic cultures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_country
/r/MensRights25/02/12 10:15 AM
6

Yeah what I was trying to get across is that Islam was based off "convert or die", whereas other religions develop it when it becomes convenient for those in power (I thought Jesus was quite explicit about not living by the sword, luckily for the Catholic Church most Christians couldn't read the Bible until the protestants came along).
/r/MensRights24/02/12 05:38 PM
5

I actually doubt that scenario has ever happened. What happens is that Westernised Muslims try to put the good face on and talk about "a religion of peace", while non-Western Muslims are open that the idea of "Islamic peace" is when everyone is Muslim. Of course "everyone who isn't our religion needs to die" isn't exclusive to Islam, but Islam was based on military expansionism from its foundation (which continued until the West hit them enough times that the Islamic world stayed down).
/r/MensRights24/02/12 05:01 PM
1

No, not nationalist. Racist. Australians are just as helpful to their neighbours in a disaster as the Japanese, but our country isn't a white monoculture.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 04:14 AM
2

Probably means sexual intercourse. Those kids are getting release through porn.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:17 PM
2

And by that you mean racist. But they are polite so most people don't pick up on how crazy racist Japan still is.
/r/MensRights19/02/12 06:15 PM
3

Was it a little insensitive given the very lenient treatment some women murderers of partners/exes receive from the justice system? Perhaps I would say not at all as she correctly pointed out it would be murder. People here often seem to over estimate how often the "battered wife syndrome" defence is actually successful. I am sure there would be some feminists who would respond to this scenario by crying how the poor murderer must have been abused, but I think most people and the legal system wo…
/r/MensRights18/02/12 03:34 PM
11

Just because it is a comedy site doesn't mean that writer wasn't on an unfunny rant. Rather than ignore comments about the previous article, or respond to them in an adult fashion, he is just using his platform and "because I fucking said so" logic* to win an Internet argument. About skimpy costumes in super-hero comics. I can barely follow his train of thought in the "misandry" bit. It goes from someone saying men's issues aren't being taken seriously to something about people complaining hot w…
/r/MensRights18/02/12 03:09 PM
6

I think the UK situation is more along the lines of having to explicitly ask if the other person consents, rather than the insane idea of requiring every sexual act be preceded by a signed affidavit and observed by three impartial witnesses that some feminists seem to be arguing for.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 02:57 PM
7

Even better, it is using "misandry" in a debate about the portrayal of women in shitty super-hero comics. In other words the typical comic fan wankery of "boo hoo not enough women like my hobby because the art is degrading to women, if only we got rid of the sexism than women would want to sleep with me because of my encyclopaedic comic book knowledge". Real important stuff.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 01:00 PM
6

http://australianmisandry.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/turning-aus-into-sweden-radical.html Trying to turn the issue of domestic violence into just a campaign to stop violence against "women and children" (and by that they mean violence against women and children by men, ignoring all the violence done towards children by women) is nothing but misandry. Men are the largest group of victims of violence, stopping domestic violence is no more important than stopping non-domestic violence, women are also …
/r/MensRights18/02/12 09:49 AM
9

IMO the difference between MRM and FRM is the gender bigots are firmly controlling the discussion in FRM and most of the leaders of the FRM are gender bigots. Some random feminist being a bigot isn't much of an issue to me because I know that some people respond to being abused by blaming the group their abuser belonged to almost as much as the individual abuser. I am an egalitarian so any shit like "women are all X and so therefore shouldn't Y" doesn't fly with me, and if leaders in the MRM sta…
/r/MensRights18/02/12 07:14 AM
3

I think MRM has more than the average number of "misogynists" because an extremely negative experience around gender rights is what first awakens many men to gender politics. But bitter people in no position of power shouldn't be taken seriously like bigots in a position of power need to be. And the bigots in power these days overwhelmingly follow the Feminist™ party line regardless of any actual evidence.
/r/MensRights18/02/12 06:59 AM
-2

Great, and TheDiscoBastard didn't say men were obliged to obey the social contract, just how it came about. So your point is what? Also I have to lol at comparing voluntary social expectations to legal contracts. I don't get any "consideration" for most social norms I follow. Social norms have never been a fair exchange between equals.
/r/MensRights16/02/12 04:48 PM
-3

That's why "this is how it is" is not an acceptable answer. Yes it is, because society has not adapted to the new conditions which no longer make prioritising reproduction a huge advantage. We are talking about either conditioning built up over tens of thousands of years, or genetics built up over hundreds of thousands. Those kinds of forces don't stop quickly unless people put in a large effort to stop them. Feminists did put in a large effort to target male privilege, while not lessening male …
/r/MensRights16/02/12 04:43 PM
-4

Sorry, I think TheDiscoBastard said nothing but truth. You know why our culture is like this? Because women have more reproductive value then men. It's the natural order of things, sexist or not. Not "this is correct and morally praise worthy" just "this is how it is". It is only probably in the latter half of the Cold War that reproduction rates stopped being much of an issue. Now the problem of "fairness" came in when society still expected men to sacrifice themselves but stopped rewarding it.…
/r/MensRights16/02/12 04:32 PM
2

As you mentioned I think "affirmative action" creates corrosive attitudes towards those being "affirmed" as many people won't take the whole class of people seriously because of the incompetents who get promoted. And really we already have too many incompetents being promoted through nepotism, ass kissing, and their appearance as it is. Things would be much more efficient if people focused on merit.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 06:25 AM
11

Critical thinking skills and logical argument were in science course, I gained a broader perspective on the world from many of my science classes but also some humanities classes. Even a pure maths course is going to teach you critical thinking and logical argument or else they are putting out absolutely rubbish students. The bread and butter of maths, science, and engineering is critical thinking and logical argument. It is my experience that Liberal Arts students are the worst at critical thin…
/r/MensRights13/02/12 03:52 PM
9

Critical thinking skills. A broader perspective of the world. The ability to construct sound arguments to defend or promote their ideas. Those were the foundations of the medical science degree I was doing a few years back. Any degree can teach those things AND more practical knowledge. Liberal Arts can only teach you that.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 03:31 PM
16

No, they are a group of "vigilantes" that are too PC to be on 4chan's /b/ making fun of cripples and so decided to do PC trolling where they pretend to care about women's/gay/tran's rights and harass and troll anyone who makes a comment that can be taken out of context and found to be "offensive".
/r/MensRights13/02/12 10:00 AM
13

We have a bad rep partially from misogynists and the rest is SRS/feminisms trolls like this one.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 09:54 AM
38

That is true, but women are normally over represented in arts and soft sciences which aren't normally career tracks to powerful jobs. Here in Australia the feminists shamed companies into trying to increase the amount of female directors and now they have tapped the supply of competent female management. You can't fix these things by mandating a certain percentage at the top, you get more people in the bottom and over the decades the disparity adjusts.
/r/MensRights13/02/12 09:52 AM
2

Eye witness testimony is actually pretty worthless but judges and juries love it, especially if it is backed by lousy DNA "evidence" as in this case*. As judges and juries usually can't distinguish between the mathematical chances of a match and the actual chances. Much of the legal use of DNA as evidence relies on the assumption of equal distribution of genetic markers, but it is often unproven how common certain markers actually are.
/r/MensRights12/02/12 07:13 AM
-1

I wouldn't know, the sidebar just looks like the standard femitroll bullshit.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 06:27 PM
1

They don't spend most their day doing that; I just showed that. Actually you showed nothing, you quoted me saying it was pretty irrelevant how much time they spent doing it. And they do what other people do after they come home from work. Christ, this was one of my first points. Ordinary people with full time jobs do not keep a house as nicely as those without full time jobs can. Washing the dishes every day and vacuuming every few days is a pretty low standard of clean. Most people have to do e…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 04:55 PM
3

Yeah, but there are plenty of individuals around the MR sphere that are just super bitter about their divorce etc and now like to rant about how they hate women. Just like in the FR sphere you get the women who are super bitter about being sexually abused and now like to rant about how they hate men. The only concern is when the leaders of those groups or academic and government representatives are parroting the same hate filled lines.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 04:49 PM
-3

Duh, because their sidebar makes me think they are copy+paste /r/SRS with a new name to get around the terrible name r/SRS got for itself.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 04:44 PM
1

Firstly, you are confusing "job" and "work". Vacuuming the carpet or washing the dishes is "work" but isn't a "job" unless you are getting paid for it. Secondly, you are missing my point about primary occupation. If someone spends most of their day doing household chores they are called "homemaker" or similar words. So if someone asks her "What do you do?" the correct answer is "Homemaker" not "nothing". You may think "homemakers" don't do enough work to classify it in the same category as a ful…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 04:29 PM
2

You do good work.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 02:23 PM
4

They are ... to people who conform to their desires.
/r/MensRights11/02/12 09:14 AM
2

You are just dickering over the amount of work being done and trying to argue that since it isn't the same as a 9-to-5 that it isn't "real work". In that sense you are exactly the same as this couples "friends". It doesn't matter if she works for two hours a day "homemaker" is still her primary occupation. Other than that you appear to want to go into GenderWars bullshit which had nothing to do with the original story and nothing to do with whether "homemaker" is a real occupation. This is a mar…
/r/MensRights11/02/12 04:11 AM
1

I'm saying house keeping is a misnomer because it doesn't involve actually work Lol. Yes, cleaners and cooks do no work! /s You don't call the average person who takes care of their house a housekeeper. And I don't call the average person who does basic computer tasks an IT professional, so what is your point? Housekeeping is just being used as a short hand for free ride and we should be honest about that. No, a free ride is when you don't do anything in exchange for money. You may argue that th…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 07:18 PM
1

His point is that home maker is a misnomer. Except it isn't in general, and wasn't in this particular case from what I read. Even if the wife was doing something else she can call herself a homemaker and her "friends" just need to deal with it.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 06:49 PM
2

I skimmed that and nothing popped out as offering a serious challenge to determinism. In fact it looks like the "challenge" is just playing semantics and changing "free will" to be compatible with a deterministic model. In these cases, "free will" means something more like "not coerced" or that "the person could have done otherwise at the last moment". And as I was talking about determinism vs non-determinism and not "free will", you are failing to make your case. In what way would an animal lev…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 06:07 PM
1

There is currently no evidence that proves determinism, or even strongly suggests it. Bullshit. Non-determinism relies on magic, whereas there is tons of evidence showing how deterministic animal behaviour is. "Tons of evidence for this, and it doesn't rely on magic whereas the opposing hypothesis does" is normally the standard of proof needed for something to be widely accepted as "true" in the scientific community. Various scientists hypothesize that determinism is a fact, but the scientific v…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:47 PM
1

Yes, I forgot that neuro-scientists weren't scientists. Go do some reading, there is no good evidence to support anything but the deterministic model of human and animal behaviour. Unless you make an argument for the supernatural there is no way for human brains to be any less deterministic than a silicon based computer.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 05:27 PM
1

Yeah there are all sorts of reasons to not have both people in a relationship working. You can live a pretty decent life on one average income if you aren't obsessed with consumerism. And it is usually a hell of a lot nicer home life if both people aren't dead tired and have to do house work and cooking when they get off work. But "progressives" won't ever be able to accept a situation where men (and in particular white men) have any sort of advantage over anyone else. Even if you gave your enti…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 04:52 PM
3

tl;dr I really don't want people getting the impression that we're advocating replacing real relationships with sex robots... Why not? It is better than the option I am currently taking of replacing intimate relationships with women with hobbies that are actually fulfilling.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 11:12 AM
1

You realise that the scientific view is that humans have the same amount of agency as a robot right? The only difference is that we can't give a court summons to whoever "programmed" us and so deflect blame for our behaviour (at least in general). We are deterministic meatbots driven by the laws of physics.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 11:10 AM
26

Instead of saying "I'm a homemaker", she can say "I'm working on X", or "I'm studying Y". Except she shouldn't fucking have to. If she wants to stay home all day and eat bonbons and her husband is happy for her to do that, than it is nobody else's fucking business. This is what enrages me about most "progressives", they are as bigoted and intolerant as the "traditionalists" they hate, they just have inverse beliefs. Also single people and couples with full time jobs do not keep their houses as c…
/r/MensRights10/02/12 07:38 AM
4

Let's see, let's vote out gravity....sound familiar? A few catholics tried that 400 years ago. If you are talking about Galileo/Copernicus that isn't what happened at all. Galileo went against the prevailing "scientific" views of the time, and decided to be a bitch about it and so ruffled feathers. Also the early heliocentric theory had massive flaws and was based more on supposition than observation and experiment. If he had of concentrated on making his theory solid instead of just starting a …
/r/MensRights08/02/12 03:40 PM
2

Do we really need more people capable of writing 15 pages about a three line poem? It would make business communication more interesting to read :p
/r/MensRights06/02/12 04:05 AM
4

I don't know, there needs to be associate degrees in English so people learn how to actually communicate at a level acceptable in a business. Thanks to the "feminisation" of schools many kids come out of highschool with an inadequate grasp of language (because learning how to "express your feelings in writing" is more important than grammar or spelling). And honestly many undergraduate STEM degrees are just as "useless" as Philosophy. Only Engineering, Maths, and CompSci have good job prospects …
/r/MensRights06/02/12 03:37 AM
1

I think it mainly that their are people with different motivations. SA enjoy higher level trolling where you get the members of a forum/site to start arguing and fighting with each other. If SRS was started by SA I bet it is mostly run by "real" Feminazis with the occasional heckle from SA to keep the pot boiling. The "real" people have fallen into the group dynamics and been deluded into thinking shit flinging is an effective tactic.
/r/MensRights31/01/12 11:03 PM
3

even though lesbians batter each other more than heterosexual partners (how does the patriarchy fit into that?) Obviously those poor lesbians have negative relationship models caused by the oppressive patriarchal households they were brought up in. /s That's the "great" thing about The Patriarchy, you can blame it for anything with no evidence (The Patriarchy is making me waste time on Reddit instead of studying).
/r/MensRights31/01/12 12:46 PM
1

Posting with the intent to provoke a negative emotional response is the definition of trolling. Which is what SRS do, it isn't just disagreeing with people, their threads are full of pointless name calling and provocation (eg complain about how a woman has treated you? Well obviously you are a neckbearded loser with a small dick.).
/r/MensRights31/01/12 11:41 AM
12

Nearly everything SRS talks about requires massive cognitive dissonance. In one sentence they will say sexuality and perceived sex is entirely genetic, and in the next that gender is entirely a social construct.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 02:32 PM
9

I don't understand what is insulting or disrespectful about me(a Jew) saying You disagreed with a SRS mod. By definition they are the most enlightened creatures upon this planet. /s But really that is just arsehole mods being arseholes, happens everywhere.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 02:27 PM
1

Which to a court is called "attempting to hide assets" because the presumed intent is to recover them in the future. Even if someone gave a house away to a complete stranger I bet most divorce courts would still hold the giver liable to pay their spouse for half the market value.
/r/MensRights30/01/12 04:47 AM
1

Sorry but that sounds like terrible advice. Considering what divorce and alimony laws are like these days I bet the court would have no problem recovering assets you tried to hide. If you want to hide assets you need to make it so they are never yours on paper. And there is always the case of that guy who spent 16 years in jail for contempt of court for apparently trying to hide assets (he said they were lost in a bad business deal).
/r/MensRights30/01/12 03:32 AM
1

I agree with that, however the issue with much evolutionary psychology is that it is focused on providing an explanation for why certain behaviours are exhibited and not on producing testable hypothesis. For example do primates more readily learn to fear snakes because snakes were a common threat to our ancestors or is it just a "bug" in our wetware? With current tools it is impossible to test that idea to the same standard as hard sciences (as it would require running an animal study through at…
/r/MensRights30/01/12 01:47 AM
1

There are fossils it is called dna. At some we will have enough understanding of genetics, neurology etc to test Maybe someday, but today we don't have a solid enough understanding of the pertinent genes and their interaction to do anything but speculate about the resulting neural structure and subsequent cognition. That said Feminists don't even accept evidence like behavioural differences due to sexual dimorphism in our close animal relatives*. Gene modelling isn't going to convince them eithe…
/r/MensRights30/01/12 12:29 AM
7

Maybe, but I consider shit-posting and petty insults to be a bigger problem (not like MRAs don't do that though).
/r/MensRights29/01/12 03:15 AM
9

Really you think this thread contains more upvoted random slurs than arguments about the topic?
/r/MensRights29/01/12 02:52 AM
10

Want to actually find me a post that is the sort of directed hate that is every post on SRS?
/r/MensRights29/01/12 02:42 AM
2

TIL.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 02:33 AM
3

Closest would probably be private boys schools (high school), but these days those are for the elite (my Catholic high school went co-ed in '99).
/r/MensRights29/01/12 02:04 AM
3

They probably have international chapters but I don't know of any other English speaking country with a system similar to the Greek system.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:56 AM
7

Just because you have firm convictions doesn't mean you can't learn something new in a discussion. But your point is why I don't bother arguing with the highly polarised.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:47 AM
6

Funnily enough we have the Internet outside America.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:45 AM
17

That's because for most people sex and gender are the same thing, similar to how for trans people sex and gender are not the same. There isn't a science to it, that is just how people feel. However now days female gender roles have extended to almost being the same as men's. Honestly, Feminists have got 80% of what they wanted and are now whining that the last 20% is hard.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:30 AM
11

Seriously mate, what the hell am I supposed to do? Please tell me how I am supposed to stop MRAs going to /r/Feminism. All I can do is tell people not to be jackasses and downvote them when they encourage jackassery here.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:20 AM
5

I think Fflur was talking about bad or misleading evolutionary psychology based arguments. And while evolutionary psychology is thought provoking, it is mostly very soft science (thoughts don't leave fossils).
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:14 AM
8

It basically comes down to "Don't want MRA posts all over your subreddit. Well then GET OFF OF OUR REDDIT!" Why is it so hard to grasp that an open group allows anyone to participate by design? I don't post on any of the Feminism sub-reddits, and how am I meant to stop MRAs and trolls going to them?
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:08 AM
10

But a conspiracy to troll them? Really? Is there like some sort of SRS-equivalent that has set out to do this? If there is I wasn't invited. I am just heartily sick of being told how six or so commentators represent the views of 29,000+ MensRights subscribers.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:03 AM
19

Why would you say traditionalism has more influence? Divorce laws usually favour women, domestic violence laws usually favour women, more women are going to college than men, women are beginning to go over 50% of many professions, women initiate most divorces. If women choose to enter traditional marriages and take traditional gender roles it is because they choose to and aren't forced as they used to be.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 01:00 AM
5

I are confuse. That thread is MRAs getting downvoted for going against the SRS party line. I thought you were with the Feminists?
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:48 AM
11

Can't tell if MRA or Feminist.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:41 AM
17

I haven't seen any /r/MRA posts saying "look at this post lets go get 'em boys". Most posts don't even seem to be to reddit but to external blogs. It's the Feminists that have the downvote cannon with r/SRS.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:39 AM
8

You know, like women are a minority group. I mean when you account for gay and trans men there must be a whopping 40% - 45% straight cis males. /s
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:34 AM
5

Lot's of people like circlejerks. I used to go on a Christian discussion site which wasn't a circlejerk and you would get several people a week saying "Can't we all be friends and gather together into a circle?". For belief systems like Feminism for which the evidence used to back their theories is so shaky, they have to circlejerk to put off cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:32 AM
17

Seems more like they are complaining about "concern trolls" and doing the old "three guys troll us so everyone associated with them is part of a grand conspiracy to troll us" dance.
/r/MensRights29/01/12 12:27 AM
3

No one diagnosed a particular belief but "wacky beliefs" in general. And one of the symptoms of malnourishment is illogical thinking.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 04:42 PM
6

Why wouldn't you believe that? It is a perfectly credible belief back by a lot of evidence. The human brain is an extremely complex network of analogue processing units and nutrition can impair or enhance its functioning. Someone with a nutritional deficiency is likely to suffer notable cognitive impairments.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 02:15 PM
1

gorillas have canines too. Purely for social reasons. They got them originally because our shared ancestor was an omnivore. They might still have them for social reasons or because neutral "survival" traits tend to last a long time.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 02:09 PM
4

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/affect-vs-effect/ This battle isn't worth fighting. The meanings and uses historically have been so similar that trying to prevent effect/affect merging is rather pointless.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 01:23 AM
9

Back in the day it was thought to be more "hygienic" (read as: decrease masturbation) and continues to dominate through social inertia.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 01:56 PM
0

When you fight for the hearts and minds sometimes an emotional approach is more effective. And nearly always wrong. For the simple reason that emotions can always be hijacked by those willing to lie. And as putting women and children above men is pretty much in our genes, that means emotive arguments at the expense of men are easier to make. About the only emotive argument MRAs have any success with still relies on societies bias for children (eg "no child should grow up without a father!" style…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 01:09 PM
2

You're Romney / Obama and I'm Ron Paul. So what you are saying is that you will never be in a position to change anything and have less influence than random comedians?
/r/MensRights26/01/12 12:53 PM
6

Did you not see the sarcasm tag?
/r/MensRights26/01/12 12:11 PM
5

What also cuts down on those things is basic hygiene, wearing a condom and not sticking your dick in people with venereal diseases. Wait, wait, wait. We aren't supposed to just have sex with random people because it has risks? I'm confused.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 12:10 PM
2

There's a difference between being a "feminist" in a general sense and a "Feminist" in the sense of advocating "Feminist theory." Maybe, but that is like being a "communist" in a general sense and a "Communist" in the sense of advocating "Communist theory". The whole word has become tainted by association with the most prominent advocates of that political belief. There are other words to describe being in favour of equal rights, or even advocating mostly female issues. Personally I consider mys…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:28 AM
2

And the stereotype of the man-hating feminist who is obsessed with her career and is loud in her anti-family pronouncements is just not as common as a lot of people think. Except these people are the ones in academia and who are on government panels and the like. They are so dominate here in Australia that the government anti-domestic violence campaign pretends violence directed towards men doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:22 AM
3

when all "feminist" means is caring about women's rights and issues Rubbish, here in Australia there is a healthy disconnect between believing in equality and being a feminist. The feminists even whine about how young women openly don't identify as feminist. That is because the anti-male doctrine of academic feminism turns many male-loving women off. There is a reason the Gay rights movement dumped NAMBLA, and women's rights activists need to figure that out and dump the man-haters and separatis…
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:01 AM
16

Rape is any sexual activity No. The definition of "sexual activity" is so broad that your definition of rape covers getting felt up and french kissing. Those things, if done non-consensually, are sexual assault not rape. It is simply stupid to redefine "rape" to mean the same thing as "sexual assault".
/r/MensRights25/01/12 04:19 PM
2

They routinely publish factual news stories hour before other outlets. Yes, because they jump the gun with minimal fact checking. Putting getting a scoop above all other considerations.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 11:47 AM
6

Exactly. When a primary source is mostly wrong you don't try and compare and correct errors with multiple other sources, you just get a new primary source. Other newspapers I read have biases, but they are limited in nature and so easy to correct for. The Daily Mail sensationalises and misconstrues nearly every story.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 11:45 AM
5

Except professional feminists are working as hard as they can to stop it ever swinging back. They even deny a problem exists. Give it another decade or two and the mask will come off and they will stop pretending it is about equality but about gynocracy. "men are too dangerous to be allowed to contribute freely in politics, look at all the wars men have started blah blah".
/r/MensRights24/01/12 12:31 PM
1

That was mostly my point. Historical society was ordered the way it was because that was the most successful arrangement that had been figured out. Western society currently believes it can ignore historical survival pressures but I think we are one real war away from realising that is idiotic.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 07:16 AM
1

It is in my psych texts which are all in storage.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 07:14 AM
1

Which from studies I have seen holds true for rape. In fact it used to be that women would victim blame other women more than men would (the men in the studies tending to be protective of women). Lawyers would try and gender stack juries to take advantage of this. I don't know if this still holds true today, but it wouldn't surprise me.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 06:49 AM
0

It simultaneously perpetuates the idea that men are disposable and that women are weak. Except the latter isn't much of an idea it is a biological reality (at the group level). As I also stated in reply to that threat, sending women to war throughout most of history has been a losing strategy. Successful tribes protected their own women and captured the enemies, so as to out bred other tribes. Western society is currently living in the fantasy that we can ignore traditional survival pressures, b…
/r/MensRights24/01/12 06:42 AM
10

Circlejerking for women with histories of abusive relationships, 5minutesofhate for those so PC they can only get angry at heterosexual males, and trolling by trolls.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:16 AM
2

I looked through your comments. My 14 year old brother makes fewer idiotic comments and trolls less, so congrats I guess.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 09:35 AM
4

This doesnt bother so much after you learn about people raising feral kids (were talking currently, not in the age of salem) or the joseph fritzl story. Yes, and that sort of thing gets the parents locked up for many years. This is like dismissing domestic violence 'cause hey the victim could have been vivisected and then murdered.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 03:19 PM
9

No it is child abuse to raise a child in a way which can lead to them developing a serious psychological disorder. This isn't just "breaking societies norms", it is something which has known risk factors which would cause it to be ruled out by a scientific ethics board. Furthermore, you're starting to sound very transphobic Ah yes I love this one. Dare question the perceived "wisdom" of the LGBT lobby, even by citing scientific papers, and you get labelled "homophobic" or "transphobic". No I act…
/r/MensRights21/01/12 12:44 PM
21

Sort of an interesting experiment No, it is child abuse. This wouldn't be allowed by a university research ethics board today so why the fuck is it okay for parents to "experiment" on their children in this way? All they are doing is basically ensuring their child develops Gender Identity Disorder, which isn't "fixed" by a snip and some hormones. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300595X82800078 In intersex individuals, changes in gender identity seem to occur primarily when gen…
/r/MensRights21/01/12 08:04 AM
2

Wow, I didn't know about that lady. Suffering from depression after her eighteen months living disguised as a man, Vincent felt she was a danger to herself. On the advice of her psychologist she committed herself to a mental institution. I wonder how much of male suicide is down to the gendered discrimination that men face.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 12:57 PM
2

This kind of stuff makes me feel like a "nigger"*. "Our people" can eloquently explain the issues but society only pays attention when a "white" activists starts talking about it. So apparently many decades of civil rights struggles achieved nothing in dealing with the core issue of society's flawed thinking. Or at least how John Griffin described the beaten down feeling of African Americans in Black Like Me.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 11:52 AM
10

Or the old feminism movement of the 70s to 90s where women actually demanded real equality and achieved success. The same people who were behind that are behind "modern" feminism, the educational and family law discrimination against men started in that era. You need to go back a lot further to find "feminists" that were actually striving for equality and not just using sex as a tool for political advantage. What we are getting now is exactly what the 70's feminist ideologues strove for. The onl…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 11:48 AM
6

Lol have fun with no economy America because your output of STEM grads is capped by the number of female students. Seriously, attempts to boost female participation in STEM have been going on for decades with no real progress. Wielding a bigger bat isn't going to fix that "issue". P.S. Also having lots of out of work males (who weren't allowed to go to college due to gender ratios, and who can't get a job without a college degree) is historically a recipe for social disorder, so good luck with t…
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:08 AM
3

'members of visible minorities" is more fucked up than anything else on that form. I guess if you look too much like the average Caucasian you don't count even if you are a "minority"? Is that "gays need not apply" (unless maybe they are flaaaaaming)? P.S. I would tick that just because I have auburn hair. It is time to end Brown/Black hair privilege.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 12:33 PM
2

Well the technical definition for a disorder involves the "three D's". Deviance, distress, and dysfunction. If someone couldn't orgasm without some behaviour that is considered deviant (and this means unusual), it causes them distress, and it leads to other aspects of their life being dysfunctional, than it is a disorder. Enjoying licking a sexual partners feet is a fetish. When it gets to the point that someone can't orgasm without licking feet, is constantly obsessed with thoughts of licking f…
/r/MensRights16/01/12 07:20 AM
12

Mate, you just have to walk into a boardroom and announce you are a male and you will immediately be given at least a mid-level management position.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 06:24 AM
1

Wouldn't that be backing up the articles point? Because that is what happens when sex ratios get skewed towards women*. Enough young fit men ended up in the military around that time that it significantly disturbed the status quo in regard to gender roles. Especially in unlucky small towns that sometimes had 50% plus of their young men die in WWI or WWII.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 06:10 AM
1

If she was in the military she needed to ass kiss to climb the career ladder. For officers the career ladder is much more vicious than in the civvie world due to "up or out" (apparently they haven't heard of the Peter principle.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 12:25 PM
7

No, according to the Fake Rape Industry if a woman voluntarily has sex with five black men in a public bathroom than it is the men's fault because no mature woman would engage in such activity. /s There was an article about that one yesterday.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 12:13 PM
2

The reason probably being that in most Western countries FGM has been illegal for a long time (yes even the form where just the labia is removed and not the clitoris). Arguing against MGM is just trying to get parity. The movement against MGM is trying to hijack the near universal horror in the West towards FGM by showing people how both are nearly identical.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 01:08 PM
8

Yeah pretty much time for male separatism. If a male engages in a long term relationship under these laws they are a mug. I was quite happy being single before these laws, and now I am very happy I won't be suffering under this legal gender apartheid. P.S. I particularly like how they are going to try and criminalise emotional and social abuse. Under those definitions every family I know would have multiple guilty family members and I can probably sue my high school as well.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 02:49 AM
1

Yes, but they hate men refusing to get married or have long term relationships because it ruins this scam. But "why buy the cow when you can get milk for free" applies. The sexual revolution was the worst thing that ever happened to feminism. If more conservative sexual mores still held true then feminists could easily get what they want through controlling the supply of sex. However in modern Western society a man doesn't even need to use prostitutes to get sex semi-easily.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 02:44 PM
3

So many of the excuses for false rape behaviour amounts to "lol everyone knows wymyns aren't mature enough to cope on their own, if a wymyn made a bad choice the men involved should have stopped her!". ಠ_ಠ It is bad enough when the white knights do it are allowed by their feminist masters to make that excuse, but when you see female feminists doing it then it is just a wtf moment. But I guess feminists are used to cognitive dissonance by now.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 02:38 PM
4

Even better is when these types of women refuse to do any lifting like this, and then expect their male co-workers to do it.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:26 PM
7

It's safe to say this type of sadistic behavior is far more typical of women than men. No it isn't. That is the kind of sloppy argument that academic feminism thrives on. When I was a kid I got that "you're a big boy" shit from all sorts of adults. Being an un-empathetic asshole was the common link, not gender (and it tended to be the 40-60 year old people that did it the most). And I also don't think it is sadism, it is just behaviour reinforcing the old gender stereotype that men have to be to…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:25 PM
4

I believe in "the patriarchy", but IMO it is synonymous with "the 1%", and is increasingly made up of women.
/r/MensRights07/01/12 06:27 PM
1

The rape of the sabines depends on how you believe your sources. Even if the original account is as saccharine as later Roman sources painted it, the later art definitely isn't showing some struggle about the Sabine women's legal right to marry Romans. I deliberately avoided using "history" and "bible" in the same sentence because I know how herp derp Da Vinci code Reddit can be.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:34 AM
2

I agree, but trying to describe early Rome as a massive rape camp is also propaganda Except I didn't. I was debunking the idea that rape/sexual assault (which is implied by the statues and paintings of the rape of the sabines) has some how been covered up through history until suddenly modern people discovered that it happened during wars. You also have to remember that we are dealing with mythology Which I already pointed out. What likely happened is that the proto-Romans raided the neighbours …
/r/MensRights04/01/12 11:25 AM
1

Rape has pretty much always been immoral in any society calling itself civilised. The Romans just had ways of classifying some things as Not Rape™. But seriously "and—dearest of all to human nature—would be the mothers of free men". The Soviets put out less heavy handed propaganda.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 10:50 AM
2

Yeah because Roman mythology isn't a case of the victors writing history.
/r/MensRights04/01/12 10:35 AM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_the_sabines Yep, this topic sure never makes it way into the history books. I think some poorly educated feminists are confusing Victorian history with all of history. The Victorians were peculiarly sensitive about sexual themes. Most pre-Victorian historians mentioned notable cases of rape, but otherwise it was treated as a normal part of warfare (like all the non-fighting age males being murdered by a victorious enemy).
/r/MensRights04/01/12 02:49 AM
7

Do these idiots ever watch the news? Most of the long term occupiers are young university students and some retirees. Last I checked there were plenty of female university students and retired women tend to be more involved in social activism then retired males. I am also pretty sure I saw women, and men, getting maced at Occupy protests. From the article: and war’s impact on women, who with their children comprise some 80 percent of refugees and displaced peoples Yes you fuckwit, because the me…
/r/MensRights04/01/12 02:12 AM
1

No I am saying that at the societal level it is irrelevant whether men want to fulfil the traditional male gender role of provider. Societies without heterosexual pair bonding for the purpose of procreation are possible. IMO that is precisely what academic feminists have been working toward: something similar to the Israeli kibbutz. In theory women would be able to have children without putting careers on hold (as academic feminists are almost universally hostile to doing that), and potentially …
/r/MensRights02/01/12 07:42 PM
1

Except those statements have little to do with what I said. With regards to the decreasing birth rate the willingness of men to individually provide is irrelevant as feminists push for Big Daddy policies (ie the government takes over the traditional provider and protector role of males). Whether or not males want to provide for a family they will simply be taxed to support those who do have families. Therefore the attitudes of men is irrelevant in regards to birth rate, the limiting factor is wo…
/r/MensRights02/01/12 06:52 PM
6

Men don't have to be willing to get married and support a family, the government will just tax them to provide for single mothers. Of course the problem is that in general feminists don't want women to have children, or to only have one or two, and indeed the stats reflect that the more women are educated the fewer children they have. This clashes with any societies need to maintain and grow its population. But the willingness of men to support families at an individual level is irrelevant. Many…
/r/MensRights02/01/12 01:46 PM
2

And many of those men who died in Gallipoli, or never really came back, would have been shamed by women if they hadn't of joined up. But of course that couldn't happen because under the matriarchy all will be peaceful as women are never violent nor start or contribute to wars.
/r/MensRights02/01/12 12:58 AM
1

That solution is a bit late.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 07:51 PM
3

Which is why the system is as it is. However even if you held that was true for the civilian world, the military world is very different and officers and cadets are supposed to be held to higher standards. Enlisted personnel would get a slap on the wrist for things which routinely get officer candidates expelled.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 06:17 PM
7

I think Donkey was more talking about the hysteria created around male on female DV where female on male, female on female, male on male are downplayed and ignored. For example Australia has just launched a major campaign against "violence towards women and children" but the targets of this campaign are men. Never mind that women direct violence towards their male partners and children. We should be having a campaign against DV in general but the rad fems firmly have the tiller here.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:44 PM
2

This really strikes me as saying "If you're late for muster because you were raped, we have no sympathy for you." I don't think that is the intention, but being late for muster can be very serious which is why someone might make up a reason. But from what I have heard the military doesn't take many excuses for being late for muster (eg I heard a story of a Redditor that was booted due to PTSD nightmares making them late for muster. His chain of command didn't believe his reason and booted him).
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:40 PM
2

This is not about protecting alleged rapists. Never said it was. All I said was that the future impact from being disciplined due to some violations of the honor code is a lot less than being disciplined due to rape. And accused rapists are rarely ever afforded the luxury of "innocent until proven guilty" (eg laws that protect the identities of alleged victims, but not those of alleged perpetrators, meaning the media is free to smear accused rapists with impunity). Crying rape, or claiming to be…
/r/MensRights30/12/11 05:32 PM
15

Punishing people for acts they committed ancillary to a crime committed by others is the solution. There is no reasonable scenario where a military cadet can end up drunk and in civvies without being responsible for those actions. Whether they were then raped is an entirely separate issue. Punishing a female cadet for honor code violations results in a lot less of a future impact on them than punishing a male cadet for an alleged rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 03:47 PM
16

The solution to female sailors using this excuse is to not allow it to be used as an excuse. So if they make a false rape claim they might take down some innocent SOB, but the woman will go down for the original charge. I mean if a woman was really raped she would have no problem suffering punishment for ancillary issues to see justice over the rape.
/r/MensRights30/12/11 02:07 PM
9

Exactly this. It doesn't matter if 99% of women have it worse in a case of a particular man and a particular woman. The case should be judged on the merits of the individuals involved. It is like all the "poor little rich girls" crying about how they have it harder than black/brown poor men. No you fucking don't, you are in the wealthy privileged class which is much better associated with having an easy life than gender. If you actually go look at all those reverse racism/sexism programs they ne…
/r/MensRights30/12/11 06:56 AM
3

However, in their culture, there is no stigma in being gay Yes, yes there is, as the "pinnacle" of Japanese society is being a married hard working salaryman. Gay relationships in media and porn is pretty common but it is usually aimed at heterosexual women, because gay relationships are seen as extra romantic and tragic (as their society strongly discourages them). Gay Japanese men don't get told they are going to hell, just that they have shamed the family and made their parents miserable. Wha…
/r/MensRights29/12/11 05:37 AM
2

The Chinese government have been making noise about the "lack of morals" that has lead to so many Chinese women being like this one. This is what you get from a society with no values but materialism.
/r/MensRights29/12/11 03:47 AM
1

And the same libertarian argument applies to everything government does so why don't we all just buy guns and get rid of government?
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:19 PM
1

Simple fact: We're better off without CPS than with. That isn't a fact, it is a completely unproven assertion. Fact: Most problems are nuanced and require more thought than "let's throw out the whole thing".
/r/MensRights28/12/11 08:05 PM
2

And the police are corrupt and rob innocent people of their freedom. Let's just buy guns and disband the government, that will solve all problems.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 07:59 PM
2

Never said the police weren't corrupt, only that they'd do a better job than CPS in this particular area. You implied it by saying CPS shouldn't have the job because they are an inefficient corrupt government bureaucracy. In most places they are those things, but so are the police. The police can hurt you a lot more than CPS can if they decide you are the bad guy. Personally I think concentrating more power in police hands isn't going to solve a single issue. When someone decides you are the bad…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 07:46 PM
2

The fact that police have been involved with covering up paedophile networks is relevant in discussing the assertion that they should be handled the child protection role because they are apparently incorruptible bastions of government efficiency who never abuse their power. I mean your argument boils down to that you would rather children are abused by their parents, than have parents abused by the state. If you extend that logic then you should be against the police because it is better for pe…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 07:27 PM
6

For some hateful ideologies it is completely fine to be bigoted against. Most people don't approach Nazism with a tolerant mind, and academic feminism has gotten to the point where I see no need to tolerate it as an acceptable political opinion in a country that believes in liberty. The academic strain of feminism is inimical to liberty and equality.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 03:58 PM
2

I love the angst over single men who just do what they want and still "hook up" with women. And then those same women whine about how they don't have a steady boyfriend or husband. I mean how stupid can you be? Most men historically only got married for sex and maybe starting a family. As having a family, and especially a big family, is so deemphasised in modern society then most men just want sex. Which women are giving them. "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" The sexual revo…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 01:47 PM
1

the community and the police department /insert hysterical laughter You mean the community and police* which let paedophiles run rampant for hundreds of years? Police officers are normally paid more than CPS officers and no police department run by sane people would touch the political timebomb that is child protection. Also child protection agencies normally do more then investigate abuse, they coordinate the police/medical/out-of-home-care system so kids aren't just tossed around like an unwan…
/r/MensRights28/12/11 09:12 AM
4

I can actually see how the hate works perfectly with feminist theory. I mean wouldn't it be great for "the patriarchy" if it could cut women completely out? Gay men don't even have to kowtow to women for sex or emotional support. The only power women have naturally over gay men is if the men want to procreate. It will be interesting if we ever invent artificial wombs. There could be gay male separatist societies without women at all. That would drive the academic feminists insane with rage.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 07:19 AM
2

It was always retarded. Even if being circumcised reduced the chance of HIV transmission, the result would probably be that men who got circumcised would engage in more risky behaviours because they think they are now protected. That is just how humans work everywhere, let alone in Africa where myths about HIV and sex are extremely prevalent.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 07:06 AM
2

Yep. "Oh that doesn't count because it wasn't 'institutional' racism/sexism". Once upon a time "institutional racism/sexism" used to exist against the non-white males, but these days it is mostly individual prejudice which you can't balance out using reverse discrimination. Making the system more fair is good, but there are many more categories of prejudice then just race or sex. There was an article this week about how attractive people get major wage benefits over their careers.
/r/MensRights28/12/11 06:07 AM
2

She might have made a mistake on the pill or something too Which doesn't excuse the man for not taking responsibility for his own fertility. Women have the option of hormonal and surgical abortions so many of them are very blasé about correctly taking the pill (I read a recent article that said something like 30% of young women don't take the pill correctly). If a man ever believes "no you don't need to wear a condom, I am on the pill" and isn't fine with the idea of pregnancy, that man is an id…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 11:33 PM
2

In this particular case I judged it unlikely that the OP's friend would have so quickly accepted this woman's claim if he had of been using protection. And you are right that condoms aren't a perfect solution, they still massively reduce the chance of pregnancy and not using them is tantamount to wanting to get a woman pregnant (rather then just implicitly consenting to the inherent risk of pregnancy).
/r/MensRights26/12/11 11:07 PM
1

You have the right to not put penis in vagina without a condom, or to not put in at all. Putting penis in vagina is implicit consent to the possibility of procreation due to biology. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that you just wanted to taste the beer but didn't want to be effected by alcohol.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 08:50 PM
2

Just because the system is unjust doesn't mean people aren't responsible for the risks they took which placed them at increased risk of being victims. And I was also more referring to the general case of having to pay out money because of not taking control of your own fertility. The primary purpose of sex is procreation, and taking part in it without controlling your own fertility is implicitly giving consent to that.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 06:55 PM
3

They don't care. Most SRS posters just want to hate on someone, and men are the most acceptable group to hate. I mean if SRS actually did what it says it is for in its description I would probably be for it. But most of the content is taking shit out of context to spin it as somehow anti-women/gays/trans so they can get their five minutes of hate on. If you then go an explain exactly how they took a quote out of context you will get down voted through the core of the planet. SRS is delusional mo…
/r/MensRights26/12/11 11:38 AM
3

But Lordy, a parent finds out I am an atheist and suddenly I'm strapping on leathers and burning candles. Atheists are waaaay cooler where ever you live than they are here.
/r/MensRights25/12/11 04:09 PM
12

Yeah, I "love" when questioning something a women has said about rape/child abuse/pay gap/child care etc gets you shouted down for "using your privilege to shut women up". It is like Israelis and "anti-Semitism". Question whether Israel needs to treat Palestinians the way they do and suddenly you are an anti-Semite.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 08:04 AM
1

The reason would be because the author thinks women should get special treatment just because he likes them. Not even "because of the inherent patriarchy of society" bullshit feminists spin. Just "they give me joy". I would say the author is pretty standard in the useful idiots of feminism camp (lets face it, if women actually did a sex strike they could have whatever they wanted).
/r/MensRights19/12/11 05:18 PM
12

To an extent I think the hyper-individualist message of feminism is the problem. Especially as it has spread outside of being directed just at women and now most people of my generation have started to believe it. The reality is that long term commitments suck and no one feels like upholding them all the time. So telling people they should dump their marriage and kids as soon as it gets tough has lead to the precipitous drop in long term relationships our society faces. I would note there are a …
/r/MensRights13/12/11 05:51 AM
36

Lots of men probably had similar experiences in their own careers. However it is not acceptable for a man to keep jumping through careers while his wife pays the bill, so the men suck it up and do jobs they don't like. Most feminist propaganda is focused on telling women that if what they are doing doesn't make them transcendentally fulfilled human beings they have a right to quit (jobs, marriage, parenting etc).
/r/MensRights13/12/11 01:50 AM
2

Yeah, I do think our system is safer then "legalise selling sex, illegalise buying it or pimping" systems. Keeping prostitutes off the streets improves things substantially. However as I said the real scummy people just bring in illegal sex workers so they can keep their abuse and exploitation hidden (as a trafficked sex worker is less likely to run off to the police because at best they will still be kicked out of the country). Effort needs to be put into cracking down on that aspect, but the p…
/r/MensRights11/12/11 10:16 PM
2

Prostitution is mostly legal here in Australia, but mostly conducted from brothels. The prostitutes are generally safer and it makes providing condoms and STD screening easier which reduces STD transmission. However the problem with it being legal to run a brothel is that it makes it harder for police to crack down on forced prostitution and trafficked women. Criminal gangs who do that will just have a patsy running things day-to-day and sending the money up the ladder. When police finally get e…
/r/MensRights11/12/11 09:50 PM
3

I'd pretty much decided on a life of celibacy before I got onto /r/MensRights and got reminded of this kind of bullshit. The last few women I trusted really fucked me over so I decided relationships weren't worth the effort. Now after being reminded of how shit it is to be the man in a relationship breakdown I would never consider having children even if I was stupid enough to trust a woman again.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 04:56 AM
1

My concern is they did not follow due process, and was swept under the rug. That's what I'd like to find out. If you have the energy go for it. I suffered similar discrimination at one point in uni and they pretty much did the same thing and swept it under the rug. I got pissed off about it for a while and pushed the issue up but they really didn't want to deal with it and in the end I settled for "compromise" (ie they get most of what they want, I got barely anything).
/r/MensRights11/12/11 04:47 AM
2

Does that instructor have tenure? If so don't even bother as short of getting caught committing murder on school property they are untouchable. At best you could have got the head to make her accept that paper. But she would have then likely tried to screw you in other grades.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 12:20 AM
3

Still could be dedicated troll. Some trolls like seeing what kind of insane bullshit they can pull off and still get people to believe they are serious.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 12:12 AM
2

do but there are some women who do not. Stop oppressing them by expecting thanks!!!11111 /s
/r/MensRights11/12/11 12:12 AM
4

At least the second of those comments stinks of troll.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 11:59 PM
1

Which is why you shouldn't take them as news sources.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 06:35 PM
3

Mocking Bush & Cheney didn't get them unelected, but was instrumental in getting Pelosi in her seat. Why are you arguing against satire?
/r/MensRights10/12/11 06:33 PM
1

Alaska has always sounded like a pretty nice place to me, and I want to visit one day. I just live in an area full of radical lefties and they suck balls. I am personally pretty left on a lot of things but that is because of rational examination of the issues and not just appeals to emotion, populism, and wanting to get laid.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 03:23 PM
1

I still hold the door for anyone out in the general public, but I don't do it at universities any more. Got several "creeper" stares and decided it wasn't worth the effort due to the large amount of LUGs/FUGs around here. And I have seen a hilarious large amount of bitching from online feminists about how doing basic chivalrous/courteous stuff like this is "oppressive" ("oh now I am supposed to feel grateful that a penis held a door for me???").
/r/MensRights10/12/11 02:59 PM
-1

opening doors for ladies Never do that. I wish I had saved the huge whine threads from feminists about how they felt oppressed by men opening doors for them.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 01:29 PM
1

It is a beautiful rhetorical trick. It neatly gets around the fact that false rape does massive damage to men by re-directing us to think about the damage to the believability of actual rape victims because of false rape allegations. False rape allegations do damage women (in that they make people doubt real rape victims). The issue with that line of arguing is that he is tying it with the idea that false rape is incredibly rare, in which case the damage to the individual man falsely accused sho…
/r/MensRights10/12/11 09:36 AM
5

Criticising an entire category of people based on the actions of even a majority of those in that category is intellectually feeble and pathetic. A lot of what we are supposed to be fighting against is the categorising of all males as rapists and child abusers because of the actions of a minority of men. Which makes criticising women as a group for the actions of a few even more intellectually bankrupt.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 08:27 AM
6

Not All Men Are Like That - yeah, we get that. But many of them are, so many that we keep having these horror stories about the crimes they're getting away with and the scars they keep leaving on women. These stories keep happening. They're not all like that, but how many have to be before we stop making excuses for them? Seems to me that some MRAs just want to give in and fight the feminists with the exact same tactics that used to be deplored. By fighting the beast they have become exactly lik…
/r/MensRights10/12/11 07:49 AM
4

The other major possibility I can think of is a dead beat boyfriend. Either way it is victim tiem!
/r/MensRights09/12/11 05:32 PM
14

And she refused to provide them information about her income (aka child support). Why do I now think we are going to learn about a drug addiction soon?
/r/MensRights09/12/11 12:52 PM
2

I would also point out that misogyny is hatred of women. A man who wants a return to traditional gender roles doesn't necessarily hate women. The feminists would call such a thing misogynistic but that is just silly, because it neither requires a hatred of women or requires men to be "better" then women. A large part of "proving" female powerlessness has been defining things that men typically excel at as the most important things in life (and then amusingly you see some writer argue that becaus…
/r/MensRights09/12/11 12:38 PM
1

I'm going with it all being true just because the thought of this woman BARGING into a room and screaming PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS brings joy to my life. I did laugh at that. And the "penises trying to get rid of me!" line. I enjoy people using novel/weird insults.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 10:58 AM
1

Or maybe Goldwater is a dick. Doesn't excuse her behaviour though. But I have seen women go the machismo route and then get sexist when they aren't regarded well for it. They don't get that most people don't regard machismo well, it is just that people that are naturally like that, and not fronting, just don't care what others think. Sounds like it sucks for the people working there and fans of the comic.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 10:29 AM
2

I wish this wasn't the case, but these sorts of abuses happen all too frequently and it usually takes a wealthy defendant to shell out the resources to reveal them. That I know. I still don't get what your problem is. That the Duke guys could afford to take on a corrupt DA? Personally I am constantly trying to inform people I know about the reality of the legal system and how poor people get rail roaded.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:08 AM
5

You don't get disbarred just for going after wealthy people. You get disbarred for shit like this: On December 16, 2006, it was revealed that Nifong and DNA lab director Brian Meeham conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the final report submitted to the defense team On December 28, 2006; the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics charges against Nifong over his conduct in the case, accusing him of making public statements that were "prejudicial to the administration of justice" and…
/r/MensRights09/12/11 07:57 AM
3

I always read "SRS" as "serious" because they seem take themselves too fucking seriously (as in SRSBZNS).
/r/MensRights09/12/11 04:27 AM
7

The district attorney who championed Mangum's claims was later disbarred That comment alone made me feel a lot better about the world.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 01:53 AM
5

Funny how in reality that nice little formula of yours doesn't actually work. I won't even go into how intelligence/education correlates with your little scale. I will just focus on how you are reducing huge political platforms to a single issue. Funny how for example I have heard 2nd Amendment Activists make the same argument. What happens if someone is against gun control but for "equality"? Does that cancel out? What if they don't believe in "equality" but are for heavily regulated markets? W…
/r/MensRights07/12/11 05:09 PM
3

The guy fails to define "male privilege" properly anyway so I stopped reading. Video game/comic characters aren't people. They can't benefit from any privilege. Their fates and fortunes are entirely at the whim of their creators. In addition if those media privilege anything it is attractive people. As you pointed out it is nearly always the case that major characters are attractive/sexy. A pro-tip people: Skin tight spandex isn't a functional material for super-hero's, it is so you can check ou…
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:51 PM
6

It is not just the two party thing, it is that apparently you have to be all for Party A or Party B. It is the strict adherence to "the party line" and insistence on binary thinking (ie you are either wholly "Liberal" or "Conservative") that annoys me.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 09:05 AM
14

Nah, it's not left-right (because both are on one side of) it's the Liberal - Conservative split. And that is still an inane false dichotomy* because it assumes people are either all Liberal or all Conservative on all topics. The only country I have seen which encourages this thinking is America. Here in Australia it happens in political parties due to factions, but most of the general public do not follow such rigid thinking. Especially as those calling themselves "conservatives" are mostly jus…
/r/MensRights07/12/11 04:29 AM
10

TIL that some Americans bring the inane Left - Right false dichotomy into everything.
/r/MensRights07/12/11 03:48 AM
4

I just want to make sure she is doing everything she can to recoup what is the childs FTFY.
/r/MensRights06/12/11 01:11 AM
1

While many men live in poverty around the world, many women live in poverty as well. Statistically, more women live in poverty than men. And that has what to do with the global elite that are on reddit? If you want to discuss that issue you are better off asking a general world politics reddit. Stuff like "gender rights" is mostly first world problems. The problems in developing nations is that huge segments of the population are un/undereducated and have no worker's rights. Just because a tiny …
/r/MensRights06/12/11 01:10 AM
2

Your approach to this is destructive No, your approach to this is destructive and has much research backing that up. People learning to "take charge" can be a valuable tool in the arsenal for beating mental illness like depression and anxiety. However it is one tool among many and you are simply hysterically wrong for saying that all depressed/anxious people can beat their conditions by doing that. In addition you are wrong hat the perception and thought disorders suffered by those people are so…
/r/MensRights04/12/11 11:49 AM
2

Yeah except the point is that you are making a distinction between schizophrenia and depression/anxiety that simply doesn't exist. People with schizophrenia suffer from hard to control impulses and distorted thinking, just like people with depression/anxiety. Yes, many people with depression/anxiety can attempt to "take charge" and that often helps to alleviate their symptoms and can lead to beating the disorder. However you stated "an individual, no matter how depressed, is capable of making an…
/r/MensRights03/12/11 07:47 PM
1

Again, this is bullshit. You seem to just want to blame women for everything. Even if I was exclusively blaming women for infant circumcision it still wouldn't indicate I "blame women for everything". Instead it reveals your prejudicial way of thinking and inability to separate women being partially responsible for something and being totally responsible. And if I didn't make it clear, I was making no statements of fact, I was merely giving my experience in debating this issue on other forums. B…
/r/MensRights03/12/11 05:52 PM
13

Read the article. All the judge decided against was nullifying the marriage on account of her lying about having AIDS. Any civil or criminal action about her not disclosing that she was infected will be a separate case.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 04:35 PM
5

The differences is that all this guy has done is try and get a nullification of his marriage over the betrayal. He could still pursue her civilly and criminally.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 04:33 PM
11

Um, this is why you do full STD screening before you get married and both partners check each others results. This guy fucked up with attempting to get nullification (in an attempt to prevent the wife getting his property) but he could probably pursue his wife civilly or criminally over this.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 04:31 PM
3

Which is why most circumcision is done to infants and seems to be supported more by women then men. P.S. I always liked the stories of hard-core dudes in the Old Testament who did self-circumcision. That shows some dedication. P.P.S. Though it was even better in the story were some tribe kidnapped an Israeli women, and then her brothers convinced the men of the tribe to become circumcised and join their tribe. Then the Israelis killed the other guys while they were still recovering from circumci…
/r/MensRights03/12/11 02:28 PM
1

Right, so what the suffragettes went through to get the right to vote was just parlour games? Don't even bother to reply if you are going to play semantic games btw.
/r/MensRights03/12/11 11:23 AM
0

Equality training shouldn't be based on group X is equal to group Y but that thinking person X as the same as person Y because of some common characteristic is wrong since there are too many other parameters. We must treat people as individuals instead of a robotic copy of a certain group. Exactly what I think. However the issue is what is in it for them? The feminist movement started off as a genuine struggle for rights by an oppressed group, but by the 70's had started to evolve into a movemen…
/r/MensRights03/12/11 09:20 AM
1

Ok, thanks for that clarification. I too get annoyed by idiots that claim to have a disorder just because they can match some diagnostic criteria from the DSM (and it is probably true that they do, because disorders represent the extreme of the spectrum of human experience. But unless something is actually causing your life to be disordered it isn't a disorder).
/r/MensRights03/12/11 08:51 AM
4

I have a 'disorder' as well. It is classified as 302.84 in our current DSM. I am fully aware of what I am and what I am doing. I am capable of functioning within society and leading a highly productive life. Does it cause you personal distress? If not, then you probably don't have a disorder. If you can function well within society, and are not distressed by your ideations/behaviour then the DSM shouldn't even be touched. Tools like the DSM exist to figure out what disorder a patient has. They a…
/r/MensRights03/12/11 08:42 AM
2

An individual, no matter how depressed, is capable of making an informed, rational choice about their actions. Wait, why is anyone listening to anything this guy has to say? He obviously has no fucking experience with people with actual depression, just mopey fucks on anti-depressants (which get handed out like candy these days to people). Schizophrenics do not choose these hallucinations and bizarre thoughts and without medical or even legal intervention, they sometimes have little to no contro…
/r/MensRights03/12/11 08:37 AM
8

Finally. I was getting sick of the pro-circumcision brigade (which contained a high proportion of women) using the minor preventative effect shown in those studies to back mass circumcision. There other favourite argument was that circumcised men would be less sensitive and so therefore would last longer during sex. Which was blown out of the water by a study which said circumcised men had rougher sex to achieve the same level of stimulation as un-circumcised men, and that women preferred the le…
/r/MensRights03/12/11 08:11 AM
2

I hope they like hate mail.
/r/MensRights01/12/11 07:05 PM
0

No, that is mostly pre-history. As in pre-historic. And even then "dirt farmers" pretty much covers that as well as many pre-historic societies mightn't have practised fixed locale agriculture but they did do more then just wander around looking for free food (eg Australian Aborigines would exploit the fact that local vegetation often relies on bush fires for procreation by lighting fires and coming back later to harvest the goodies).
/r/MensRights01/12/11 06:43 PM
13

Yes, the urge to reproduce is hard-coded but that doesn't mean the optimal strategy has always been to knock up as many women as possible. For the simple fact that for most of history humanity was a bunch of dirt farmers and so following that strategy could lead to lots of dead children (infanticide is an ancient practice) and so an evolutionary dead end. The optimal strategy for most of human history was for a male to secure exclusive breeding rights with as many women as he could support (whic…
/r/MensRights01/12/11 12:36 PM
-4

Lol, only if we buy into the retarded logic that ballcutters use to argue that if any of half a hundred different conditions apparently implicitly agreed upon are latter violated then the act isn't consensual.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 06:40 PM
0

And what has that to do with what I posted? Even if the mother was punished the dumb arse OP would still be paying to support the child because you should pay for the consequences of your actions. Heterosexual intercourse has a non-zero chance or pregnancy, plan accordingly and regulate your own fertility. "But I didn't consider the consequences!" is nor a legal or moral defense. P.S. Things are different with stuff like sperm stealing, in which case IMO the man shouldn't have to pay.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 04:18 PM
-1

But you made a choice. You had control to not allow this, 17 weeks ago. There is no unalienable right to sex without parenthood. I wish more people would get this. People lie, birth control fails. Don't depend on your partner "doing the right thing" when it comes to something that could significantly affect your life for decades.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 02:02 PM
11

Exactly. Not using a condom with a girlfriend is begging for surprise pregnancy. Plenty of women suddenly get broody and decide they want children, or think that having a kid will bring them closer together as a couple (in reality it is nearly always the opposite). OP fucked up and has to pay the price.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 01:59 PM
2

No, "feminists" (in quotes because most of the ones I am referring to are just plain ol' crazies hijacking what was once a legitimate movement) are disingenuous in demanding more media attention and funding for women's sport when they know the reason for the status quo is that hardly any women would make it top the top in co-ed competitions. If they really believed in equality they would demand co-ed sporting competitions.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 05:02 AM
9

You do realize it is a biological fact that, post-puberty, men are physically stronger than women? That's like the 3rd graders getting mad because they have to play against 5th graders. One team is bigger and stronger than the other. Most unisex sports are extremely hard for women to excel in because the men are simply stronger. Duh, so why would I watch a C grade team when I could be watching an A grade team? Instead of acknowledging and accepting the biological reality we have "feminists" havi…
/r/MensRights24/11/11 04:27 AM
8

And? Male football has plenty of intense games. But if those women could perform to the same level as male players they would be competing directly with men. I have nothing against female athletes (they are all way more fit then I), but I am sick of being told I need to pay more attention to female sports because "equality". I believe in actual equality which would require women to compete directly with men, and if that means few women end up on top grade teams then go cry a river to Darwin.
/r/MensRights24/11/11 01:29 AM
4

Even women know women's sport is a joke compared to men's sport. Where are all the "feminists" arguing for unisex sporting competitions?
/r/MensRights24/11/11 12:23 AM
-1

They did not cede to society's pressure of giving women special privileges just because they are women Except that isn't the case from what I read. Taverns want more women to come in because that attracts more men to come in. More customers = more cash for the business. Clubs have been doing "ladies night" style stuff for decades before feminism took hold. This was a commercial not gender wars issue.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 05:17 PM
10

I mean seriously. As if he doesn't have tens of thousands of much better looking women throwing themselves at him. I could believe he might have had sex with her, but that whole "it's my first time" bs just sounded like mentally disturbed fan-girl.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:01 PM
0

Except it isn't sexism as a business model. I think that by buying into the "all discrimination is bad discrimination" meme just gives power to the radicals. Especially in this case where it looks like they were just asked to give up seats for some ladies in exchange for a free drink. Being asked is very different from "get the fuck out, a woman wants to sit there".
/r/MensRights16/11/11 03:51 PM
1

Meh, more like a business knows that if it attracts more women it will also attract more men. More like business savvy then a "women > men" attitude.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 02:22 PM
1

I doubt he is mentally ill, he probably just gets off on it. OP should just spray mace on the guys junk.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 01:01 PM
2

Uh huh, except as soon as you pass the bar you are a lawyer. You might learn most of what you practically use post JD, but as far as the law is concerned those who have passed the bar are lawyers.
/r/MensRights15/11/11 03:41 PM
13

It is on topic. The mind set that led "feminists" to shout down this women is exactly the same mind-set that is rampant in extremist politics (and IMO it does infect the Right just as much as the Left).
/r/MensRights15/11/11 10:08 AM
2

Are you implying the anti-men brigade actually think through the consequences of their campaigns?
/r/MensRights14/11/11 09:08 AM
2

So you got your cool username in the three hours it took for Advice Dog to be picked up by Cheezburger network and ruined? :P
/r/MensRights14/11/11 09:05 AM
12

What is at stake here is that Men have more responsibility because they have more power in this society Which is bullshit. The tip-top tiny minority of men at the top of society have nearly all the money and nearly all the power. Or are you seriously going to argue that I as an unemployed university drop out have more power than an average female professional because I have testicles? Really, the idea that members of group A are more responsible then members of group B because as a statistical e…
/r/MensRights13/11/11 07:37 AM
1

Which is exactly why it won't happen. Most "progressive" activists and politicians are wed to the idea that males and females can only be equal if they both work. It is absolutely hilarious to see the bile that "progressive" "feminists" spew at stay at home mums, especially ones who have no pretence of having an alternative career. But the moronic thing is that this idea is from a South African. South Africa doesn't need more people, it already has crippling unemployment as it is.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 10:21 PM
2

Some "progressive" politicians want more women in the military, but even they don't want them coming home in body bags in the same numbers as men because the general public wouldn't accept that. The idea that men have to protect women from violence is still strong in Western society. And in general combat arms are only worried about being forced to accept sub-standard candidates and not being able to kick them out for failure to perform because of cries of sexism. The US Navy was stuck with sub-…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 12:13 PM
4

Sorry, but part of the political reasoning is exactly that. There has been a lot of discussion about how the public does not want to see young women and mothers coming home in body bags. Sure that happens now, but would be a lot more common if women were in direct combat roles.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:45 AM
15

Really? It is still common. Why do you think most militarys don't put women in direct combat roles? That prejudice dates back to the time when a tribes growth was dictated by the number of fertile women. If 3/4's of the men died but they died protecting the women then in 20 years the tribe would be even stronger. I have even heard of a study showing that we have half as many male ancestors as female. I also have an essay that argues male variation in qualities such as intellect, and also the mal…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 04:54 AM
5

Prostate cancer: First-world problem! I always love the "men are privileged because of average wealth" when in reality nearly all that wealth is owned by the 1%. It also ignores that the bottom cohort of men is much poorer, and has worse long term prospects, then the bottom cohort of women. How do people even get into university with thinking as wooly as this? Shit, but that guys own argument we should stop Pinktober and instead fund women's programs in Africa. After all privileged mostly white …
/r/MensRights10/11/11 04:49 AM
6

Except I see female oriented versions of "now kiss" all the time on other sites and I don't start freaking out about objectified or feel uncomfortable. Other people should be allowed to discuss things they find sexually appealing, that's tolerance. And stuff like how women (as a group) prefer high status and high income males isn't exactly revolutionary, so it wouldn't make me uncomfortable to find a bunch of women discussing it. Seems to me that honesty now makes people uncomfortable.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:01 AM
10

Just supports my theory that most sexist bigotry is due to the individual bigot getting butt hurt about past partners or parents. Most people don't take sexist commentary seriously until they get hurt and then its all "every woman is a whore" and "all guys are rapists". In conclusion: I am sorry to all those professional woman out there, making ten times what I make, who I have oppressed due to my choice to be born with a Y chromosome.
/r/MensRights08/11/11 11:01 AM
2

You don't even need that to explain it. A significant portion of people get aroused by almost any sexual act. That doesn't mean they have any significant inclination to go perform those sex acts in real life. I have read about studies showing that images of erect penises are almost as arousing as images as breast to straight men (basically the conclusion was sexual imagery is sexual imagery and the part of our brain that controls sexual arousal isn't that discriminating). And considering the num…
/r/MensRights08/11/11 05:18 AM
1

You ever think about all the males who did terrible at school because of a systemic bias against male learning styles and behavior?
/r/MensRights08/11/11 04:56 AM
2

Thanks for that. I have read some of those papers before but lost most of my research paper bookmarks a while back. My interest in this area came about after I read about a case of giving a child hormone therapy before puberty (and also applying for re-assignment surgery) and also about a bunch of post-operative people that had regretted the surgery. It really didn't seem ethical to attempt such heavy handed procedures at a time when most children do not have a well defined identity (in that cas…
/r/MensRights07/11/11 03:47 AM
4

Like? Only stuff I have ever found solid references for is grey/white matter ratios differences between men and women, and those are averages and therefore insufficient to explain the phenomenon. Other then that it is just some people reporting that they feel happier when they are allowed to adopt behaviours and phenotype of the opposite chromosomal gender. But some people say they are happier when they dress up as cats so that self-reporting isn't worth much. But still as I already said the con…
/r/MensRights06/11/11 05:49 PM
6

It is superfluous because the concept of gender apart from chromosomal gender is a societal construct. At least according to most of the feminists I have ever talked to when they are getting pissed off about someone encouraging "stereotypical gender behaviours". The phenomenon of transgender fascinates me because I have seen absolutely no real evidence for the idea of biological gender outside of chromosomal gender. Yet so many people take it as given that you can have an inherent psychological …
/r/MensRights06/11/11 05:24 PM
2

Yeah amateur horse riding is largely female but when you get into training and professional horse riding there are a lot of men. Horse racing is mostly male.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 02:58 AM
6

Ask and you shall recieve. I forgot one minor detail. The reason stabbing was put forth as the reason for the pregnancy was because this girl was born without a vagina.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 03:40 PM
3

It is a quote from Jurassic Park that hints at the fact that vasectomy isn't a sure thing. Sperm are tough little SOBs, for example one girl got pregnant through a stab wound (she had just finished giving a BJ when a jealous ex burst in and stabbed her).
/r/MensRights03/11/11 02:55 PM
3

Good luck with that but life, uh, life will find a way.
/r/MensRights03/11/11 02:34 PM
1

That wasn't an offensive usage. I was genuinely wondering if you suffered from mental retardation. An offensive usage would be "You are fucking retarded" in reply to someone who was just pig ignorant (though the animal rights brigade probably get upset at using animals in insults).
/r/MensRights02/11/11 12:24 PM
1

You are talking about fanatics, not random "moral outrage". Self-described "womyn" are up there with Westboro Baptist for being completely out of touch with reality and proportion. If you become their target they will hound you into the ground.
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:59 AM
2

Do you understand the concept of "stereotype" or are you just retarded/trolling?
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:56 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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