TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thebestwes Archive

View 6 posts and 221 comments by thebestwes on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

There's no debate for neo1616 to have lost. You're not "debating" anyone any more than a little kid is an olympic swimmer for splashing around in a puddle. Statements like "open your eyes," "the truth hurts," and "it's the truth!" are not arguments. Personally, I think "the first person who resorts to insults has already lost the debate" could be replaced with "the first person to activate caps lock has already lost," but I have a feeling you wouldn't like that.
/r/MensRights07/04/15 06:46 PM
5

Same thing with MRAs who spew hateful bullshit, but nobody has any problem saying "they're not representative of the Mens Rights Movement." The fact that shitty people claim labels is not a good basis for assigning them.
/r/MensRights27/02/15 03:43 AM
1

Well if you're studying power systems it does indeed make sense to only examine that. The issue comes when you try and transpose the term directly to personal-level interactions, which any good sociologist wouldn't ever do.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 04:12 AM
3

I'm no SJW, but they've been going on and on about intersections of privilege for a while now. Privilege in one area has never meant that you have no other problems or that you aren't disadvantaged in others.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 03:37 AM
1

I think that's a bit unfair. It's technically the academic definition, and has been for decades. It makes sense in sociology, which tends to focus more on systems of relationships than individual ones. The issue is just that that's not really what people mean when they say "racism" in the vernacular, and it might not tell you as much about the way individuals experience prejudice in society.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 03:35 AM
1

Also, anyone can go to a hospital and have a "rape kit" done--and then refuse to co-operate further. You know what a rape kit IS, right? They will look for bruising patterns, and can actually determine if intercourse was consensual based on that. ANYBODY can tell a therapist "Oh, I was raped, it was awful, I need psycho-therapy---and lots of drugs to make me feel better." People don't go around saying that. And they definitely don't ASK for drugs, because that's a huge warning sign that they're …
/r/MensRights12/08/12 11:57 AM
1

Secondly , why is it that when male lives are ruined by a false rape accusation , the first thing we think about is how it affects women . This wasn't the first thing anyone talked about, although I should point out here that whether the victim is male or female, rape DOES ruin lives. People often turn suicidal or have lifelong depression following being raped. It's not as "official" as someone being put in jail, but it can, at times, be just as crippling.
/r/MensRights11/08/12 10:39 PM
1

Most of these are not from surveys. Most of them are from discussions with therapists etc. Therapists are often required to disclose that the incident happened without disclosing any details that would break confidentiality (unless the victim consents). They are essentially unofficial reports, and since the victim wants help but does not want to disclose the name of their accuser, I think that is a very clear indicator that they are telling the truth (as they aren't accusing anyone directly). Th…
/r/MensRights11/08/12 10:37 PM
4

To be fair, that is fucking sexist, and is related to gender, unlike a lot of the other things here.
/r/MensRights30/07/12 07:13 PM
4

Going home with a girl from a bar or party and having drunken sex is not rape. It is if there is no implied consent outside of an intoxicated state. If it is rape if your drunk, why aren't women considered rapists, why isn't every fat bitch who gets laid with a drunk guy taken to prison? If both parties are intoxicated obviously things change, but yes, that is what should happen if a man is taken advantage of.
/r/MensRights17/07/12 04:56 PM
1

And I say, if the majority of voters are women, that shouldn't matter. This isn't necessarily true. To get into politics you have almost always be successful in either business or law, two notoriously male-dominated fields (sexist or not, the demographics are certainly skewed towards men). We also don't live in a true democracy.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:18 AM
2

I agree, although I guess the feminist response would be that women are discriminated against in the political system and don't get the same opportunities in it that men do.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:07 AM
2

To be fair, voting in America is just choosing between the lesser of two evils. Being able to vote is hardly the same as being at the helm of the country.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:51 AM
6

According to this, women are more likely to vote than men are.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:45 AM
2

Perfect! Thanks.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:44 AM
1

But what percentage are registered to vote? IIRC it's only a ~1% difference or so in population.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:39 AM
8

There's a reason we have the term institutionalized sexism. It's to contrast with regular sexism.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:04 AM
3

Wow, is that true? Link?
/r/MensRights09/07/12 04:02 AM
2

I read it more like "If you don't talk to your girl ever, she's going to go with a guy who does". Which is equally fine, imo.
/r/MensRights04/07/12 02:30 AM
1

To compete for females and defend them. Back in the stone age. So what?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:46 PM
1

But why is it that in the majority of mammal species, and all primates, men are larger and stronger? To ignore the answer to that question is to not understand the bigger picture. More muscle doesn't mean superior, especially in today's society. Male deers *deer In no mammal species do the females have to fight in order to reproduce with the males. Culture is irrelevant here. Therefore women are inferior to men? What? You could argue that it is imperative to a society's success to keep women saf…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:39 PM
1

Sorry for confusing you for YadaYadaYada2, but my point still stands regarding the fact that I carefully explained why you were wrong instead of name-calling.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 10:05 PM
1

I didn't call you a name, I referred to you as "a fuck". You are sexist by your own admission, as you do not think women are equal to men in "skill" (whatever that means). Everywhere else I explained why you were wrong, but I guess you can't handle that.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:31 PM
1

It would be reasonable if it weren't entirely inaccurate and looking at all the wrong causes and effects from all the wrong time periods.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:29 PM
1

That is nothing but a guess, but you are stating it as a fact. No, that's why. I've done historical research on the origins of Chivalry and read writings on both Chivalry and the "women and children first" policy, and both came out of this mentality. We know because people fucking said so. We shower veterans with praise and respect, just as we do with Holocoust survivors, but that does not mean it was a desirable experience. Yeah, we also avoid raping women because we see them alone. It's the 21…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 08:08 PM
1

If women were considered a lower class human, surely they would have been sent to war, sent to prison for not agreeing to go to war, pressured into risking their lives, or left on the Titanic to die while the men were saved? No. The reason being that they were seen as incapable of fending for themselves, as they were considered to be a lower class of human. Going to was was seen as a desirable thing. Just because women were barred from the top 10% of society does not necessarily mean that women,…
/r/MensRights25/06/12 06:48 PM
1

You mean like Margaret Thatcher? And are you an idiot? Until recently women were considered a lower class of human. That's not opinion, that's objective fact. They could not vote or own property, let alone run for office, until just a few generations ago. Women were fucking oppressed. Do you think they were just too stupid or incompetent for all that time?
/r/MensRights24/06/12 03:45 AM
3

Dude, I've done source document reading on this. It was a widespread problem. Women would get paid less, so companies just kept them on after the war. Troop unemployment was a big problem. Many were forced out of their jobs, but more females remained employed after WWI than there had been prior to the war.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 02:18 AM
3

That's because they weren't allowed to. Women aren't less intelligent or valuable to society than men. Also, ever hear of Marie Curie? You know, just the woman who created the term radioactivity to describe a phenomenon she discovered. Or what about Emilie du Chatelet? She worked with Voltaire to pioneer areas in physics and mathematics. Or Lise Meitner, who helped discover Nuclear Fission? Or Barbara McClintock, who discovered that genes could move between chromosomes? Or Dorothy Hodgkin, who m…
/r/MensRights22/06/12 11:51 PM
3

Unsure, but there were a lot of feminist writers at the time who said "hey, we need to pay women the same as men so men can get their fucking jobs back" (paraphrased, of course). I'm not sure how they got rid of the problem, but I'm guessing it was equal pay type stuff.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 08:06 PM
1

It's the same principle. When they came back the employers just kept the women on because they didn't cost as much.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 07:34 PM
3

After WWI there was actually a huge problem with this, and unemployment among returning troops was really high as a result.
/r/MensRights22/06/12 07:11 PM
0

few guys have MET girls that actually are into video games Yeah, and few women have met "nice guys". Same fucking logic.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 03:51 PM
2

Legally speaking of course. Legal definitions are bullshit in my eyes. Tons of them are off base and miss the entire point of the original word. I can't think of any others off hand, but there are many more. It's not about the words meaning the same thing they do in common usage, it's just used to convey different concepts. It's not twisting words, it's just using them differently.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 02:33 PM
1

I've met a lot, actually. My girlfriend plays Zelda, most Mario games, and Pokemon, and runs them all on emulator on her computer. My best friend in high school plays pretty much everything all the time. Also all my other female friends. But your logic essentially boils down to "I haven't met one, therefore they don't exist". But in my experience, women who play no games whatsoever are rarer than those who play games occasionally, at least in the under-30 age group.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 01:42 PM
4

Yes, that is ONE OF THE WAYS it is used. It's different in a legal context.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 01:34 PM
3

This is a bit of a dumb stereotype. My girlfriend has more money than I do, and we've been together for a while.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 01:21 PM
4

harass |həˈras; ˈharəs| verb [ trans. ] subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation
/r/MensRights21/06/12 01:17 PM
4

And a lot of them actually ARE into. Seriously, how hard is it to believe that some women like games?
/r/MensRights21/06/12 01:16 PM
2

Who said anything about changing one's personality? And anyway, not all women can get laid super easily. Some of them are just naturally irritating, as I'm sure you've noticed. It's just as misguided to say that every woman can get laid super easily as it is to say that every man can get laid super easily.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 02:29 AM
0

Yes that's true, but I'm not saying that this is universally the problem. I just know a lot of slobs that say "hey, I don't understand why women have such high expectations. I'm talking to them and everything" while wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm dressed and out of bed. What more do you want?" I'm not even making that up for dramatic effect. All I'm saying is that people shouldn't be so quick to write off women ignoring them as an unfixable thing. In other words, what some guys think of as "tr…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 01:34 AM
2

That's not what dressing nicely means. The fact that you think "nice" means Polo shirt, let alone one with a popped collar just goes to show that you could probably do with a bit of getting your act together yourself, no offense.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 12:41 AM
-1

To be fair, "not trying" doesn't mean not flirting with women and talking to them. Not trying means not trying to dress well, act confident, and generally get your shit together. OP's problem is a widespread problem, but I've met a lot of slobs who say they're "trying" to get women when all they're doing is flirting.
/r/MensRights20/06/12 08:17 PM
1

HAHAHAHAHA I am seriously amazed at your ignorance. British Common Law is the basis for the American Legal System. Did you miss the whole "high school" thing? Where do you think America came from? I'm sorry if you're mentally handicapped and this is unfairly condescending, but I really can't believe I'm having to explain legal history 101 to you. You definitely don't need to be in possession of a firearm with that kind of understanding of your rights as a gun owner, and I say that as a gun owner…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 06:31 PM
1

I already stated that Washington state runs under British legal tradition HAHAHA. ALL of America's law's come originated in British Common Law, but that doesn't mean anything in this case. Aren't you smart, you took 6th grade social studies. Since places are not expressly forbidden they are allowed. No hand made (or even gasp, Kinkos printed) sign can change that. But hundreds and hundreds of years of new laws can, retard. You are trespassing unless you are given actual or implied consent from t…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:32 PM
1

No, you did not link laws regarding trespassing and the definition thereof. You just listed some places you can't carry your gun and said "so everywhere else is good, amirite?"
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:13 PM
1

Because if you can't answer a simple question honestly I'm trolling. Keep dodging the question.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 03:46 PM
1

The judge who belongs to the gun club told you that direction has to be verbal for trespassing to happen? Then ask him how the flying fuck "No Trespassing" signs mean dick? Even the U.S. Government uses them. Idiot.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:30 AM
1

I read the laws and carefully explained why you are a retard who should not be allowed to own a firearm. Businesses do not have to give verbal directions to tell you that you are trespassing, and signs count as direction. Is that so difficult to get through your Cro-Magnon skull?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:39 AM
1

The act of walking into the store knowingly in violation of the stores policy does not make you guilty of trespassing. If they ask you to leave and you refuse THAT makes you guilty of trespassing. Wrong. I've already explained this. Either cite a legal source (as I have) or gtfo. Washington case law is clear on this. Which case?
/r/MensRights24/05/12 07:34 PM
1

Private rules aren't criminal laws by themselves, but refusing their directions can break one. Exactly. So if the sign says "no guns" and you bring a gun in, you are trespassing. Same with "no shirt, no shoes" rules. Directions do not legally have to be verbal to apply. They tell you what is breaking the law and the rest is allowed because the ruling is ambiguous/non-existent. No. Just no. It's common sense (and legally correct) to assume that if a place of business says "you can't come on our p…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:43 PM
1

A person who enters property with permission but stays after he has been told to leave also commits a trespass ALSO. ALSO. ALSO. In ADDITION to the other ways one can trespass. Read up if you wish, open carry is perfectly allowed without a permit, and concealed carry is allowed with permit and grants even more rights. Already did. It says nowhere that carry is permitted everywhere it is not explicitly forbidden in that law, it just specifically points out several locations that it is not permitt…
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:45 AM
4

The difference is that they are a private company, and can deny you entry for essentially any reason (provided it's not discrimination). So the issue here is that there is a double standard, not that he had to let them search his bag.
/r/MensRights23/05/12 08:08 PM
2

Incorrect again, you are only trespassing once you have been asked to leave and refuse to do so. This is not necessarily true and is a common myth. If there is a sign that forbids weapons on the premises, for example, you are a trespasser if you bring a weapon onto the property. From a free online legal dictionary: Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property. A person who has a right to come onto the land may become a trespasser by committing…
/r/MensRights23/05/12 08:03 PM
0

It doesn't really not work either. It just sort of gives the effect of a FTFY.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 12:01 AM
-2

implying that things in economics are "disproven"
/r/MensRights09/05/12 09:27 PM
1

My point is that the term was originally used to describe prison rape etc. and rape as a cultural movement. A 1975 documentary film, Rape Culture, produced and directed by Margaret Lazarus and Renner Wunderlich for Cambridge Documentary Films, discussed prison rape in the context of a larger cultural normalization of rape.[4] In 2000, Lazarus stated that she believed the movie was the first use of the term.[5] To use the term to describe America in general is just insulting to places like South …
/r/MensRights14/04/12 10:13 PM
3

That'll teach me to get my info from Wikipedia... Good catch. Still, my point still stands.
/r/MensRights14/04/12 01:12 AM
-1

Interesting fact: the term "rape culture" was originally used in academia to refer to systematic war rape as a form of intimidation, or "rape-gangs" in impoverished areas of the world. SlutWalk co-opted it and were the first to use it to mean anything other than cultural acceptance of brutal rape with the intention of showing dominance culturally.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 07:46 PM
1

She's saying how hard it is to be an ugly female, because you have to do things like carry your own books or open your own doors quite often. It's a pretty crazy entitlement complex.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 02:02 PM
16

Not her friends. It was on the fan page of Maus, I believe, on a post using the Morpheus meme ("what if I told you that the friendzone was bullshit because women are not a sex machine that you put friendship into and get sex out of"). Maybe the joke is stolen, but I didn't photoshop it.
/r/MensRights10/04/12 05:18 AM
10

I don't know her, so while I think it's horrible that she's being an ass to this guy I don't think it's fair to assume she wasn't actually raped. I don't know whether she was or not, but why assume that she was not?
/r/MensRights08/04/12 03:52 AM
3

I was under the impression that it wasn't just injuries that were looked at, but the location of them. IIRC forced entry may cause the same amount of damage as consensual sex, but it's a different type of damage (e.g. damage right around the vaginal opening vs inside the vagina). I'll try and find a source on that.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 02:58 PM
1

Teachers and relative rates of hitting. Your analogy fails. Again, my point is that you can't prove intent. I defined disposability, follow the argument. I'm criticizing your reasoning, and you tell me that it's all good because you defined a term? Whatever, bro.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 02:52 AM
1

Bad analogy! We are talking about punishment from teachers and when they target someone or a group far more. But the intent was the same. Teachers spanking kids is an evolution of parents spanking kids, which happened much earlier. but the main argument is that boys are being treated as disposable. Not that it applies You have only used circular reasoning to back this up. We beat boys => boys are disposable. Boys are disposable => we beat boys. Where is the evidence that anybody thought boys wer…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 01:39 AM
1

Soldiers are disposable. We train them with abuse. We do not train them with abuse because they are disposable. We train them with abuse so they will become less easily disposable. What do you think the purpose of training is? But I don't believe our intent of abusing boys was to make them into doctors so to speak. So you think that parents who spank their children are not doing so because they want their kid to succeed later?
/r/MensRights29/03/12 12:59 AM
1

You have yet to support the dubious suggestion that hitting boys turns them into successful doctors and such. I didn't make that claim. I am saying that that was the intent. Abuse, which is what that was, is about disposability. Abuse is not always about disposability. Do you think they make soldiers do pushups for being disobedient because they think that person will be disposable on the battlefield?
/r/MensRights28/03/12 09:56 PM
1

I spoke about both. Well that's not what I'm criticizing. Never did. Didn't say you did. I'm saying hitting boys far more than girls was and still is abusive and that this reflects a disposability of boys. Again, you have yet to show that the second part follows from the first part.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 01:46 PM
1

Better yet, is hitting a boy with a ruller helping him to be successful? We're talking about intent, not actual effects. If you want to make the case that all the spanking did was cause generations of intellectually stunted men then that's fine, but we're not talking about that.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 04:20 AM
1

Where are you going with that? Um, I would think it would be obvious that that scenario is just as hard on the mother as it is the father. That question doesn't make sense, a wife beater can love his wife. But that doesn't not mean everything he does is loving. A spanking is not the same as getting beaten.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 01:41 AM
1

A twenty year old man should not dir for an old women. And a loving father should be able to protect and die for his 20 year old son. Wouldn't this be just as bad as the loving mother who cannot protect and die for her 20 year old son either? As to the 20 year old man and the old woman, I still think it would be pretty noble to die for anyone. Physical punishment is not meant to improve boys in any way that is good to them. The best thing you could say is an uncompationate training. I'm mean... …
/r/MensRights27/03/12 03:09 PM
3

It is basically a way of not caring about boys and shaping them into what's useful and disregarding the rest. Isn't discipline usually intended to improve children? Given that, wouldn't this reveal a bias towards trying to improve male children over female children more than anything else? We even saved a greater percentage of girls on the titanic than boys, because we didn't value boys more back then. I don't think this has much to do with it, honestly. I mean, they also put male children ahead…
/r/MensRights27/03/12 05:42 AM
4

I'm not super familiar with feminist arguments, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Can you give me some examples? (Not trolling)
/r/MensRights27/03/12 05:33 AM
7

To be fair, that depends. My girlfriend was specifically told that she would be unable to grasp higher math because she was a girl, and so she shouldn't pursue it. She is now working on a degree in physics, and doing quite well. I think it depends on the teacher a significant amount.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:17 AM
3

This is when a boy becomes a man, alright. A man dating an immature, self-entitled little girl.
/r/MensRights31/01/12 10:15 PM
2

Also, doesn't the woman's family traditionally pay for the wedding? I'd think that one would be debatable too.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 12:51 AM
2

It's not the subject matter that's funny, it's how backwards and stupid the woman is. Relax.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 06:13 AM
2

My girlfriend has no problem buying me dinner, getting the door for me, or driving me around (I don't have access to a car, she does). She's not a feminist (we both prefer to identify as egalitarian), but we have a really strong and equal relationship. She thinks it's cute when I try and be all traditional, but neither of us has a problem with the other taking charge. Also, she asked me out. I think overall this lack of gender roles has made our relationship stronger (although she does want me t…
/r/MensRights19/12/11 05:24 AM
2

I'm a dude. I would have laughed. It was pretty funny how ridiculous the whole thing was.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 05:04 AM
-1

Being misinformed = being unreasonable? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 11:56 AM
2

Considering that IQ can be genetic, maybe the parents have higher IQs? So maybe the mom, being intelligent, is more fair than your average mother? And we're not talking about ONLY divorce cases here, but fathers and mothers in general.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 05:39 PM
3

Or maybe kids who have higher IQs tend to spend more time with their fathers? Correlation ≠ causation.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:12 PM
10

Absolutely not. That wasn't the question, though.
/r/MensRights03/08/11 01:22 PM
11

Because only angry people feel the need to yell?
/r/MensRights03/08/11 12:43 PM
1

I absolutely do not. Let the punishment fit the crime.
/r/MensRights20/07/11 06:25 AM
1

Obviously I can't speak for all threads, so I was just basing it off of your example (since I happen to be familiar with it).
/r/MensRights16/07/11 04:01 AM
2

Not entirely relevant, but I must say that I couldn't disagree more with the part of your article addressing racists on Reddit. As I recall from the AMA and the AskReddit post, one of the top comments was a black man who said he agreed entirely, and suggested that maybe it had more to do with the culture of the lower class (which contains quite a lot of blacks, as unfortunate as that is) than any physical differences. I would also argue that the loud minority comes out a lot in posts such as tha…
/r/MensRights16/07/11 02:23 AM
1

I was going to say that "cuntface" was sexist, but then I realized that I use "dick" all the time. Carry on.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 03:46 PM
2

And the evidence that was excluded should not have been excluded?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 08:05 PM
2

The problem with arguing against NAFALT is that it is by definition untrue. All Feminism is "like that", but that's not the same thing. A lot of women are simply misguided and unaware of what their self-label actually means.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:33 PM
1

More spin, yeah, but more information? Like what?
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:31 PM
3

You don't know Anthony was guilty, and you don't know OJ was guilty. You think it. There's no way to prove it, which means that, by extension, you don't know for sure unless you were there. Stranger things have happened. Saying it's "probably" the what happened and that we "all know it" or whatever is just as bad as when feminists claim that we all "know" that a guy raped a girl, so he should be thrown in jail.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:09 PM
1

I'm not allowed to enjoy chivalry? This is a Mens Rights page, not a Mens Obligations page. I should be free to choose what I want.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 09:24 PM
-1

Personally, I have no problem paying, but mostly because I enjoy old-fashioned chivalry and would expect my date to as well (otherwise I probably wouldn't be dating her).
/r/MensRights04/07/11 04:48 PM
2

To be fair, I do some really stupid crap all the time. That said, both the OP and the person whose status that is are idiots who are guilty of the same thing.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 07:27 AM
2

Wait, we're supposed to be against marriage? Personally, I think the government should be out of marriage entirely and deal strictly in civil unions and contract law, but I think monogamous relationships are great.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 02:22 PM
1

There's nothing wrong with that, though. Female-oriented sites are by definition selective, just like male-oriented sites are. We never talk about breast cancer, because it doesn't affect us.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 06:19 PM
3

The use of the term "manginas" is pretty sexist. Also, to say that fast growing = being taken seriously is crap. I could start a movement, recruit three people, and have the membership increase by 300% overnight, and still be a fringe group. Who, exactly, isn't taking us seriously? People who think (mistakenly) that Feminism = Equality, and need to have their eyes opened. The same people we need to sway to help the movement progress.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 11:03 AM
2

I'm sad that anyone's life expectancy is decreasing. It's pretty natural that a female-oriented site will talk about the female side of the issue. Also, the only comment is about how men have it worse.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 11:01 AM
1

Ah, the cry of the whiny has-been, who built a fortress in his mind, and neglected to realize that it was built out of paper and soaked in gasoline. I like how first you are done with me (implying that you are in total control of the situation), but then you can't get rid of me.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:06 AM
1

I have not edited anything. You just built up a straw man in your mind. EDIT: I wouldn't even have needed to edit anything, because I don't support deciding how to make other people use their time. I never have, and I never will. The fact that you think I would post anything to the opposite is hilarious to me.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 05:02 AM
1

And I am sure there are other women in the mens movement (believe it or not, mr know-it-all, there have been prominent MRA women since the inception of the mens movement) who used to consider themselves a feminist. Many MRAs used to call themselves feminist as well (myself included). Yes, and this is a good thing. stop advocating others waste their precious time on useless endeavours, when there is so much more important things for us to do. I have not once done this. You flat-out made that up.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:55 AM
1

Firstly, you don't capitalize Nazi as NAZI, as it's an abbreviation of Nationalsozialist, not an acronym. It would be a bit of a stretch, but one might actually make the case that Einstein was a Nazi defector. Imagine if we hadn't allowed him to come to America because he was one of "them". A less debatable answer would be this list of attempts on Hitler's life, most if not all of which are from members of his own forces. Other than that, you've devolved into "I know you are but what am I?". Why…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:30 AM
1

Ah, you mean those NAZIs whose atrocities were 'forgiven' in return for their useful work? No, I mean during the war. Read a little history and get back to me; I really don't know where to start on educating you. Have you lost your mind? Do you really think those feminists who come here to argue are EVER convinced? No, but there's no harm in trying. Buddy, I once debated - daily - with a feminist blogger on SYG, along with about 12 other people. To this day she remains a committed feminist Based…
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:03 AM
1

Nice cop-out. You even remembered the irrelevant personal attack, as well as the customary ignoring of my rebuttal.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 03:27 AM
1

I'm sure the same thing about gradients could be said about NAZIs too. Does that mean we should have 'understood' them completely and sorted out the good from bad before we started fighting? Actually, we fully supported Nazi defectors. We got a lot of good tech that way, and it helped us win the war. There were also a lot of Nazis who tried to bring the movement down from the inside out, and we supported them as well. Point invalidated? Wasting your time trying is THEIR point. Noob. Who said I'm…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:34 PM
1

Does this actually count as debate in your circles? No, a debate requires both of us to understand logic and think about our position objectively, not just me. You are basing your entire argument around NAFALT while trying your best not to actually say NAFALT. I will explicitly say it: NAFALT is fact unless you can prove otherwise. What you have there is a blanket statement. Do you think all Black people are identical? Would you say that all members of the NRA or PETA have the same views on ever…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 12:54 AM
1

Try and get it through your skull..there is NO SUCH THING as a feminist who is concerned about men as men. There is your blanket statement. Also, "as men" is a pretty big qualifier. Nobody is as concerned with women as women are, either. That doesn't make feminists right, so your argument doesn't make us right. This is like trying to teach formal logic to a four year old. Anyone pretending otherwise has another agenda in mind, believe it. And there is your No True Scotsman fallacy to cover up th…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 12:08 AM
1

What you have totally failed to understand is that I'm not proposing holding out an Olive Branch to Feminism (I've said it multiple times, but you're gonna read what you want to read, I guess), but to feminists who are willing to listen to reason and be dissuaded from the Feminist movement.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 11:05 PM
1

I'm not saying that feminism would change. I'm saying the individuals might. Individuals. As in, you are possibly the densest individual I have ever had the misfortune of trying to debate.
/r/MensRights19/06/11 01:38 PM
2

You realize that that's not held up as a saying because it's a good mindset, right?
/r/MensRights16/06/11 06:12 AM
1

You seem to think that most of them are evil people for evil's sake, instead of simply misguided.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 05:38 AM
1

thatsmypoint.jpg
/r/MensRights16/06/11 04:38 AM
1

You don't want any feminists switching to our team? Also, you're probably alone here if you think this subreddit is just a place to vent that has no aim of practical accomplishment. EDIT: I accidentally typed "women" instead of "feminists".
/r/MensRights15/06/11 03:01 AM
1

Which is why I said we're aiming for conversion here. That's been my point the entire time.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 02:57 AM
1

Gotcha. So you think that trying to work with us isn't male positive. And I'm talking here about converting feminists, not joining feminism. I have no idea where you got that.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:36 AM
1

Ergo, insofar as it matters, ABSOLUTELY all feminists are 'like that'. I thought you said we were just talking about ideas, not people. When they actually DO something male positive, maybe then we can talk. This is literally the exact thing I said that started this whole thing. Way to go, smart guy.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 05:19 AM
1

Feminists think it's about equality. Not the same thing. Again, I was being technical and saying that what you and the article were calling feminism was, by definition, not actually feminism, but I'll allow you to keep using that term since you seem to think it lends strength to your argument to compare things to it. You tell me feminism isn't a hivemind, i say that's irrelevant, since they seem to act like one. Um, sorry, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. You say NAFALT. I say it doesn't mat…
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:37 AM
1

I absolutely believe that.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:18 AM
1

If any of them want to defect, I'm okay with that. That is all that my position has ever been. And that may be the most arrogant piece of prose I've ever read.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 04:15 AM
1

So what you're arguing is that every feminist is, in fact, exactly the same, and then you expect me to believe that this is 100% logical and scientific, and any arguing against it is obviously blasphemy?
/r/MensRights14/06/11 03:53 AM
1

I'm not wearing the uniform, unless logic, reasoning, and seeing that the world is NOT in black and white go against MRA's position. I don't think they do, and that's the reason I'm here. You, on the other hand, wouldn't know an ad hominem from a hominy ad, and can't formulate a logical argument so you have to stoop to personal insult.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 03:44 AM
1

Epic facepalm of insanity. Please re-read my posts, and ignore the pink frilly dress parts.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 09:16 PM
1

Regardless, you're dodging my very valid point.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 05:13 PM
1

That is extremely homophobic. You think guys should avoid people who cross-dress, or are transgender? I'm not, BTW. Again, you're dodging a point you know you can't counter here.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:55 PM
1

Then they aren't interested in equality. . . Because you erroneously claimed feminists are egalitarians. If you don't see the innate sexism and homophobia present in the guy's statement, you are also not an egalitarian, and I can't fix what's wrong with you. The point is not that feminists are egalitarians (they're not). The point is that they think they are, and until we help them realize this they will keep thinking it. It's like talking to a brick wall, but hypothetically if any of them start…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:46 PM
1

Sure, we should. But if they aren't genuinely sympathetic, we shouldn't care if they are driven out. If we don't make a pretense of being sympathetic to their cause (which, after all, we kind of (in the loosest sense) are if we want true equality), they won't listen to us either. And that means that we're just a bunch of guys whining and accomplishing nothing. There is nothing there that suggests that we are a bunch of closed minded sexists jerks. areyouserious.jpg How about the part where he sa…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:40 PM
1

When was this about you? This was about the articles and the comments. It's about a debate in the comments section of another post. Not sure what you're thinking here. Of course there is. Just because one or 2 support it, the movement by and large does not. So, cool story bro. I never said it did. I'm saying we should embrace those one or two people who do, and not drive them away out of spite. Do you disagree? It becomes the topic when you support causes that make false rape claims even more da…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:09 PM
1

Since when has this been about me supporting lower standards of proof? And feminist support of false rape claim victims exists, even if it is extremely rare. I personally know several feminists who think that anyone who falsely accuses someone of rape should be punished even more than the person would have been for their alleged rape had they been found guilty, and they think that false rape allegations make verdicts harder to settle and as such are a really bad thing. Also, no, the Blackstone R…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:36 PM
1

I agree. That's why I was not talking about the article specifically. Also, stop bringing up the Blackstone Ratio. It sounds like you're just putting it in there to sound smart, since it has nothing to do with the current topic.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:25 PM
1

If you look at the link, the original post was extremely general, and then my response (which sparked this whole ordeal) was about feminists in general, not the article.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:18 PM
1

I've said it several times already. It's not about this article specifically. You're grasping at straws here.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:14 PM
1

I've had to put up with more than my fair share of this crap on my FB page, but I didn't realize that it extended beyond 15 year old girls (no, I'm not friends with a ton of little girls, but I am friends with people who are).
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:39 AM
1

As I've said elsewhere in here, he was talking about feminists in general, not just this article. A sign of accepting new data would be a strong push to strengthen false reporting laws. I'd say any push at all is a sign of some sort.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 04:05 AM
1

Which is why, if they showed any signs of accepting new data, we should embrace that, right?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:57 AM
1

Its rarely genuine. Feminism's stated goal is to lower the standard of proof in rape cases. That is bad all around for everyone. We need to keep them at beyond a reasonable doubt, not a preponderance of evidence nor a clear and convincing standard. All the more reason that we should embrace any feminists that show even a slight awareness of the horrible-ness of what happens to guys on a daily basis. You don't think shouting at them will work, do you?
/r/MensRights13/06/11 03:43 AM
1

Sorry, I never saw that comment because it's not actually in the same thread (which is a string of responses to a single comment, in my understanding, i.e. "continue this thread"). Also, I think you're absolutely right on all your points. I just think that, hypothetically, if a feminist were to open up civil and intelligent dialogue about the issue of false rape allegations and showed an intent to actually listen and learn we should embrace that, not drive it away. After all, isn't that our goal…
/r/MensRights13/06/11 02:25 AM
1

I'm merely pointing out that nobody told you how you think, and you jumped to that conclusion.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 12:44 AM
1

I think you're mistaken; I did a search and your name shows up nowhere in the entire thread.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 12:43 AM
0

I'm so glad an army of people are so eager to tell me exactly how /r/MensRights tends to think.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 12:40 AM
1

I'm not a feminist, and you have actually made no argument here. Is NAFALT false? Why don't you try proving that instead of making baseless claims.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 01:44 PM
1

Sorry, that's what I meant.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 11:43 PM
1

But then you have the issue of, not guilty does not mean falsely accused. I previously specified that I was talking about a false rape scenario Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:50 PM
1

I should have said "Hate us even more".
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:40 PM
1

Because giving things like the benefit of the doubt and trying to say that we're all for feminists embracing a MRA position would... what? I'm trying to think of a negative consequence here, but drawing a blank. The point is, they should know that if they want to agree with us we're not going to turn on them, and giving the benefit of the doubt (even when it's unwarranted) is the only way to fix this.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:39 PM
1

I agree, but his post was about feminists in general, not just the woman in the article. I know quite a few self-labeled feminists who are quite concerned with false rape and think the woman in a false rape scenario should be punished more severely than the guy would have had he been found guilty.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:33 PM
2

Glad there's at least one person who agrees with me.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:31 PM
0

I don't care about offending them, but if we pointlessly try and be jerks all day erry day, they will start to hate us and that will prevent any headway from being made.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:30 PM
1

Sounds like a personal problem.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:29 PM
0

Why? Do you have any reason for this other than baseless cynicism? I'd prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, because it's the only constructive option.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:10 PM
1

We shouldn't care about feminists? We shouldn't care about the damage they cause? Why should we not care about them, just because they don't care about use? That's faulty logic.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:09 PM
-2

My point is still valid even if not all feminists are women. That's not a relevant detail to the comparison.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:07 PM
1

If she actually cares about false rape, there's no crime to forgive.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:04 PM
-1

What if a feminist said the same thing about MRAs? Their opinions absolutely do matter, or we wouldn't be here trying to fix them.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:00 PM
-2

Well you are correct in this case. I misspoke. Yes, to a feminist you would have implied that. It may not be true, but they would lump you in as a woman hater. Go through your posts and replace "men" with "women" and "Feminism" with "MRAs", and tell me you wouldn't be pretty pissed off if a woman on /r/feminisms posted that.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:58 PM
0

Who's the feminist in this situation?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:55 PM
2

He's saying that if feminists start talking about false rape and how bad it is for men, we should not embrace that because that would make us "Uncle Toms".
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:54 PM
1

Wait, so you're calling me a feminist, and then comparing that to being a Nazi?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:52 PM
1

No, that would be someone else who's a homophobe, not you. I never said that. It isn't sexist to not want to "treat with" feminists (I think?), but there's the implication that you're against equality. This is the fault of modern "feminism", which is far distant from the classical feminism. My grandmother, for example, is a feminist who is 100% supportive of mens rights, and actually told my female cousin that she likes men better.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:51 PM
0

Mostly just the part where it's said that we shouldn't try and find common ground with the few feminists who actually want equality. Also, the part where I was told (not by you) that I should wear pink clothing, be treated as a girl, and be avoided by men (because I guess that's how women should be treated) because I said that women should have the right to vote. Now that I think about it, that comment smacks of homophobia. I'm not gay, but man, if I was that would be really offensive.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:44 PM
1

So you're saying you think women should not be allowed to vote? And also that they should all go around calling men cowards? Because all I said in that post was that both those statements are false.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:23 PM
1

What, exactly, did I say incorrectly?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:23 PM
2

I don't think it implies that, just like I don't think the barrier ribbon that marks where I'm supposed to stand in line implies that I'd shove my way to the front of the pack otherwise. It's just a privacy thing, and I don't really see anything wrong with it as long as it's consistently applied.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:21 AM
5

I went to Albuquerque during my trip to Philmont (hiked 100 miles!). Amazing city. A++, would visit again.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:11 AM
1

Yours. I'm the one using the definition of what a Feminist is. You're the one saying that if they don't have anti-male rhetoric at their core, they're not feminists. Hence No True Scotsman. EDIT: Read the article. I agree with the fact that the points are valid, except that it suffers so badly from composition fallacy as to be almost beyond belief. It's like talking about the "leaders" of Anonymous. It's a freaking label, get the hell over it. It lists a few terrible people labeled as feminists,…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:21 AM
10

I only get pissed because it usually comes off as sarcastic. Other than that I don't really have a problem with it other than the double standard associated with it.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:11 AM
1

Gonna have to call No True Scotsman fallacy on that one. EDIT: Also composition fallacy.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:54 AM
1

No, it's not. It seems that way, but feminism is primarily concerned with equality. Or at least it was. Feminism by definition is an attempt to establish equality, which is why I object to the use of the term for feminazis. I think this is a "you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means" type of situation. Here is what the word feminism means (quoted from the dictionary): feminism |ˈfeməˌnizəm| noun the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, …
/r/MensRights11/06/11 02:00 AM
1

You do realize that there are varying degrees of feminism, right? Racism is inherent in Nazism, but sexism is not (theoretically) innate in feminism.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 01:37 AM
0

I'm not a feminist. I'm a guy, and this was one of the first subreddits I joined. I am not a member of /r/feminism(s). Please stop assuming things and spewing hate. It's this sort of thing that feminists latch on to. I know several women who self-identify as feminist (in the classical, true equality sense) but make it explicitly clear that they have a 100% disagreement with "neo-feminism" (AKA femnazis), and they get outraged at false rape etc. as much as I do. It's a self-given label, and not a…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 12:46 AM
2

my point was that feminists have appeared to be 'on our side' before, only to be merely waiting. I'd say it's a large amount of extremely unproductive cynicism to assume this, even if it has been true before. Also, feminists are individuals. It's not a hivemind of scheming.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:29 PM
-3

i believe in equality, so please don't try to imply that i dont believe women shouldn't have the vote. I didn't, I'm just stating the fact that suffrage was a good thing. yes, but before and during the draft suffragets were handing out white feathers to pretty much any male they saw not in uniform, even men who had recently returned from theatres of war. you never heard of the white feather campaign. Abysmal grammar aside, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm saying that if women …
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:03 PM
1

As crime drops, irrational fear increases. Well, that's partly because fear is only irrational if the crime is statistically unlikely, although I do agree with what you're saying. Just nitpicking terminology. :p
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:00 PM
2

My mom got yelled at and cussed out because our neighbor's pitbull forced its way into our house and refused to leave, and then my mom asked the neighbor why she went snooping around the backyard looking for it without coming to the door. "WHY THE HELL didn't you close your door all the way?!?!?!" Worst coping strategy ever.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:58 PM
1

I came from the future to bring you this.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:56 PM
-3

Unless feminists are all 80+ years old, you're not talking about the same people. Also, there was a draft. You know that, right? People weren't just going because suffragettes told them to. Also, suffragettes = women who want the right to vote. Nothing more, nothing less. I, for one, think they were fully justified in wanting that.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:47 PM
0

no, because the realization that being a man isn't all great would only be a temporary thing ...why? What an arbitrary statement.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:15 PM
2

Shouldn't we embrace feminists who are starting to realize the lack of roses and gravy instead of angrily putting up fences and making the divide bigger?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 10:05 PM
2

Wow. I guess I always figured it was just more hygienic.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 04:08 AM
3

Thanks for the info. Changed my perception entirely.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 02:26 AM
0

Honest question from a circumcised guy: Can someone tell me why this is a big deal? I'm not trying to say you guys haven't thought out your positions or anything, but I thought the article wasn't all that bad (although I know nothing about the author). Are there any benefits to being uncircumcised? I honestly have no idea, and I swear I'm not trying to troll here.
/r/MensRights07/06/11 11:40 PM
1

strict economic fact FTFY The funny thing about social phenomena is that they tend to even out in the large scale.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 03:17 AM
1

You haven't demonstrated it, you've said it. I really think you need to take Econ 1101 again.
/r/MensRights29/05/11 12:17 AM
1

So, because the political climate isn't the same as it was 50 years ago, we don't need the Civil Rights Act? Just because we elected a Black president, racism no longer exists? Um, no. Those aren't the reasons. And racism does exist, but not in the sense that it's profitable to be discriminatory. I rest my case, and this thread here. A rebuttal isn't a case, but you can just kind of give up if you want.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 11:33 PM
1

You're assuming a lot of things here. We don't live in the same political climate in regards to minorities that we did 50 years ago.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 11:16 PM
1

Violate economic logic? You bet. I'm not saying that some people won't exclude minorities. I'm saying that the market forces will compensate, because excluded people are a goldmine.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 11:07 PM
1

Once all white tenants are accounted for, then what? You just stop expanding? EDIT: There's a reason we have both normal and inferior goods. Cheap loads of crap can be extremely profitable.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 10:38 PM
1

But what about all the black people who don't have apartments? That's a giant chunk of money to just skip over.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 10:35 PM
1

I don't know what this driving herself business is; but you should be driving always. She is an independent woman; but your are in charge and creating the direction of the relationship. Exactly. That's why I include making the reservations and paying for the food in my dating responsibilities. I don't think everyone should have to, but that's what I do. If a girl starts using me as a human ATM, then I'm dumping her.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 09:48 PM
1

The problem with your argument is that once you are large-scale, it means you're after profits, not principles. You're not going to get very far if you alienate your clientele.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 09:46 PM
1

reverse psychology of it I think you give me too m much credit here. I know this is a popular viewpoint I'm challenging, and people downvote because they disagree with you.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 12:43 PM
1

Yes to... what?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 12:03 PM
2

You think girls like going dutch, opening their own doors, and driving herself? No, they don't. Yeah, a small percentage thinks that's demeaning, but really, that's not typically the case.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 12:03 PM
1

Old Fashioned is OLD for a reason, it doesn't work anymore. Oh, it works alright. Telling a girl you're asking her out but she's driving herself + opening her own doors + paying half = turn off, and that's a pretty hardwired feature that you're not turning off. Further, I find the idea enjoyable, so I don't care if they care. Since dating is about finding people you're compatible with, shouldn't I be able to find a girl that, you know, enjoys the same things I do? Like chivalry? I'm not sure why…
/r/MensRights28/05/11 11:35 AM
0

I don't care about the laws we currently have. If you own a building, shouldn't you be able to decide who to rent it to? Interestingly, the person who gave me this mindset was black and talking about how someone who had full ownership of a business should legally be able to discriminate against her if he wanted. She'd just go elsewhere. EDIT: Even if it was me that was being discriminated against I would still believe this. I think someone should be able to kick me out or refuse to do business w…
/r/MensRights28/05/11 11:31 AM
1

How do you interview people who haven't reported rape without them reporting it first? How would you even find those people, or know how many there were?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 11:29 AM
-2

I think this is a dick move on her part, but if she owns the building I think she should be able to rent to whoever she wants. Just sayin'. Downvote away.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 06:25 AM
2

Only 6% of rapes are reported? I'm glad they interviewed the 94% of women who didn't report rapes. Because that makes sense, right?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 05:21 AM
1

Call me old fashioned, but I think doing that sort of thing is totally fine. You shouldn't have to, but even if I were dating a rich girl I'd still pay if I asked her out.
/r/MensRights28/05/11 05:20 AM
1

That means, interestingly enough, that they have to have unequal rights if it would take something from them to give men equal rights. Right?
/r/MensRights28/05/11 05:14 AM
5

I did not realize this. Can you link me something that talks about it?
/r/MensRights27/05/11 07:11 PM
1

Wait... circumcision is a bad thing now? I thought it was done a lot for hygienic reasons to lower the risk of possible infection.
/r/MensRights27/05/11 05:32 PM
1

At this point, that's just speculation without another example from Texas of an identical thing happening with the genders swapped. I hate to say it, but you can't just guess what would probably happen.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 05:37 PM
1

Kudos to the Daily Mail for getting a body shot. I know, right? "Why would they..." scrolls down "Oooooh."
/r/MensRights26/05/11 05:34 PM
1

noting any differences based on sex is technically sexist FTFY
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:52 PM
0

He's not a scientist. When they took down the article they said specifically that they would have kept it up had it not made unsubstantiated claims with little to no experimentation or survey. He had a small sample, which was probably not very diverse, and the majority of the article was him saying that blacks (and men) were just plain ugly. Ooh, a straight male thinks that women are more attractive than men. Didn't see that one coming. EDIT: Apparently he's been cited several times by the colle…
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:14 PM
3

I read his article. It was a load of unscientific crap. I would have thought it was okay had it not been full of subjective stuff that didn't even make sense (my paraphrased personal favorite: "from an objective standpoint, men are much less attractive than women"). He interviewed a small number of people and then made graphs like it was conclusive evidence. He never specified where his sample came from, and I think if it was from, say, Africa, or somewhere he might have gotten wildly different …
/r/MensRights25/05/11 06:13 PM
1

In that case it would be the woman who was guilty of perjury and is now going free.
/r/MensRights24/05/11 04:24 PM
1

You'd think that would make it twice as bad, not half, too.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 07:47 PM
6

I'll bet an equal number of men who are guilty of rape are walking around, free as the breeze. Uh, yeah. An innocent man in prison means a guilty man goes free. The only perfect crime is one that everybody thinks is solved. Basically, saying it's okay to put an innocent man in jail to crack down on rape is the EXACT SAME THING as saying that it's okay to let a guilty man go free to crack down on rape.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 06:24 PM
-1

"The same sentence the man was going to get." —My mom
/r/MensRights17/05/11 06:48 PM
3

Where did he say he wouldn't know? Maybe he's into that sort of thing.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 02:59 AM
1

Ah, I thought you were saying that my post was an ecological fallacy because I was implying that all dads are super smart and good at cooking or something like that. I've had this same type of thing told to me (although about a different subject) already today, so I was sort of primed to hear it that way. My bad.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 01:57 AM
3

I know it has nothing to do with cooking. I was referring to the "dumb dad" stereotype.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 01:30 AM
1

Blanket statements are invalidated by finding a single exception, bro.
/r/MensRights09/05/11 01:30 AM
3

My dad has an IQ of 146 and cooks way better than my mom (who's not bad at all herself). That's the sound of blanket statements everywhere being invalidated.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 10:32 PM
2

Yeah, it's true. I know quite a few Libertarians who hate Ayn Rand for her anti-charity stance etc. I think people tend to see Libertarians as a either a bunch of people who don't want to pay taxes and want to have guns and smoke pot, or a bunch of anarchists who want everybody to be heavily armed and want to induce chaos in the population (well, they'd use the term "anarchy", but anarchy is not actually a synonym for chaos).
/r/MensRights15/04/11 12:32 PM
1

"His" refers to the OP (Celda). You said that his citation and her citation were different, but they were quoting the same numbers.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 12:29 PM
3

My solution for everyone is classical liberalism Libertarianism. FTFY
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:37 AM
1

She was quoting his citation.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:32 AM
2

To be fair, there's a lot of jobs where women get paid more than men. Design, for example, and journalism IIRC.
/r/MensRights15/03/11 01:41 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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