TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

therealxris Archive

View 0 posts and 392 comments by therealxris 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)
14

....he's saying the argument was "you can't be this stupid," he wasn't insulting anyone.
/r/PussyPassDenied28/03/17 01:23 AM
16

That's why they all say "can" and "may".. because it's mostly nonsense. Crossed legs can mean several things: relaxed/comfortable, or defensive - depending on how tense the leg muscles are So it can mean one thing. Or the complete opposite. Or, as is generally the case, it means I wanted to cross my legs and am not thinking about being relaxed or defensive.
/r/seduction15/10/12 03:08 PM
1

Your all sample shows that they receive lots of up votes My "all" sample shows that 90% of the most upvoted content this sub has ever seen is exactly what OP is talking about. Hopefully we're trending away from it, but it's certainly the case that it's what we have, historically, eaten up and loved every minute of.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:31 PM
1

Go ahead and give this view a click: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/top/?sort=top&t=all
/r/MensRights26/07/12 02:11 AM
1

Right, I'm not saying that I described the majority of posts here, just those that OP is referencing.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:30 AM
1

If you have new generation of mra's actually calling people out in public on facebook and wherever without shame, which we do - its a sign of real success and progress. That's not what's happening though - none of these people are being "called out in public". They're having their stupidity screen shotted and posted here for easy karma.
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:14 AM
1

Hey now.. factual accuracy is not allowed to get in the way of our righteous-indignation. The world is a conspiracy. Rawr!
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:27 PM
5

Which is why the correct answer is to have her prosecuted for forgery. Not spiteful "gotchas" like this, which can end up screwing you in the end.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:17 PM
-6

When the first part of your argument is flat-out false, it's really hard to take you seriously. I understand what you're going for, but you need to build the argument and a sound base. Otherwise you will be shrugged off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#United_States_2 (for the record, it's the "at any time" portion that is false.)
/r/MensRights16/07/12 05:06 PM
2

Email, obviously, as you need a salutation at the end of the diatribe you just sent.. in a back and forth conversation, where two individuals are not becoming physically separated at the conclusion, "bye" seems awkward to me.
/r/seduction12/07/12 05:15 PM
5

So.. the convo goes like this? Them: "Ok, well I'm going to bed now" You: "Bye!" That seems terribly awkward.
/r/seduction12/07/12 03:25 PM
25

But still.. why would you end with "bye"? There's almost certainly always something better.. "Good night", "Have fun!", etc..
/r/seduction12/07/12 02:48 PM
4

Christ.. the user account is "powerlesbian" You're all being trolled, hard.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 12:50 PM
0

Yeah, let's hope there's enough decency out there that they actually didn't gain any.
/r/MensRights07/07/12 04:55 PM
0

Ok, well you still didn't answer if you're done. So, leave it to me - Now that I've explained it clearly enough for you to understand, I'm done. (and, for the record, next time you need me to "flesh out" something I've said, just ask. I don't mind.)
/r/seduction06/07/12 05:39 PM
-2

I'm asking if that's what you would do. Actually, you asked if that's what OP said to do - not what I would do. I can't tell you what I would do, situation dependency and whatnot. I have experience. I don't believe anyone asked.. Either way, http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/508/watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png So, you done asking (apparently intentionally) stupid questions, then?
/r/seduction06/07/12 05:13 PM
1

You could log out and have a look.. but, if you were talking about posts on SRS, then no worries. Can't be bothered to take anything posted over there seriously.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 04:54 PM
6

Alright, first, you need to step back and realize that seddit is not here to provide you a step-by-step script to get laid. You have to actually use your brain sometimes. Take in the ideas, work with them, make them your own. Here's just one possible way it could play out: *dancing* You: "Hey, let's go grab a drink." Her: "Sure!" *walk to bar* You: *look at girl* "I'll have a jack and coke" I can't tell you what to do from there, since her response will be heavily dependent on the atmosphere and…
/r/seduction06/07/12 04:53 PM
1

I have seen a lot of feminists try to use that to claim MR is anti-woman's rights Put up a couple of links of this happening? I haven't seen it, yet.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 04:44 PM
1

Probably, but upvoting it to the top of /r/MensRights surely won't accomplish anything. Except getting that sub a few hundred more subscribers.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 04:34 PM
-4

I don't know how to clarify it further for you.. "You wanna go grab a drink?" != "Can I buy you a drink?" It's not even implied in the OP that you should offer to buy the drink. Like I said, you fabricated that. And you can re-read my last post, since it still applies to your misunderstanding about "nice" coversation.
/r/seduction06/07/12 04:21 PM
6

That link came to my mind as well, however, if you actually read this post before dropping that as a reply, you could probably figure out that it doesn't apply here, as everything OP said falls pretty much in-line with standard advice around here.
/r/seduction06/07/12 03:58 PM
-8

Ok, since you seem to be new, let me tell you "what she means".. even though its pretty blatant. Actually, I'll just parse out your last comment: Do not buy a woman a drink & nice conversation does not create attraction Nowhere was it stated to buy her a drink. You fabricated that. "Nice conversation" - this is from her perspective. You know what needs to be done on your end to build attraction through conversation. This will be perceived, by her, as nice conversation.
/r/seduction06/07/12 03:56 PM
1

Was that picture posted with that caption? Or did you take a vice post and add a random picture next to it?
/r/MensRights25/06/12 01:56 PM
1

I'm not trying to provoke them, I'm trying to get them to stop. And, yes, I did downvote them as well.. and upvoted those that contributed.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 08:08 PM
1

Yeah, just to be clear, I am all for pointing out the double standards.. because they certainly exist and can benefit from having light shone on them. But unless we can bring to the masses some concrete examples, we may come off as fringe or expressing "unfounded" opinions. I just want to make sure that if we're challenged, we can throw something down as absolute fact. However, there are 3 or 4 replies to this post that all say the same rhetoric that I mocked in my initial reply. Also, I like wh…
/r/MensRights21/06/12 07:37 PM
1

Thanks for the answer.. sounds like you're right on with the assessment.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:29 PM
0

Right, I do understand that, but sources are still needed to back yourself up if someone challenges it. While that shouldn't be too big of an issue on this sub, you never know... Additionally, not to be dissenting, but a lot of these comments are truly questionable without sources. I just like to be thorough.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 06:18 PM
-5

Because some of us have been here for so long that we have actually seen the reverse situation and seen the consequences. Actually, most of us have, I would say. But you still can't just say it and pretend like your argument holds water. You need references and sources - do you have one of a similar case where there was a lawsuit? Also, I have no bias.. other than that against pointless comments that repeat commonly known rhetoric.
/r/MensRights21/06/12 05:35 PM
2

Said it more politely than I could. Thanks!
/r/MensRights21/06/12 05:24 PM
-7

Man.. why do everyone one of these posts have the same shitty top comment "if this were the other way around blah blah baseless assumption" instead of something worth while?
/r/MensRights21/06/12 04:58 PM
2

Well that's fine then.. I'd just like the community to make up its mind. Though, with such a diverse crowd, I suppose that's impossible.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 04:00 AM
-2

You overreacted. The shear length of that last comment just looks like someone snapping with no provocation, especially when the girl agreed she should have waited in line.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 01:23 AM
1

No problem, sorry for the confusion! I'm a fan of funding awareness :)
/r/MensRights19/06/12 12:41 AM
1

Sound argument. No wonder people take you seriously.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 11:00 PM
-5

Well you seem like a trustworthy guy, so I'll take your word.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 10:21 PM
-6

Your universe is a dick. And you are useless.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 10:10 PM
-2

Fair enough, from what I can tell in that graphic for whatever that girl's up to, it's the only point they're using against her. Other than the general pointlessness of her campaign, but that's a personal preference thing.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 09:08 PM
-4

Just pointing out the double standard as both are near the top right now, for the same general purpose (awareness of mens' issues here, women's there), but one is being heavily criticized while the other heavily supported even though both are in violation of the ToS. Not that I don't support the cause, the discrepancy is just a bit silly. I like to think we're better than that.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 08:53 PM
6

First, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Then, my answer to your question is the obvious "option 2". However, that's completely irrelevant (which you now understand, having read that article) to the point of this being in violation of Kickstarter's ToS.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 08:33 PM
-13

I need to make this film so I can tell the whole world my story as I experienced it; a story that tells it exactly as it happened, so that everyone who has ever known me can understand the truth. I want to finally set the record straight. I hope my story can serve as a catalyst for change. Sounds like raising awareness to me. And just to be clear.. You said: It doesn't address things from an ideological point of view ... Just because we see the political interest of such a story doesn't mean Bri…
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:58 PM
-13

The use of 'I' is irrelevant. Please be more competent at.. well.. anything.. before replying to my posts. Documentaries are frequently used as parts of awareness campaigns.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:43 PM
-13

I need to make this film so I can tell the whole world my story as I experienced it; a story that tells it exactly as it happened, so that everyone who has ever known me can understand the truth. I want to finally set the record straight. I hope my story can serve as a catalyst for change. Sure sounds like raising awareness to me.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 07:22 PM
-7

From this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/v7kin/vs_summary_of_the_tropes_vs_women_in_video_games/ It states that kickstarter shall not be used to fund an awareness campaign. Why are we ok with, or even promoting this? It clearly violates that rule.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:37 PM
6

How does this not also violate the "No funding an awareness campaign" rule?
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:26 PM
4

Even if I made a mistake here, I think it is still worthwhile to add these pages. Then delete this mis-informed witch hunt of a post and make a new one asking to add information on the books not yet there.
/r/MensRights18/06/12 06:12 PM
-1

Now, I'm with you that the headline is utter bullshit, and that the lives of the men should not be ignored. That's not the headline. That's OP's headline. This is not something worth getting worked up over. They almost immediately give the total death count.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 05:07 PM
10

I question the validity of the majority of this. None of it is cited.. basically crap.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 12:34 AM
6

I suppose that works, too.. "Instead of two false rape accusations, I posted this" Nice guy, this one.
/r/MensRights01/06/12 07:58 PM
3

Hopefully soon he gets around to learning web design..
/r/seduction01/06/12 03:28 PM
3

But that's not what these images show at all. Especially with the title OP put on it.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 01:24 PM
1

I just don't have a problem with the wording. It's true they didn't say kidnap or abduct, but when you read: his mother, Charlotte Moriarty, took him for a walk and didn't return. You know exactly what that means. It's also a bit more descriptive. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 11:56 PM
0

The problem the FAQ addresses isn't that men are seen as too violent, but that women are seen as innocent and fragile and in need of protection. This is what leads to anti-male rape and domestic violence laws: both misconceptions abut men, and misconceptions about women. Right. I understand that... Agreed it's an issue. Evidence to help break either stereotype is appropriate here. This is where it bothers me - why is that welcome here? Nobody who posts here is under the illusion that women do no…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 05:45 PM
-1

Sorry, no. Just because you're circle jerking all over each other, doesn't mean this story is legitimate. That 3 year old link by a nonexistent account is nothing more than self-affirming, fear mongering nonsense. And posting stories like these only delegitimize the movement. Don't support this behavior.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 05:16 PM
-1

Thanks for the breakdown. I do agree that that seems to be a prevalent mindset and it absolutely needs to be changed. I just don't feel that this story reflects that. Maybe I'm just overlooking it, if that's the case, then hopefully we get some good dialogue going on the matter.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 05:07 PM
-1

Gotcha, I misunderstood the scale you were talking. In that case, I agree that the local media could have put some effort into it. But, that was 30 years ago, hopefully things have improved substantially since.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 04:30 PM
-5

As nice as it would be, not every child in the custody of a crazy parent gets national media attention once the parent is committed. In fact, can you show me one example where this ever happened? What happened in this case is pretty standard and almost absolutely what would have happened if it were the father, instead. But, most of all, please stop with the sensationalistic rhetoric, it makes us all look bad.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 03:36 PM
-1

Yeah, man. I'm all about fighting the good fight. I hate when men are stereotyped as abusive, dumb or in anyway inferior to the 'fairer' sex. I just really don't like seeing posts like these pop up, because it really muddies the water and increases the ratio of noise to legitimate issues. Also, anyone going through the comments posted here would immediately come to the conclusion that we are nothing more than "bitter man babies" (or whatever that phrase was that came up a few days ago), and, per…
/r/MensRights27/04/12 03:24 PM
-1

I already explained that the point of posting the article is to talk about how a father can so easily lose his children and have no recourse. Actually, you didn't say that. But, where are you coming up with the idea that he has no recourse? The woman was arrested shortly after the abduction (CBS article, currently top comment). Also, the child was put on the missing kids site. This seems to be exactly the same way it would play out if a father took his child and ran from the mother. Why is it be…
/r/MensRights27/04/12 03:13 PM
-10

Right.. it's a parental abduction. Which happens by both mothers and fathers. I'm still not seeing how this is a MR issue. There's no discussion in the comments or the article about helping fathers (or mothers, since it happens on both sides) recover lost children. Just a bunch of "crazy bitch" bashing. Can you elaborate on what may be the point of posting this article here? What purpose does it serve other than to rally the troops against a common 'enemy' (the mother)? You say we're focusing on…
/r/MensRights27/04/12 02:53 PM
-4

Really? We're getting pedantic about one author's writing style and trying to spin it into a MR issue? Yeah, this story is fucked up, but come on, it's got nothing to do with the MRM. This sub isn't a dumping ground for any random news where a woman is the bad-guy. Listen, downvoters, I know you don't like your circle-jerk-jimmies being rustled, but try to reply and tell me why you think I'm wrong.
/r/MensRights27/04/12 02:01 PM
3

Jesus Christ.. South Park did an episode based off this premise. This is quite literally the premise for a half hour of dirty jokes. Not legitimate journalism.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 08:00 PM
29

Conversation threading. Don't come up with a bullet list of topics and try to run down them.. just let the conversation flow and work with it. If you can't think of something to say after "Hi", pick an interesting object on the wall and mention how interesting it is and why. And, if you get to a lull, think back on some topic that was brought up but not explored and lead with "So.. you said you <do whatever>. That must be <adjective>... tell me about it" or something like that.
/r/seduction17/04/12 03:54 PM
-1

When did this happen? You have a change of heart? I've never said otherwise.. feel free to check. Some felt that venting about a marriage was relevant. Why do you care so much? I don't, really. One comment in passing doesn't mean a whole lot :)
/r/MensRights04/04/12 11:48 PM
-15

Aww.. so butt-hurt because you know I'm right. And I consider SRS to be even worse than the content I see posted here. Both subs are full of cry babies and seem to only exist to bicker with each other, for sure, but don't try to associate me with those panty-bunchers. Now, if you want to talk about something that actually matters in the MRM, you'll have my attention. These piss-and-moaners who are bitter about the situations they got themselves into serve only to perpetuate a negative attitude. …
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:09 PM
2

...you assume without evidence. You didn't read the OP then. I guess rooting through my wallet and other belongings, checking my phone messages and calls, and reading through my text messages isn't enough. Red flags. Ignored.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:58 PM
-20

If you haven't noticed.. this sub no longer has anything to do with men's rights. It's a place where bitter men bitch about their shitty self-induced life situations and try to make women look/feel bad in order to boost their own self esteem. Blame shifting, hypocrisy, fallacies and whining have drowned out any legitimate MR discussion that might pop up here.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:48 PM
3

Fair enough. I tend to take words literally, I suppose, so (to me) using sometimes doesn't minimize it at all. However, that being said, it's certainly the case that there's not need to put the sometimes in there and the message may be stronger without it. Thanks for clarifying!
/r/MensRights04/04/12 03:34 PM
4

I think sometimes is the proper word. It's certainly not the case that men are always battered.. I've never been. How would you have them phrase it?
/r/MensRights04/04/12 02:02 PM
0

Uh.. did you even read the article? Janelle Goforth is in jail on charges of statutory rape and child molestation. Sounds like it's being taken seriously.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 04:06 PM
-2

k
/r/MensRights29/03/12 03:21 AM
-1

Silly me, thinking evidence would change your mind. All of those posts indicate that this exact "advice" is given to BOTH men and women, thus making it irrelevant to men's rights (you see, if a men and women share a behavior, like this, than the behavior is gender-neutral). I forgot you tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists stopped comprehending logic long ago. I'll assume that your resorting to (amateur-quality) troll techniques and personal insults means you've exhausted any legitimate mental capac…
/r/MensRights28/03/12 08:02 PM
-2

Notice how you're the only person in this thread who just doesn't get it though lol.. you might want to actually READ the comments before you post blatantly false information. In fact, if you actually READ the comments, you'll see that many agree with me. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/rhir5/oryou_could_try_being_honest_just_a_thought_cosmo/c45v56g http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/rhir5/oryou_could_try_being_honest_just_a_thought_cosmo/c45v1yj http://www.reddit.com/r/Mens…
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:52 PM
-4

Figured that'd shut you up. Facts and logic, bro. They're worth knowing. Anyway, I'll leave you alone now to continue to wallow in your fabricated oppression and comical despair.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:34 PM
-4

This has nothing to do with double-standards and no discussion about them has come of posting this. You're grasping at straws. And, for the record, this is the exact same advice given by the seduction community to men for trying to keep women interested. So, yeah. This advice occurs on both sides of the fence and you don't know what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:23 PM
-6

I'm a guy who cares about MR issues that matter and is sick of seeing this stupid shit get frontpaged. This is nothing more than an excuse to make women look bad and has nothing to do with actual men's rights. Post it to /r/wtf or something, where it's relevant. This does nothing for the cause. Arguing otherwise just makes you look desperate for something to get butt-hurt over.
/r/MensRights28/03/12 07:13 PM
-13

Tackling serious men's rights issues one shitty magazine at a time. /s /r/womenbashing is that way -->
/r/MensRights28/03/12 05:14 PM
-5

yep. (http://www.catalyst.org/publication/327/women-in-academia)
/r/MensRights28/03/12 12:49 AM
-3

Well the real question then boils down to whether or not male teachers do the same.. because, if they do, then it is TEACHERS being sexist in grading, not men or women, and can be addressed. I think, in regards to this situation, the fact that it is compounded by the majority of teachers being women should not be used as point (unless it is the case that men grade fairly and only women discriminate).
/r/MensRights26/03/12 09:33 PM
6

I'll have a look.. that's particularly disturbing.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 05:44 PM
2

Thanks for the info, definitely sounds worth checking out!
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:54 PM
-4

But what's his point? Private girls' schools test better? I don't see how it's institutional.. when I was in highschool it was generally the case that the girls were far more concerned with studying and book-work than the boys. As such, they generally performed better on standardized testing.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:02 PM
21

America's Funniest Home Videos.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 01:02 PM
-1

Nice. Now we're officially on par with r/atheism. Well done, boys.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 12:51 PM
1

Mothers are far more likely to default on child support and far less likely to end up in prison. Yeah, I came across this as well.. definitely disturbing. Thanks for the insight, though, I'll try to keep my eyes more open toward that.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 06:24 PM
1

I agree with the sentiment behind that.. I just don't like seeing it skewed away from an issue with the system (lack of accountability) and toward an issue with women, specifically.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 05:49 PM
-1

Every attempt at a public discourse on the issue was met with this response. Every time someone wants to open the debate on child support reform to maybe one day hope to have the laws changed, that's the opposition they're met with. Whelp.. if it happens every time, let me see 3 examples.. shouldn't be hard. Thanks! If people are really saying this, I'd like to see it, because it's stupid as hell. But.. I'm skeptical.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 05:38 PM
1

If they do 1) or fail to do 2) they are far more likely to lose their custody. I don't believe that at all. Do you have anything to back it up? I mean, it's easy to say. And, around here, you'll get a lot of blind support for ideas like that.. but I just don't buy it. There is no way a man who has been granted custody would be at risk to lose said custody by asking for child support. Of course, if I'm wrong, please correct me with some instances of that occurring.. I'd be shocked, but if it's ha…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 05:13 PM
0

unfortunately this is the mentality that many have on controversial social issues Yeah I think that's what it boils down to, and I think your post nailed it all. Injustices within and people abusing these systems (child support, domestic violence) occurs on both sides of the gender line, but, like you said, since women GENERALLY receive child support, it's taken by the community to be an issue with women, not an issue with financially irresponsible people who receive child support (which is how …
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:57 PM
1

So, there's nothing in the system to stop it, the father you linked just took it upon himself to be more responsible with the money. The actions of one guy on reddit doesn't really count for much, considering there are probably plenty of female redditors who recieve and are responsible with child support and there are probably plenty of men out there who squander it. So, like I said, there is nothing in the system that allows women to be less responsible with child support money than men. Thus, …
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:44 PM
1

Please tell me what about the system allows women who receive child support to behave badly, but somehow regulates men who receive child support to prevent them from doing exactly what the woman in the screenshot did. To be clear.. this behavior is abhorrent and completely unacceptable. But the system being unregulated is the flaw, not anything gender related. Unless, like I said, you can point how the system would prevent a man from wasting child support money paid to him by a woman.. If you ca…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:32 PM
0

Because that's exactly how the argument goes: you think we should check how the money is spent, ergo you don't trust women, ergo you're a misogynist. I've never heard that argument before.. but I don't make it a point to engage feminists in conversation, but I think we can both agree that anyone who would follow that logical path is a moron, probably not worth of a retort. Either way, what I'm getting at is save the anti-feminist-nonsense-reply for when a feminist is spouting nonsense. Just inje…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:19 PM
-1

..that is the comment above my original reply. Which you should have had to follow to get to this point.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 04:05 PM
-7

..not at all. In fact, here is the quote I replied to: Are you seriously implying that there is a possibility some members of the fair gender may not be good people? What are you, a misogynist? /s That is a direct attack against women and has nothing to do with "why the system is bad". I AGREE the system is bad. And we should focus on changing it to be more fair, taking cheap pop-shots at women like that doesn't help anyone but SRS.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:50 PM
1

I'm pretty sure the latest stat is that 97% or child support payments are made by men to women Source? I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one... 84% of child support providers are men Source - it's from 2002, but I can't imagine it changed that much since. If you have a source for 97%, I'll happily change my tune. Either way, I'm not saying that it's not generally the case that men pay women child support, but it's certainly not the only case. My point, though, was a bit more meta.. this sub n…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:39 PM
-27

members of the fair gender Are you seriously implying that child supports only exists in the man paying woman scenario? The system is flawed. Woman are not. Stick to logic, leave the slander elsewhere. Christ, downvote brigade.. fine, sorry, I forgot we're here to defeat the evil feminists, not to help mens' situations. My bad. Carry on.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:18 PM
13

This and most of there campaigns is an issue if it is morally right. ehh.. saying 4chan supports the morally right side is iffy at best. However, it is certain that they hate dumb bitches.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 03:07 PM
4

Yeah.. no. I know a veiled threat when I see one. What you don't seem to know is where to go to get medication for your paranoid schizophrenia.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 04:03 PM
5

That reply made no sense in relation to my comment. "Don't you dare disagree with me or I'll have to call in somebody to make you agree with me." I didn't say anything even close to that.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 03:37 PM
17

OR.. just don't be an idiot. If you're being criticized, take a look at why. Is it because this sub has basically turned into a shithole? Probably. Don't try to defend that, since you'll be wrong. Try to change it.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 03:15 PM
3

I've been here for a while, but it's getting to the point where I can't take it anymore. I can't come here to discuss men's rights and ways to help, and end up defending the rights of women from a bunch of bitter, ignorant men. It makes me sick and makes me second guess if there are even any issues to fight for if this is how we're going to act. Man.. I don't usually find other people's words so perfectly and succinctly expressing my thoughts. Is this why people post song lyrics on Facebook? Eit…
/r/MensRights05/03/12 07:32 PM
2

Alright, that's fair.
/r/MensRights01/03/12 04:29 AM
1

lol
/r/MensRights29/02/12 10:50 PM
1

Not mad. You're just bad at internets.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 10:29 PM
-1

Yeah, like I said, I don't really care that he's getting upvotes (though, it is true, some people are very concerned about their karma count), just that I don't think this video is particularly pertinent. People have made fair enough arguments as to why it's appropriate to post here, so, I won't argue. If this is the content the community wants, so be it.. no skin off my back, really.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 08:58 PM
0

Oh.. well that's not I. I'd hope if I was part of the shit brigade they'd at least toss me some sympathy upvotes. And it ought to be obvious I'm not an apologist for anyone.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 07:35 PM
-7

Yeah, I honestly don't mind reposts.. mostly an issue with the point of posting the vid here, but what can ya do.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 07:06 PM
-1

I have no idea what any part of your reply is supposed to mean. Got it in one? You shitheads?
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:46 PM
-12

I don't get this attitude towards reposts. What attitude is that? All I said is that OP doesn't give a shit about MR or progressing the discussion. He took an easy opportunity to exploit this sub by posting a video that hits right in r/MR's sweet spot for karma. i'm here for interesting discussion and in the rare case some actual debate. Ditto. Which is why nonsense like this bothers me. It provides neither interesting discussion or reasonable debate. Just reiterating the same old rhetoric that …
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:26 PM
-11

Why don't you just stop? Where do you get the idea that I give a shit about karma? And how does one buried comment thread make it "impossible to have a discussion"? You're more than welcome to start a new comment thread with some intelligent discussion if you have it in you.. I won't hold my breath. So, you might as well stop talking out your ass and go entertain yourself elsewhere.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:22 PM
-11

Well, it's a karma whoring repost, first of all. It doesn't stimulate any valuable discussion (see comments). It doesn't help anything.. at best it gives SRS more fuel to talk shit on the MR movement. As far as material goes to debunk the "all women are angels" myth.. Google has plenty.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:16 PM
-12

Judging by his post history, doubtful. And, since this vid is a few months old and has already been posted twice, including to this very sub 3 months ago.. definitely doubtful. He tried to post it here, saw it already was, redid the refer in the URL and is reaping karma from the gullible here. Good job guys.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:12 PM
-2

lol y u mad tho
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:09 PM
-16

For men's rights, there is big incentive to destroy this falsified image because it hinders our progress on so many levels. That I don't disagree with. What I disagree with it posting this stuff HERE. We all already know that feminisim is a crock and that women are more frequent perpetrators of child abuse. Preaching to the choir and whatnot. The fact that it WAS posted here tells me that OP wants karma from one of the easiest subs to milk it from (which he obviously got tons of, as does anythin…
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:06 PM
-8

Me? Not at all.. I hate those retards as much as the rest of reddit does. In fact, the only time I visit SRS is when I need some funny headlines to read - it's a one stop shop for the best material out there. However, it's stupid shit like this getting posted here that fuels them. So, there you go. Funny to watch this sub turn into a bunch of butt hurts when counter-productive content gets called out, though. No wonder people think MR is a joke. People like you and OP make us look bad.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 06:01 PM
-14

You saying it is woman bashing does not make it so. It it the truth. I don't know what you're talking about.. I never said it's not the truth. In fact, I said it's common knowledge that women can be pedophiles. If you can't see that way too much content posted to this sub serves no purpose other than portraying women negatively.. then I dunno what to yell you. I can say though, that it doesn't make promote any progress and makes us look bad.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 05:49 PM
-24

The image feminism has relentlessly portrayed men as is the direct opponent of the MRM. No it isn't. Feminists are fringe and generally regarded as irrational. I'm pretty sure the MR community is the only one who takes their nonsense seriously, it's like watching 5 year olds in an arguing match on the playground. Here's why this isn't relevant: It doesn't, in any way, further the cause of men's rights or promote reasonable discussion amongst the community.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 05:46 PM
-20

It's not needed here. Nobody in this sub thinks that there's no such thing as women pedophiles. It serves absolutely no purpose other than karma whoring. Women bashing is just a trend in this sub.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 05:45 PM
-23

No it needs to be seen so that we can get rid of the image of women as innocent sweet little kittens. They do terrible things. Letting our sons grow up believing otherwise could potentially at worst put their lives in jeopardy. You don't get it. Nobody who subs to /r/mensrights is under an illusion that women don't commit crimes. In fact, it's pretty silly of you to assert that ANYONE belies that women don't commit crimes (especially since they're regularly on the news). My point is this video, …
/r/MensRights29/02/12 05:40 PM
-43

Men are portrayed as synonymous with pedophiles, robbers, rapists and etc. That's the stupidest shit I've ever read. Raising awareness about how these things are not gendered issues but that women are perpetrators of terribly horrid crimes, sometimes perhaps even more so than men, is important. Yeah. So let's post it to the circlejerk that has taken over this sub so a bunch of guys who ALREADY know this can pat each other on the back.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 05:32 PM
-64

What does a video about a female pedophile have to do with men's rights? Seriously. Stop trying to turn this into /r/womenarebad and keep it on topic. I wonder how many of you upvoted this video the first time it was posted here a few months ago... I'd also like to point out that at this point, 5 hours after this was posted, my -50 comment is the only one that has spawned any actual discussion on the issue. Figure that shit out.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 05:21 PM
1

Agreed.. which is why I think he could have had a case to push back against the school.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 11:35 PM
2

Which, of course, brings us back to the fact that it's a shitty law. Pretty much what it boils down to. And, with the way alcohol affects us, it's almost impossible to "prove" anything that said law would apply to one way or the other.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 04:47 PM
1

Thanks for the clarification.. that's some good info to be aware of (mostly due to its absurdity). On this point: The DA declined to prosecute as there was no evidence. Still, his career track and hard work in law school are likely ruined, while these two boozehounds stay in school. I think that's where he really missed an opportunity for making progress in the real courts. It seems that there may have been an opportunity to bring a suit against the school to hopefully bring to light how oppress…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 04:36 PM
0

Well not really presumptuous.. in the article he indicates "admitting" to having sex with them. That would make it pretty clear that he both remembers the occurrence and consented to it. The two women, on the other hand, both claim to have no memory of how they ended up in his bed OR consenting to sex. That's my take on it, at least.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 04:34 PM
-1

I disagree. He was obviously NOT too drunk to consent or drunk enough to be considered "incapacitated" as he seems to remember how everything went down. Note that it does not say "all drunk sex is rape". It says someone incapacitated by alcohol to the point of being unable to consent can't consent. (I know, the wording on that last sentence is strange, but you get the message). Now, I'm not trying to defend this woman, or the law as it's written.. both seem out of line. However, it is the case t…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 04:15 PM
1

Not familiar with the Dear Colleague guidelines.. does that only apply to the campus hearings? If so, they carry almost no legal precedence, so he could have gotten a lawyer and taken them to a real court where law and due process exist. I will say, though, not being allowed to have consult with a lawyer in that situation is pretty absurd. But, since it's the school discussing the potential violation of school policies, actual law (and by association lawyers) really don't have a role to play. Th…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 04:09 PM
1

Many times innocent people want things to go away, so their reputation isn't dragged through the dirt for life like William Kennedy-Smith or the Duke Lax team. Right.. that's why I said it's a tough spot His reputation is already, according to OP, screwed and his life is ruined.. so why not put up a fight to prevent this from happening to others in the future?
/r/MensRights20/02/12 03:49 PM
2

He left rather than face a system he saw was probably only going to screw him anyways. And there's the problem. If nobody stands up to fight the system, it won't change. And if the law in Oregon REALLY is interpreted as follows: sexual intercourse with a person who is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and thereby incapable of consent is rape in the first degree under Oregon law, Then, he probably did, under the legal definition, rape her in the first degree. It's a tough spot. Running away was n…
/r/MensRights20/02/12 03:23 PM
0

I think it has nothing to do with Mens' Rights.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 04:31 AM
0

...I'm here for the 15%. Don't be a dumbass.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 02:13 AM
12

advertisements that show abuse on women are far less common than advertisements that show abuse on men Well at least we can all agree on that point!
/r/MensRights09/02/12 09:08 PM
25

I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore! And someone's gotta pay me!
/r/MensRights09/02/12 08:58 PM
46

..under what charges?
/r/MensRights09/02/12 08:45 PM
-1

Well, I guess we can never know. If his name is an expression of his true naivety, then I've been had.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 06:35 PM
0

This falls inline with option one, and, as such, is ironic. If you're going to be pedantic, at least do it accurately.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 06:20 PM
0

Actually, I think the fact that it's probably not supposed to be ironic is what makes it so.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 06:04 PM
11

Ironic username is ironic.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 04:04 PM
-3

It's about as legit as 85% of the content posted to this sub. Might as well.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 03:38 PM
0

No.. show me evidence that they are affiliated and not just one more content jacking blog? I doubt you'll be able to. And I'm not clicking any of their links.. I don't want more shitty spam or whatever spyware I'm sure that garbage of a site will try to install.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 02:17 PM
0

Maybe it's 7 downvotes from people who don't like ad-ridden stolen content?
/r/MensRights09/02/12 02:07 PM
0

None of what you said is happening.. this was a release about unemployment. If they had chosen to talk about violence, instead, they probably would have outlined the points that concern you.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 03:57 AM
-1

How does this fact alone not get more attention? Why should it? Most bar brawls involve men, not women. These stats are not breaking news.. or even surprising. They're certainly not indicative of anything other than men being more likely to engage (or threaten to engage) in physical conflict than women. Which, again, everybody knows.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 04:51 PM
0

The F4E article contains context, background facts information relevant to fathers, commentary & link to the original article. It absolutely does not. they literally copied and pasted that article, word for word, then threw shitty ads all over it. Including a fullscreen pop up trying to get me to sign up for their spam list. F4E looks to be garbage.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 04:41 PM
-1

I don't know. But I'd imagine it's got something to do with unemployment being a concern in Australia (I don't live there, I don't know). It's rather silly to assume they did it as part of some grand scheme to under represent the issues that men face there. Maybe they'll release more of the info in future publications.. who knows?
/r/MensRights08/02/12 01:20 AM
1

Wow.. blogspam much? At least link the original article: http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/content/abs-releases-gender-indicators-and-ignores-male-disadvantage.html Which the blog you linked to blatantly copied and pasted then threw ads all over. (and, for the record, this is a non-story. They put out a release regarding employment rates (document in question). The "author" is upset that they didn't talk about other areas? Why should they? It would be rather irrelevant.. no gender discriminatio…
/r/MensRights07/02/12 09:35 PM
1

Yeah, that's always good to see.
/r/MensRights25/01/12 04:51 PM
4

And where did she claim it was rape?
/r/MensRights25/01/12 03:58 PM
2

Nice.. I like these hot off the presses, last year, articles! Thanks for pointing that out :P
/r/MensRights25/01/12 03:48 PM
1

Probably not allowed to wear skirts either, make sure you add that to your list of demands. Equality on all points, not just the self-serving.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 11:40 PM
0

"everyone" who actually read his comment.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 12:53 AM
-3

That's a pretty great copy and paste from the article. Good job. Also, everyone already agrees that the wage gap is not a legitimate issue.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 08:03 PM
2

Right, but it isn't. Which makes this a non-issue.. ship's going down - everybody scramble.
/r/MensRights18/01/12 12:42 AM
2

Good thing it's not an issue.. from your specialist: It's more important to identify the people who need help. That's important and that's what people tend to do. So, as much as we would like to circle jerk about women marching to the front of the line for their entitlement when evacuating a sinking ship, this specialist clearly states that that doesn't happen. So.. yeah.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 09:11 PM
-2

Since you've copied and pasted that quote all over the place, allow me to reiterate my reply: That, unfortunately, does not back up the claim that there are more homeless men than women because women get better government aid. So, while it's good info, it doesn't apply in this case. It says men are disadvantaged against elderly and families. Also, that men are have a higher rate of substance abuse (which is a leading cause for homelessness) than women. The "conclusion" sentence at the end is jus…
/r/MensRights16/01/12 04:45 PM
-1

Well then your article is shit. And your inability to back up your claims proves it. I'm not a bigot, but I'm not a moron who blindly believes nonsense because it falls in line with some cause I care about, either. If you care to try, I'll be waiting for the answers to the two extremely simple questions I asked.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 04:36 PM
-3

The "Conclusion" sentence was written by the US leading expert on homelessness. What's the name of this individual? The federal has admitted as much that most social safety nets do not catch men since they were set up with women in mind. Where? You can lie to yourself, but try not to lie to other people. No lies, just a logical interpretation of the quote that was posted. You would have to be extremely biased to read that quote and come off thinking that single, childless, non drug abusing men h…
/r/MensRights16/01/12 04:21 PM
0

That, unfortunately, does not back up the claim that there are more homeless men than women because women get better government aid. So, while it's good info, it doesn't apply in this case. It says men are disadvantaged against elderly and families. Also, that men are have a higher rate of substance abuse (which is a leading cause for homelessness) than women. The "conclusion" sentence at the end is just nonsense. If the woman does not have a child and is a substance abuser, she will miss all th…
/r/MensRights16/01/12 03:49 PM
-9

You won't get one. Only downvotes for daring to question "the obvious"... which is suspiciously never backed by facts.
/r/MensRights16/01/12 02:48 PM
-2

Yes, I believe a +50% divorce rate is a problem. I believe loss of custody is a serious problem. I believe unfair alimony is a serious problem. Yeah, I can't disagree there. However, I would argue this is a problem with the people, not marriage in and of itself. People are definitely too quick to rush into it, which seems to lead to those problems. this mentality came from surviving the toughest times of my life. I'm definitely sorry to hear that you had to deal with that stuff, it's not fair, b…
/r/MensRights05/01/12 07:41 PM
-6

Oh come on.. that's just sensationalism. Marriage is now a "serious problem"? Obviously, "blindly accepting the terms" is not smart. But that goes way beyond marriage and is certainly not a MR issue. It's a gender and circumstance neutral "knowing how to exist in modern society" issue.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 06:55 PM
-6

Sorry, I completely disagree. We, as men, are not "forced" to look at marriage in a cynical way. In fact, the men I have known from the time they were single who are now married did NOT have a cynical view. Most were quite excited. And if my "powerless" you mean "not in complete control" then yeah, I guess you're right. But that's part of being in a relationship.. neither is in complete control. Including you... compromises have to exist for two people of any gender combination to coexist.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 06:04 PM
-17

This has nothing to do with MensRights. I mean, it's mocking womens' behavior in relationships, so I guess that makes it ok to post here.. but it has nothing to do with mens rights.
/r/MensRights05/01/12 05:28 PM
1

True. There's no protection here from people being mean. They can call you a bunch of names and say you're a jerk all they want. Nothing to protect your hurt feelings. However, they can't say anything provably FALSE about you. Then it becomes illegal, since it can be translated into monetary damages.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 04:37 PM
5

Nobody was sued for posting a blog hating on someone. She was sued for saying he was the publisher of that blog, which is libel.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 04:12 PM
2

Libel and slander are illegal in the US, too.
/r/MensRights27/12/11 04:11 PM
0

I love that you're getting downvoted.. the people in this sub need to stop being so god damned retarded. If there's no news about MR, don't dig up old shit just to rabble rabble get yer pitchforks about it.
/r/MensRights17/12/11 06:16 PM
-2

Yeah.. that's not what I said. I'm not saying don't post this, I'm just judging from my high horse.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 09:04 PM
-4

mmm... nope.
/r/MensRights16/12/11 06:32 PM
-7

Wow, did I step into r/atheism? Are we resorting to posting stupid Facebook screenshots now?
/r/MensRights16/12/11 04:34 PM
1

Pre-nuptial agreements and both partners getting tested before marriage are good ideas, though. Far too logical. What're you doing here?
/r/MensRights12/12/11 07:31 PM
1

lol.. you can't read.. and I'M the idiot. Riiiiiiiiiight.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 05:45 AM
0

Neither are you, but I know how to read text literally, which is how law works.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:59 AM
1

I'd ask you to elaborate, but you'd probably just refer me to someone else's agenda blog.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 03:22 AM
0

None of it. You just don't know how to understand words. (to be clear, "sex organ of another person," in the context it was used, CAN refer to the sex organ of the victim. Derp.)
/r/MensRights08/12/11 11:41 PM
1

The verbage of that quote is clearly written to mean the man is the one doing the penetrating and the woman is the one being penetrated, and that the one being penetrated is the victim. Actually, it's not. At all. You're just manipulating the meaning (in your head) to fit your agenda. The definition is "penetration ... without consent of the victim" That is to say, if a male victim is forced to penetrate a woman, it would be rape.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 10:24 PM
-2

Eh.. I'll pass. One man's anecdotes are hardly enough to apply such a blanket statement to world-wide academia.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 10:21 PM
-2

If you are saying the author is correct that the top concern of academia is attributing evil to young college males, well.. that's just dumb.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 09:22 PM
2

Judge was a woman, too. How bout them apples?
/r/MensRights08/12/11 07:32 PM
1

Ants at a picnic.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 07:29 PM
0

Eloquent, as always.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:12 PM
-1

Why would the feminists be against this? It's not a men vs woman thing, it's a person not maintaining their marital obligations. That's gender neutral.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:03 PM
1

Only works for women. Source? As far as I can tell, this works both ways. In France, where this happened, of course.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 05:01 PM
-6

In the halls of academia, the one thing that trumps the smug, PC, attribution of evil to young college males Quotes like that make this author's credibility disappear. But, still, good to see this being taken to court.
/r/MensRights08/12/11 04:59 PM
1

Sorry, what's your problem with this poster? Are you honestly opposing promoting that people report child abusers? What a scumbag... yeah, just let the kids get beat.
/r/MensRights27/11/11 02:07 AM
2

John the Other either has very poor reading comprehension, very poor critical thinking skills, or an active desire to discredit the MR movement. You forgot an active desire to collect adsense payouts.. I'm sure this was one of his more viewed posts regardless of how we feel about it. (just to be clear for others, as I'm sure you know already, OP wrote the article)
/r/MensRights16/11/11 08:19 PM
4

Hey OP. Thanks for posting a link to a story that you wrote. And is terrible. Karma whoring blog spammer trying to get paid off of our clicks FTL.
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:23 PM
-1

Came here to say the same.. these anti-women blogs are getting out of control. Here's the full quote, in context: Hunter Fast '12, in his opinion column related to the alleged William McCormick sexual assault incident at Brown ("It can't happen here," Nov. 11), forgets an important issue that supports the University's management of the unfortunate incident: Women have always been at an extreme disadvantage when faced with sexual aggression. What is rape all about? It is the physical coercion of …
/r/MensRights16/11/11 04:22 PM
1

..the page you "just finished reading" didn't mention any of the supplemental info I posted.
/r/MensRights14/11/11 08:02 PM
8

Pomerenke will spend three days in Bell County Jail as part of her sentence. Terms of her probation also ordered her not to be with any child under the age of 17 unsupervised, to stay away from any location where children congregate and to surrender her teaching license. Strict limitations on her Internet usage also were imposed. Pomerenke may not use social networking websites, chat rooms or other websites where she can communicate with children. She also must register as a sexual offender, Wal…
/r/MensRights14/11/11 04:13 PM
1

No, I mean like the people who submit to this sub. No comment on feminists as it's completely impertinent. Thank you for demonstrating my point, though. Those evil, evil women.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 01:22 PM
0

Being forced to move to the back of the bus != being excluded from a party.
/r/MensRights11/11/11 02:49 AM
-1

Discussing issues that affect men is not the same thing as people coming together as a group because they are men. Really, it's a pretty basic concept. So, while you may have found the definition of the word "solidarity" on google, you still seem to be completely unable to apply it in proper context. What? You're arguing completely the wrong point.. if anything, I'm using "gender-based" wrong, not solidarity. Solidarity is just a unified group, regardless of the source of unity. People who sub t…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:51 PM
-2

Well.. that's just false, sorry. I don't know why you feel the need to disagree with the obviously accurate. I never said it was a bad thing.. /r/mensrights is a place to discuss issues that affect men; which has nothing to do with gender solidarity Men is a gender. So we have that out of the way. Now on to the solidarity part.. quick Google search turns up a definition of Solidarity as such: Unity or agreement of feeling or action, esp. among individuals with a common interest; mutual support w…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:32 PM
0

No. (answer applies to all questions asked)
/r/MensRights10/11/11 11:27 PM
-2

I completely agree and welcome everyone here with valuable input. Just pointing out that it was said that gender based solidarity is "absolutely a form of sexism" and that, IMO, this sub is based around gender-based solidarity. In my personal opinion, gender based solidarity isn't sexism.. it's fun to be around people with similar interests as yourself. If you're not invited, get over it. Where does that sense of entitlement come from, anyway? If a group of people wants to hang out without you..…
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:56 PM
-7

..yes it is. It's a group of men (gender) coming together to talk about issues that affect us and offer support (solidarity). Yes, women are welcome also, that doesn't change anything.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:55 PM
-1

Yeah, I honestly subbed here because I was concerned that there may be some serious MR issues that should be brought to light (and there are).. but the vast majority of the content is a mix of women bashing and petty nonsense getting blown out of proportion. It's almost like they WANT to be oppressed just so there can be something to complain about.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:37 PM
-7

Well, you see, if they didn't make up silly things like this to try to illustrate how bad we, as men, have it in today's world, this sub would have basically no content.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:31 PM
-1

There is no point. Just fabricated persecution, which is 90% of this sub's submissions.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:29 PM
-1

Regardless of whether it is or not, you getting upset about it and coming here to reap the karma is beyond petty nonsense.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:28 PM
-1

Gender based solidarity ... is absolutely a form of sexism. You DO realize that you just declared /r/mensrights to be sexist, right?
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:28 PM
2

Yeah.. or they wouldn't. And maybe you should stop projecting on them.
/r/MensRights10/11/11 09:26 PM
3

Um.. you might want to try asking them how they feel about abortion.
/r/MensRights09/11/11 04:50 PM
1

Well nobody posted the feminist organization's story here to karma whore, so, right, I claim nothing.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:35 PM
1

Well.. I haven't read them. And, even if they were, who cares? Men are probably still claimed superior in more recent academic texts.
/r/MensRights29/10/11 07:34 PM
-1

Well, it's making fun of women for being dumb. Thus it's perfectly suited for this sub.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 07:12 PM
10

Title calls her "pissed", she says: I am not mad, at all That blog is beyond awful at editorializing.
/r/MensRights28/10/11 07:11 PM
0

Even better.. right then, keep up the good work. This is a tough sub for it :P
/r/MensRights21/10/11 09:49 PM
0

Well that's no good.. confirmation bias ought to be avoided. Keep that in mind going forward!
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:39 PM
0

The fact that you're so offended by a passing comment only reinforces how prevalent that mindset actually is around here.. it was obviously said with irony. The circle jerk here never stops, I only sling mud when I'm bored.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:30 PM
0

Oh no, I had a reason, I'm just denying your request for more information. Circle Jerk it down to oblivion, I don't particularly care.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:17 PM
-4

No.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 08:08 PM
-2

You must be new here. Oppression of MR is actually more severe than those other things. And it's happening, all around us. By everyone.
/r/MensRights21/10/11 07:54 PM
2

Why?
/r/MensRights21/10/11 07:52 PM
0

Well, you're wrong. I was going for "writing comprehension". I know exactly what it means and it fit exceptionally well as it was a play on his words... I would have chosen different phrasing if he didn't set me up to use "<something> comprehension" in my reply.
/r/seduction13/10/11 08:49 PM
-1

Well, you're wrong. I was going for "writing comprehension". I know exactly what it means and it fit exceptionally well as it was a play on his words... I would have chosen different phrasing if he didn't set me up to use <something> comprehension.
/r/seduction13/10/11 08:48 PM
-1

What if one side gets bored and just keeps poking at the other due to the comical reactions?
/r/seduction13/10/11 08:42 PM
1

Thanks! I mean.. I know it's impressive, but to have it externally validated is great.
/r/seduction13/10/11 07:57 PM
-1

All of them.
/r/seduction13/10/11 07:12 PM
-2

...if you can't tell the difference between comprehending how to read and comprehending how to write... well.. that explains the rest of your posts I guess. Anyway, stop bickering with me over nonsense and go work on maintaining your frame and composure. If this thread is any indication as to how you act IRL, you need to.
/r/seduction13/10/11 06:05 PM
-2

Um.. you asked a question and I answered. Why are you so pissed off? Go have a drin... err.. nevermind.
/r/seduction13/10/11 05:51 PM
-1

Writing comprehension: comprehending how to write. Source: common sense and a knowledge of vocabulary. edit: since you don't seem to know what a phrase is, here: phrase/frāz/ Noun: A small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit So, yes, "writing comprehension" is a phrase.
/r/seduction13/10/11 05:51 PM
-2

Yours.
/r/seduction13/10/11 05:48 PM
-2

....yes it is. Do you not know what a phrase is? I'm not here to teach you Grammar 101, but it's pretty easy to see why you're so off your inner game. Way to get super defensive over nothing.
/r/seduction13/10/11 05:48 PM
-3

Maybe if you had some writing comprehension you wouldn't convey that you assume everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.
/r/seduction13/10/11 05:37 PM
-2

If you disagree with my viewpoint, then downvote the comment and move on instead of being pointlessly argumentative and bitchy.
/r/seduction13/10/11 05:36 PM
0

...fair enough. This discussion is actually particularly pertinent to me as I just broke my 23 year old brother out of the "everyone who drinks does it because they're depressed or an alcoholic" mindset. Now he even comes out to the bar sometimes and sips on mixed drinks.
/r/seduction13/10/11 02:32 PM
-1

Many people can be happy without alcohol. And happier with it. Not everyone has a dependency like you seem to where you can't have a good time without drinking. Drinking just makes it better.
/r/seduction13/10/11 02:26 PM
0

Just because you don't like it, don't assume others "suffer" because they like to drink.
/r/seduction13/10/11 01:11 PM
5

..rape isn't genetic.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 03:55 PM
0

No, it's ok to incarcerate someone simply because they disobeyed a court order.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:24 AM
-2

I never said it was a violent robbery.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:14 AM
-2

So then you agree the bank robber who pays the money back should be set free...
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:04 AM
-2

So you'd rather they not fine him?
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:00 AM
-3

So if someone robs a bank and gives the money back.. they shouldn't go to jail? Since they paid it back? Your logic goes beyond "flawed"... Also, good job leaving out that he'll also pay $70k in fines. There's the money you care so dearly about.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 08:53 PM
1

Considering you haven't contributed anything worth while, I'll welcome your absence.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 03:56 PM
1

I was talking to you and needlessly pointing out how immature your comment was. Reply if you must, but I'm not going to feed you anymore. How immature my comment was.. right. I asked one simple question. He kept dodging it. All I wanted was an answer.. Pretty cool of you to come jerk him off though while also adding no substance. You fit in here.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 02:12 PM
1

Talking to yourself again? Your comment is the most useless in the thread, yet.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 01:52 PM
-2

Thought so.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 05:03 PM
-2

Not seeing it. Pick a specific one. It's really funny how you claim it's obvious and well known yet can't produce one single little example to back yourself up.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 04:20 PM
-3

So what I'm seeing is... you don't have a counterexample. Thanks!
/r/MensRights21/09/11 03:57 PM
-2

And where is the counter example of a man getting a bigger sentence for the same crime? Also, notably, she is no longer allowed unsupervised contact with boys under the age of 18.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 02:44 PM
-1

Looks like somebody can't tell the difference between "if criminal, then male" and "if male, then criminal". Really? You must have missed when I said: Actually, it's "all potential criminals are men." Derp. This policy of only un-banning females was based off the former, of your two. All criminals are men (which is SUPER easy to prove when you have the numbers from security incidents from earlier games). Not all men are criminals.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 12:07 PM
0

Don't make up numbers.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 12:05 PM
-5

Nobody said that.. just that no women commit crimes, at that game, on that day. Which is accurate.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 04:14 AM
-7

Actually, it's "all potential criminals are men." Close.. but no cigar. Actually, not even really that close.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 02:47 AM
0

Yeah, I could see if it didn't work or something, but, clearly, it achieved the goal of "no violence." The visiting team was greeted with applause, instead of the usual jeering, the Anatolia news agency reported.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 02:47 AM
3

How is this even remotely relevant? The fact is a 38 year old woman had sex with a minor and she has previously been employed as a teachers aide. That's the story Exactly. And that story is not at all what is portrayed in the title of this post.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 04:22 PM
5

Can anyone cite the new laws they're talking about? I haven't read them yet and this link doesn't seem to direct to it.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 01:29 PM
1

So.. imagine if a group of college girls was sodomizing one that was tied up? I've seen a number of videos that follow that trope.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 01:46 PM
1

I never mentioned mature adults or psychological games.. so.. you must have replied to the wrong comment. (Also, every girl you talk to or have sex with isn't a potential "mate" ...as you so eloquently put it.)
/r/MensRights25/08/11 01:32 AM
3

I'd say I'm sorry that you have such bad luck with girls.. but we both know luck has nothing to do with it :) Glad I got you to rage though, lulz.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 01:31 AM
7

Oh, I see. So because both the the OP and you are bad at preventing flakes, I don't date. Got it. There are methods to prevent this from happening. They are easy and the information is widely available.. I'll leave it to you to decide if you care enough to improve your dating life. As for me, work day is over. I'm going out.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 09:00 PM
4

You'll need to elaborate.. how does my criticism of the OP's inability to prevent girls from flaking on him speak toward me having a lack of dates?
/r/MensRights24/08/11 08:49 PM
-3

Men do. Cry babies who will do anything for a date like whomever made the comic don't.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 08:07 PM
-5

So you're bad at generating attraction. Definitely their fault.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 08:06 PM
8

This is reddit. There is no upperhand. It's a lose knit group of strangers on the internet posting links. None of it matters.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 08:20 PM
-2

You see.. the problem with that is that then posters here would be required to post content actually relevant to MR. Which seems to be difficult. Bashing feminists and AMR is way easier.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 08:18 PM
0

Eh.. you've misconstrued a lot there. I haven't posted anything out of spite; like I said, I don't. Many of my posts are challenging, that's for sure, but that's due to people spouting beliefs that wrong or unfounded. If they are able to back their claims, that's great. Most of the time, they can't and just get defensive or angry. You post a lot here, so to not know anything about mens rights is laziness. To characterise me as an aggressor is lazy and spiteful. Well, you are an aggressor. In thi…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 07:15 PM
1

I'm not sure what laziness you're trying to challenge.. it actually took a small amount of effort to dig up that study. I also don't post out of spite. So I'll assume that line wasn't directed toward posts of mine.. though I wonder whether or not you downvote your own spiteful posts (the first in this comment chain, for example) or only those of others. I'd like to think what you've just said is accurate, but your comments have said otherwise in the past. Hopefully, going forward, you'll stick t…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 06:38 PM
0

Many of the "most elementary and salient issues here" are fabrications of an overactive imagination. I will not apologize for requesting sources. And, as always, when the sources are presented, I absorb the knowledge and recall it when applicable. And don't try to claim a lack of agenda. This is one of the most heavily one-sided subreddits that I visit (second only to r/atheism) and you are one of the more notable offenders. Why? Because you blanket downvote anything that doesn't directly suppor…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 06:25 PM
1

Nope. But thanks for the downvote for posting facts that don't agree with your agenda. Glad to see you haven't changed :)
/r/MensRights18/08/11 06:10 PM
1

Thanks for the link... that's good info. I still don't think it justifies concern about the Luxembourg parking issue, though as it would seem the parking is designed to reduce the occurrence of after-dark muggings and perhaps rape. I wish those stats were broken down more granularly so I could justify or correct that assessment, but that would be a lot of effort on those reporting them. I don't really want to argue about it, but here's some info that I found that is pertinent to the discussion, …
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:52 PM
1

I didn't say violent crime. However, I'd still like to see the stats on that, because it's surprising to me. I'd be curious to see what all gets lumped in as a "violent crime"... So, even though it's not a solid counterpoint, can you link the source to that info? Assuming you never lived in Luxembourg, you can't say that. On the same note, I can't say that's not the case. We'll have to call a draw on that one... but, either way, there's nothing "False" about what I said.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:10 PM
0

I'm going to be honest.. that's absurd thinking. I'm not going to argue you over it, but here are the two reasons I couldn't care less about Luxembourg's parking situation: It's Luxembourg. Chances are (I'm not going to try to dig up the stats) that the % of victims of muggings IN Luxembourg who are women is the majority. I don't have a problem with giving preferential treatment to those who, statistically speaking, need it.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:00 PM
0

No doubt.. this is one of my main problems with this sub. I actually care about issues that affect men. And, as such, I sub to this sub to keep up on them, but all I end up seeing is sensationalist nonsense that fabricates ridiculous situations that I'm supposed to rage over (i.e. some 3rd world parking garage having preferential parking for women). Oh well, every now and then something good slips through :P
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:20 PM
0

I was agreeing with you by mocking the post as being bad.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:09 PM
-16

Hey.. you're not supposed to actually click these links and try to find a real story. You're supposed to rage at the outrageous injustice oppressed on us men that is expressed in the title and feed OP your karma. Welcome to MensRights.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 12:56 PM
9

Internet drama is serious business.
/r/MensRights12/08/11 06:05 PM
0

I haven't lost my temper or resorted to ad hominems at all.. I'm not sure where you're seeing that. If anything is questionable, it's the silly labels you keep trying to pin on me (holocaust denier, feminist, etc) in an attempt to bolster support. is your name Bill O'Reilly? You seem to enjoy using his debate tactics, as opposed to actually referencing facts. That doc is about drug possession and in no way illustrates a discrepancy between men and women. You'd do well to read your links before y…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 03:19 PM
-1

So... no substantiation? I thought I asked you to stop unless you could come up with something to support your claims. I don't deny anything that there is evidence of. I'm just waiting to see some. You're wearing me out with your nonsense.. If you want to further this discussion, post up some stats that show a disparity. That aren't 20 years old. No sensationalism, no bad analogies, no irrelevant studies. Do this, then we can keep talking.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 03:01 PM
-2

Probably because, if you were being raped, it'd be really hard to rape them back.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:52 PM
-1

So.. what you're saying is... you've got nothing to substantiate your claims. 10-4. (btw, if you claimed the holocaust was still going on then yes.. I'd deny that.)
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:43 PM
-1

Here's what I'll deny: That the headline of that article is in anyway pertinent to the text that follows it. That you have provided any evidence that women are still getting lesser sentences for statutory than men. Specifically, in the US. If you had actually read your article, you'll see that the discussion on increasing leniency on women in court (not just criminals) is because: "It is now well recognised that a misplaced conception of equality has resulted in some very unequal treatment for w…
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:37 PM
0

And yet we still see the same outcomes today. Irrelevant indeed. This is what I'm asking for some reference material on. I'll be happy to change my tune once I see some evidence that this is still going on.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:27 PM
-1

When you put a > before text, prefacing it with "and I quote" is redundant. Also, the data used in that study is 20 years old. That pretty much makes it irrelevant.. I'm not saying it never was an issue. It certainly used to be. Show me something from the past 5 (or even 10) years and we might be able to talk.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 02:22 PM
0

I know that's what a lot of people who frequent this sub like to say, but do you have anything to substantiate it? What % of men get jail time for statutory than women? Or anything similar? I'd like actual numbers, not anecdotes or gut feelings.
/r/MensRights10/08/11 12:32 PM
3

7 times in 4 days. Just in this sub.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 08:36 PM
0

1) When the hell has MR ever been accused of being racist? 2) In reality, those guys have a minimal, if any, impact on reddit. They also don't have r/MR in their agenda. 3) We all saw it on the front page, yesterday, too.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 04:37 PM
1

The only thing we do know is that she cheated on him. Actually, doing the math, they were already separated before she started seeing the other man.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 04:25 PM
5

r/MR is frequently abused as a poor facade for r/womenbashing. Judging by the amount of upvotes this post is getting, it's not frowned upon. Occasionally an actual men's rights issue somehow slips in, thankfully.
/r/MensRights09/08/11 04:00 PM
5

So.. what? They provide counseling for students who are accused of (or feel they may have committed) abuse. What am I supposed to be raging about again? Also, the dude who wrote that blog post is an idiot. And why is this in mensrights? There's no gender specificity in the guide.. it's expected that the guide would focus more on the abused than the abuser.. I don't get it. If you're going to get upset, do it over something legitimate.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 08:43 PM
18

Anyone have a link to the actual study? edit: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/ehb%20paternal%20investment.pdf <- link to the actual study.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 02:21 PM
7

Not parents, but father's The article specifically says that childrens IQ's are higher when they have father's (that are engaged in their lives). Stop making fathers possessive.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 02:18 PM
3

Yeah, but the article is over 3 years old and doesn't actually cite numbers or results. I wouldn't trust it, either, regardless of what it was talking about.
/r/MensRights04/08/11 02:18 PM
1

DVR has something to say about this
/r/MensRights03/08/11 04:45 PM
1

There's a difference between "making excuses" and "providing insight".. personally, when I hear that someone committed a crime like this, my first thought is how/why? This just provides some potential answers. Not excuses. Also, it's interesting that you use the term accused in your subject but immediately go into "guilty until proven innocent" mode when talking about her.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 07:40 PM
1

All I'm going to give you for an answer is a copy/paste of the dictionary definition.. you can get that yourself :P I didn't address the rest of your post because I felt the initial derailment negated it.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:24 PM
1

You are lumping all men together which is discriminatory. No. The word you are looking for is stereotyping. Not discriminating. What do you think discrimination is... Jesus. I know what it is. You are the one confusing it with other concepts. Pull up a dictionary and read it yourself. Also, I don't think Jesus is discrimination.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 04:58 PM
0

Again, no it isn't. Discrimination requires unjust treatment. Requiring those who take more money out of the system to put more in is not unjust. Especially when they have decades of data to back it up.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 03:45 PM
0

When it comes to insurance rates, gender and race are just pieces to the puzzle. A lot of other info goes into it as well (where you live, what you drive, history of accidents or illness, etc).. What people are missing is that the definition of discrimination includes the phrase "unjust treatment" based on differences. My point is this isn't particularly unjust, and they have the numbers to back it up. It's not just "you're male, higher rates!" it's "you're a member of a high risk demographic, h…
/r/MensRights28/07/11 02:43 PM
1

With the logic you've displayed, it'd be better if you never started.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 01:47 PM
1

Ok, so you misread what I wrote. Pro tip: I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Any sillyness you make up is in your head, not mine.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 01:39 PM
1

You must have misread what I wrote.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:34 PM
1

Right, we've seen that already. If insurance charged on a "miles driven" as opposed to a yearly fee, that would be a relevant point. However, as it stands, the rates are based on likely-hood of an accident on a yearly basis, which, as you explained, men have a higher chance of (not because we're worse drivers, just that we drive more).
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:33 PM
1

What do you mean?
/r/MensRights28/07/11 12:28 PM
-7

And you lost the moment you didn't realize my last sentence was a joke. Come on, people. It's rather obvious that implying black people being charged more for a statistic is racist would be extremely hypocritical when I've been defending males being charged more as not sexist. You all have brains. Let's use them. (And, yes, he is flip flopping. First he said the burden should be evenly distributed. Then he said it shouldn't be. I literally don't believe that you don't comprehend the change in vi…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 06:49 PM
5

I believe both you and he are correct. I wouldn't object at all if it were solely based off driving record.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:50 PM
-2

Guess what? You're not the first person to try that one in this thread. I'll give you the same response I gave him: I'd disagree because now you're talking about taxes and the government whereas insurance companies are privately owned. (It's also funny watching you flip flop from one side of the issue to the other trying to find which will allow you to win this argument. Short answer: Neither. And don't be racist.)
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:21 PM
1

The point of insurance is to distribute losses and risk. Right.. so the people who are (statistically) at the highest risk and create the greatest lost pay the most. I'm glad we're on the same page.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:12 PM
3

Yeah, I agree it's not perfect. It's also most likely the case that we are being price gouged by the insurance companies.. it would be good to see a change, but, until then, I'd rather not see people thinking that insurance companies are feminist sympathizers with some sort of grudge out there for the male population. On a happier note, thanks for reminding me that my rates should be going down soon :P
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:55 PM
0

A report I cited earlier indicated that in Manhattan, black males pay more for insurance than white males. So, the discrepancy can't be explained (in that situation) by where they live. Also, the generic laws you are referring to protect gender based discrimination as well.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:43 PM
5

Gotcha.. well, in that case, I'll just say driving record is accounted for when calculating insurance rates. It's not the exclusive factor, but it is part of the equation. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:42 PM
-10

women who are statistically a much higher risk than me Source? I read your following generalizations about how all women drive (which, comically, followed your rant about how bad it is to generalize all male drivers) but didn't see any actual numbers.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:21 PM
2

Why not just put everyone at $200? Would that not only cover the "statistics" and at the same time increase the profits for the insurance companies? Yeah, someone else brought that up. I don't think that'd be a problem. But, do realize, that's communism/socialism and a lot of people would have a problem with it. Like I said, I find it to be a fine solution.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:18 PM
1

No, because it is illegal to base insurance rates on race. I do not believe this is true. Some quick searching points to references to blacks paying more for (generally, health, but also auto) insurance. Can you cite the law that says you can't base insurance rates on race? I couldn't find it.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:09 PM
3

Statistically, 7x more black men or incarcerated than white men = imprison all black males? No.. that would totally negate our whole trial by jury and sentencing policies. If they're more likely to cost the insurance company money, though, I wouldn't have a problem with higher rates. Maybe we should just charge a prison tax on Black males, that would make more sense, I mean they are statistically going to jail more, about 5,000 per every 100,000 black male. I'd disagree because now you're talkin…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:57 PM
2

Fair enough.. I suppose I should have said more likely to get in an accident. You got me there.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:55 PM
13

...obviously. edit: In case you don't want to click: surveyed 600 male Manhattan residents and reported that Asian men paid $1945 per year and white men paid $2193 per year, compared to** African American men who, on average, paid $2910 annually**.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:53 PM
4

Source? I've not heard that before. Either way, though, insurance probably works on a total accidents/year basis.. which is more logical. And there's no "Actually, no." ..I didn't say anything wrong.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:40 PM
-8

First you say they don't care about his penis then you say they think he's more likely to drive like an idiot because he has a penis. That's double-speak in back-to-back sentences. It's not double speak. It's statistical analysis. There are men without penises. Also, I did not say he was more likely to drive like an idiot. Real world observation says that... I simply referenced it. I can assure you that if young ladies were being charged more to insure themselves there would be an uproar. It wou…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:37 PM
0

He's paying higher fees because he falls into a demographic that has a higher death/injury rate and takes more money out of the insurance company's pockets. They don't care about his penis. They care about how much money they're going to have to spend to fix it if he snaps it off driving like an idiot. Which he is more likely to do than a female. Statistically speaking.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 03:25 PM
1

Yeah, I'll be shortly moving out of that demo (damn passing time).. but I know where you're coming from. It's unfortunate that being young is both expensive and hazardous. At a time when you make the least money you probably ever will.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:28 PM
1

I don't have a problem with a flat rate insurance for everyone. But now you're talking communism/socialism. While that's no biggie to me, a lot of people are not ok with the idea ("Why should I have to pay for him being a risk" - old man). Worth noting, it doesn't generalize gender. It generalizes, certainly, but gender is just a part of the equation. Age, health, where you live, lifestyle habits and education probably come in to play also.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:19 PM
8

Why shouldn't it upset someone? If females were more likely to die in that age range and had higher rates but men's rates were artificially inflated to make it "seem equal" this subreddit would implode. Don't go all double standard on us :P
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:10 PM
-2

but most people are only ok as long as it only effects men. I really don't think that's the case.. If the stats pointed to women or black people posing a higher risk, their rates would be higher. Insurance companies aren't going to risk not charging them more.. they get every penny out of you that they can.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 01:36 PM
43

It's not discrimination. It's math.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 01:04 PM
-7

If they are then: a) they won't make inflammatory comments and get themselves banned b) they wont come to r/mensrights to complain about the feminazis I do not deny the existence of these men, and wish I worded it differently, now that you pointed it out. However, I was talking about OP here and those who take interest in this discussion.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 06:46 PM
-2

You clearly said in your post that we shouldn't even go there. Well.. no, I didn't say you shouldn't go there. I said don't go there (as the best option to avoid these conflicts and/or getting banned). Like I said, I say what I mean and mean what I say. Stop trying to make up thoughts I didn't have.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:37 PM
-3

It seemed to me like that was exactly what you were implying. I don't imply.. if I wish to convey a message, I'll take the time to type it out. You would do well to assume less, at least when talking to me. but I do in fact read r/feminsms and I do not to troll. Read being the key. It's fine to go over a read their posts, no one can stop that, and it can be good insight. The problem arises when people start posting generally inflammatory comments (and, subsequently, get banned). They then, for s…
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:24 PM
4

I never said that... but you're lying to yourself if you think anyone from this sub goes to r/feminisms to do anything but instigate, flame and troll.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:08 PM
4

It does not stand up to scrutiny in the light of day. Posts such as this one provide evidence for the mindset that underlies feminism. You're right. I just figured this was common knowledge and not something we need 10 posts a week on :P (well, specifically in reference to the feminism sub).
/r/MensRights18/07/11 02:01 PM
2

No it doesn't. Why the hell would a bunch of men care about r/feminisms? Just don't go there. It's about as stupid as everyone from r/atheism heading over to the Christianity board.
/r/MensRights18/07/11 01:37 PM
2

I find the feminist movement occupies itself with minor issues that hurt their pride rather than real problems outside the door which need to be solved. Don't worry, that's this sub, too ;)
/r/MensRights14/07/11 03:23 PM
2

Such pessimism.. "we're better than most, and that sucks."
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:58 PM
1

If I'm wrong then how can you defend this comic being posted here? Also, from a thread in this articles comments... I said: You're in r/mensrights not r/antifeminisim ... start discussing men's rights. To which I was told: MRAs = Antifeminists ... You're looking for r/MRR And was given a link to the FAQ as a reference/citation for that fact. So, if you disagree with this sub being dedicated to anti-feminist propaganda, instead of MR discussion, I'd suggest you: a) Look around b) Talk it over wit…
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:15 AM
1

Because I thought it was about mens rights. I've since been educated to the fact that r/mensrights is actually (according to the FAQ, apparently) NOT a sub for MR discussion, but one for anti-feminisim and woman bashing. MR discussion is at r/MRR Now knowing that, you probably won't see me as much.
/r/MensRights13/07/11 12:08 AM
1

That's a deep question.. can you narrow down what you mean by "here"?
/r/MensRights12/07/11 10:30 PM
1

Fair enough. I find it unfortunate that we need to be seen as a response to their movement as opposed to one of our own.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 07:15 PM
1

That's not really a FAQ so much of as a wall of text.. got a TL;DR?
/r/MensRights12/07/11 06:56 PM
1

I get the comic.. it's funny and has a hint of truth. However, I don't feel it matters for anything more than a laugh and ought to be in r/funny. However, I'd probably post it here, too.. easier karma.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 04:12 PM
1

I'm going to disagree there.. To be for MR means (to me) to be for MR regardless of where the issue stems. Direct attacks at feminists is pointless and only serves to widen the gap. Now, if there is some feminist propaganda that needs to be disproven, that's fine. But this comic, in this context, serves only as a catalyst.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 02:23 PM
0

If you aren't interested in opposing feminism, I recommend [1] r/MRR. You're in r/mensrights not r/antifeminisim... maybe you should be the one to relocate. Or start discussing men's rights. You pick.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:46 PM
1

Actually there are many women like that. yeah.. and there are many men who expect women to be a cooking baby factory.. I've met more of them than I have women who match the stereotype in this comic.. what's your point? Zing is right, this is a waste of a post on a sub that should actually be relevant to men's issues.
/r/MensRights12/07/11 01:43 PM
2

About as much as when Mystery did the reality show on VH1.
/r/seduction11/07/11 07:42 PM
3

Be more specific? What I've been seeing is blatant karma whoring by using sensationalist titles to turn any mundane news story into today's most important MR issue EVAR!!! Sadly, most of the time, it get's voted straight to the top.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:22 PM
7

While this may be an issue, once again, it's not a mens rights issue.. a woman could be put into the exact same circumstances.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:47 AM
1

So it was.. I didn't realize I'd brought up the same indiscretion with those numbers twice. I haven't seen that stat, but, either way, stats aren't beliefs ;) That's why I love them so! I'm sure my quote is not what those numbers would actually indicate, I just picked it since it goes most against the grain of this sub and, as such, makes a stronger point. The 2/3's is pretty irrelevant without more info, too. So, we've got a child in a single-mother household is 3 times more likely to be abused…
/r/MensRights11/07/11 02:03 AM
1

(copy-paste my response to the last person who said that): So, what you may be telling me is that men in a relationship where the woman has a child from another man (single mother) are more likely to abuse that child than if it were their own (single father, dual-parent)... Granular details, like the ones I asked for, could prevent that confusion (if, in fact, the stats implicate something else).
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:43 AM
1

So, what you may be telling me is that men in a relationship where the woman has a child from another man (single mother) are more likely to abuse that child than if it were their own (single father, dual-parent)... Now, I'm sure that's not the point you want derived from your stats, but, until we get some clarification, it's just as valid of a point as single-mothers being more abusive than the others... I have no idea which is accurate.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:41 AM
1

children in single mother households are three times as likely to experience abuse as children in dual-parent households. Abuse at who's hands?
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:27 AM
1

Redo the stats to not count single-parent homes (no father/mother present to abuse) and get back to me.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:26 AM
-3

Yeah, apparently you and I meant to sub to r/mensrights.. for issues related to men. Seems we've accidentally stumbled into r/womanbashing instead.. where the only articles that get traction are those that point out how bad women are. Oh well.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 01:25 AM
6

This has nothing to do with Men's Rights...
/r/MensRights07/07/11 05:27 PM
1

Actually.. I don't think the Constitution accounts for either. But, either way, does anyone disagree or shall we let the circle jerk commence?
/r/MensRights07/07/11 01:00 PM
2

Nowhere did I say there isn't a double standard.. stop putting words in my mouth to support your nonsensical argument that a man being fined for lying about where he found money has anything to do with Men's Rights. Sorry, Mr. O'Reilly, I'm not having this discussion with you. You will find no more replies from me in your inbox, on this matter.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 08:04 PM
4

There's nothing to reason out. I understand what he meant and, yes, there are too many cases where that occurs. However, presenting it in the title the way he did implies there should be some information to compare to the story of this guy. Otherwise, this is just a story about a guy getting a crappy fine and is completely unrelated to men's rights. Oh wait, that IS what this is. Taking that last bit on the end suddenly makes it OK to post here and whore drive-by karma and it's destroying the su…
/r/MensRights30/06/11 07:53 PM
3

Nope.. I've been here long enough to see sensationalism pretty much overtake any rational or useful discussion that used to take place.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 07:41 PM
3

Yeah.. I can't disagree there lol Maybe they would have given him a hard time about where he filed the report then?
/r/MensRights30/06/11 05:59 PM
0

According to the article: Adams said he felt more comfortable turning the cash in to Rolling Meadows officials and filing the report with Rolling Meadows police.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:42 PM
0

I missed the part of the article that speaks of the woman you are referring to.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 04:19 PM
1

You see what I did there? I made you disagree with yourself.. either way, it's been fun. I'm not sure where your initial comment came from, but I'll let it slide.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 06:29 PM
-1

Is anyone claiming it isn't?
/r/MensRights29/06/11 05:39 PM
1

Your perceived omniscience just makes you sound ignorant. Your statement is an oxymoron.. you can't perceive me to be both omniscient and ignorant. Luckily for you, though, I'm neither :P If you care to address the points I made (which you won't be able to) instead of resorting to silly attempts at personal attacks, I'll be here.
/r/MensRights29/06/11 01:44 PM
1

I think, recently, there has been a lot more circle jerking than productive discussion... and I'm not sure what you mean by "presume to decide" what is and is not an issue. Everything (apparently) can be pulled in some way to be some sort of relevant.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:32 PM
1

Yeah, I get the link between testing on animals and applying the results toward further research on humans. This particular post is just an issue because: 1) Human and mouse sexual attraction are too different to be linked this way. 2) The gov't IS looking at BPA. I think this study is great info and should be publicized. I just think it should be addressed on a broader scope as opposed to pigeonholing it to mensrights.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 07:12 PM
2

Actually, I do think it would be necessary. Recall a desire of equality, not superiority. Posts like this going to extremes to draw fantastical analogies between mice and men (which are, be honest, nothing more than karma whoring) are derailing the entire subreddit.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:40 PM
1

Yeah, I'll agree with you there. Obvious example of breast vs prostate cancer and whatnot.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 06:04 PM
1

Alright, I'm calling tin-foil hat on that one.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 05:53 PM
1

Well, first thing worth noting is that we, unlike mice, have things like personality, wealth, and good looks to counteract generic "masculinity" when it comes to attracting a mate. That pretty much negates this analogy, in my opinion at least. Your point about feminists encouraging men to be less masculine is a fine point. I may live in some sort of bubble, because I've never seen anything of that sort get any traction, but that doesn't mean it isn't. But, in the end, there's no one forcing anyo…
/r/MensRights28/06/11 05:40 PM
1

That's cool.. but that's what r/biology and r/cogsci are for.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 05:24 PM
1

Fair enough, I suppose I can see how some facts from that article could be pulled and reused to support a feminist agenda.. but, in the present, without that happening, this article itself doesn't strike me as a pertinent 'issue'.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 05:07 PM
-2

Seriously? This has nothing to do with MensRights. I subscribe to this because I care about real issues that have to do with men and our rights. Not chemicals and mice. Now, I understand that this place is basically a circle jerk and anything with the word 'male' in the title is automatic upvotes, but come on. You're making it useless.
/r/MensRights28/06/11 04:21 PM
2

Probation. And a fine, and register as a Megan's law offender, and lose her teaching license, and undergo mental health and substance abuse counseling. Not sure what the double standard is, that seems pretty sufficient as it seems the student was a willing participant. Any examples of more extreme punishments for men, since that appears to be your qualm?
/r/MensRights27/06/11 03:32 PM
-4

That article is very silly and seems to have been written out of sheer boredom. This is not r/circlejerk.. we like content with substance. Believe it or not.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 02:08 PM
0

Thursday 2 December 2010 21.30 GMT Ah yeah.. I remember the first dozen times this front paged, when it was news. Also, where are you getting this rape business? Certainly not from the article you linked.. a quick ctrl+f shows that.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 01:07 PM
7

Come on. He was born with a severe congenital heart defect . the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) protocol which clearly states there is no medical indication for circumcision surgery, and that it is never to be performed upon a baby who is not in the utmost healthy and stable condition. I understand the outrage.. but can we not use sick babies that were operated on outside of standard protocol as a catalyst?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 03:45 PM
1

So.. is this only cases of women reporting sexual abuse by men? Or does it include women abusing men and same sex as well?
/r/MensRights17/06/11 03:17 PM
3

It's also only in "sole custody" situations. What about children of married couples or who were born to single mothers and have never interacted with their fathers?
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:47 PM
5

Yep. Do a search in the reddit bar for "Drive by (up/down)vote" and you'll get a lot of people talking about it. It's especially problematic in subreddits that heavily favor one specific viewpoint and agenda. People will blindly upvote any heading that supports the agenda without further investigation.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:11 PM
10

Yeah.. that's not at all what it says or implies.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 02:11 PM
1

OP specifically cited an issue with the headline. I felt no need to read the content as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I also don't like reading feminazi propaganda.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 08:17 PM
-1

Women are better investors, and here’s why Commentary: Call it the Weiner principle: men self-destruct That's the headline I'm seeing.. did it change or is this what you're referring to?
/r/MensRights14/06/11 01:38 PM
4

So, at your suggestion, I checked out r/okcupid. They could really use some help. Some of the saddest and most off-track posts I've ever seen.
/r/seduction13/06/11 07:20 PM
2

Actually, I'm not a fan of the politics that go on around here and prefer the numbers. I've got no problem with what you've done, I just wanted to know why.. and now I do. So, thanks.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:57 PM
0

Well.. this isn't r/statistics, so I won't poke at you about the validity of those stats implying anything.. but, no, I'm not stupid, you just didn't provide any context.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 05:37 PM
-1

..why? Also, what does this have to do with mens rights?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 03:08 PM
0

Not terribly.. it seems rather obvious. I don't think a feminist subreddit is impacting any major policy shifts.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:57 AM
1

It feels like it needs validation because you're putting forward all of the unique foods you're fond of.. seems like you're trying to pull questions or compliments about your palate out of it. As far as giving the info up, that all actually is a good bit of quality convo material.. seems a bit of a waste to just dump it in a profile write up.
/r/seduction08/06/11 06:27 PM
1

I'm a big sandwich fan. I pull out all the stops. Not just whole foods deli meats and splurging on the brown mustard, I'm talking sandwich as culinary experience. I'm talking roasted beets with goat cheese. I'm talking fried plantains, prosciutto, and chive butter. I'm talking about connecting with a sandwich like siamese twins joined at the heart." That's giving up a whole lot of clearly nonsensical information and comes off extremely rambly and in need of validation. But, hey, whatever works.
/r/seduction08/06/11 04:53 PM
7

hm.. typical.
/r/seduction02/06/11 05:00 PM
1

Seriously.. as silly as this story is, the fact that it's 3 years old and probably didn't end up going through the way you're all assuming it did makes me not really care. However, if the charges went through as planned, let the outrage commence.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:25 PM
-5

Seriously. Let them operate in peace and privacy like the good ol' days.
/r/MensRights25/05/11 01:14 PM
1

again from the book "Emotional Intelligence".
/r/seduction18/05/11 02:00 PM
-4

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be degrees of vigilantism.. either you're acting as such or you aren't. I agree completely with your other 2 points.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 07:23 PM
-13

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If there authority figures in place who are tasked with maintaining order, and you go around them because you want to do it "your way", you are a acting as a vigilante. And, no, it's still very poorly written and hard to read.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 07:13 PM
5

Well, yeah, I'm not saying don't publicize it.. I agree it's insane and they should all be charged with as much as possible.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 06:49 PM
12

....the officer's names are in the article. And, clearly, the school doesn't care.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 06:45 PM
-27

Vigilantism is illegal for a reason. Use the authorities that are there to handle these problems. Also... this story was half decent when I saw it on the front page 2 hours ago in a different sub.
/r/MensRights14/03/11 06:43 PM
8

Pretty sure this is what the OP is getting at. They're both fair, so feminists should stop crying about higher rates.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 07:26 PM
6

Worst tl;dr ever.
/r/seduction18/01/11 06:56 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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