TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

tiqr Archive

View 8 posts and 1,581 comments by tiqr on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,581 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

Literally never heard anyone make this claim before, and I've never seen any data to support it.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 09:34 PM
19

Thank you. I find it incredibly ironic that a subreddit devoted to attacking statistics about women's issues would blindly accept "the majority of male first sexual encounters are sexual assault" from a person on twitter citing no study or evidence. Be better.
/r/MensRights29/05/19 09:33 PM
1

I don't see you engaging in any reasoning whatsoever.
/r/MensRights08/03/19 09:34 PM
-3

The company behind Kleenex, Kimberly-Clark, said Thursday that the product, which is sold only in the U.K., will now be called "Kleenex Extra Large." Packages for the tissues describe them as "confidently strong" and "comfortingly soft." Problem solved.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 09:23 PM
-9

It makes to sad to think that someone would go into this much effort to go through this woman's social media history to smear her. Also, signing a song that highlights all the stereotypical victim blaming lines for women getting sexually assault =/= her being a hypocrite for doing those things. She says she "can't wear a miniskirt" because women are often told that wearing a miniskirt is "asking for it". She is not literally saying that women can't wear miniskirts - and making a collage of her w…
/r/MensRights18/10/18 09:19 PM
-1

Kleenex boxes don't have genetics, so calling a tissue "mansize" makes no sense. Alternatively, while men may be larger than women on average, I have never met a man who found the size of a standard kleenex tissue to be too small to blow his nose. No matter how you interpret this, it's a stupid name and /u/20cansofSpam is absolutely right.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 09:16 PM
2

I don't know. This is something that needs to be figured out. One of the flaws of #metoo is that it struggles to differentiate between minor improprieties and serial abusers. Some people are beyond redemption, but those who committed the more minor improprieties need to be allowed to admit what they've done, own it, and be forgiven.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 10:37 PM
24

To be fair, she has massive memory lapses and wakes up finding dried semen on her chest multiple times. You don't need to hyper-paranoid to suspect suspect that the boyfriend was drugging her. I certainly had never heard about bedbugs causing memory lapses. But this does serve as an important reminder not to jump to conclusions.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 10:23 PM
-7

Hold on - so it's OK for people to privately believe unproven but credible accusations, but not for them to publicly state their opinions?
/r/MensRights10/10/18 10:19 PM
-9

Do you think OJ Simpson should bear no stigma for the murders he was accused of? Do you think Cosby should bear no stigma for the alleged rapes he committed (he was only convicted of one). How about Weinstein?
/r/MensRights10/10/18 10:15 PM
-6

There's no 'one size fits all' answer to that question. It would have to depend on the circumstances. Examples of helpful evidence would include prior disclosures willingness to testify under oath similar fact pattern to other allegations credibility of accuser/accused. OJ Simpson wasn't found guilty of murder, but no one is suggesting its unfair that he bear the stigma of murder. The standard of proof does not need to be the same for incarceration and social stigma.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 08:26 PM
1

Agreed. The real story from this chart is that in no circumstances do Australians believe hitting someone is right, regardless of whether its a man or a woman, or whether they are provoked. There are some minor differences between genders, but that doesn't seem to be the main takeaway.
/r/MensRights10/10/18 07:34 PM
-14

It's important to differentiate between incarceration and making a person bear the social stigma of a sexual assault. Both of these 'punishments' should have different standards of proof, and different paths to redemption. The social stigma should have a lower standard than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. A complainant shouldn't have to prove they were assaulted for the accused to bear the stigma. But they should be required to provide evidence that at least supports the claim on a balance of proba…
/r/MensRights10/10/18 07:30 PM
1

I am well aware that the relationship is governed by contract. That contract will be enforceable so long as it was (1) properly created, (2) doesn't contravene Fair Trade laws, and (3) doesn't contravene human rights legislation. There's no question the contract is properly created, and "political speech" is not a protected class in Alberta Human Rights law. The HBB have argued that this contract is not in conformance with the Fair Trade rules, but the judge rejected that argument: The plaintiff…
/r/MensRights07/09/18 06:28 PM
1

Actually, the standard for appeal on a question of law is "correctness". But the decision didn't make many legal findings other than the test for injurious falsehood, and the claim that the plaintiff needed to show a breach of contract. I don't see anything wrong with either of those findings. Everything else would be findings of fact or findings of mixed law and fact. There also an outside chance that the Court of Queen's Bench would order a new trial (which you can do with appeal from Provinci…
/r/MensRights05/09/18 03:31 PM
2

Well, if you're using the word in the way Karissa is using it, it refers to one in which the host can exclude people. A court room is open to the public, and they can't exclude specific people arbitrarily. So is a library. Comic Expo is hosted by a private entity and can deny access for any reason so long as it does not contravene the Human Rights Act.
/r/MensRights05/09/18 02:09 AM
2

Sorry - but Karissa is correct here. The Expo is absolutely a private event that happens to be open to the general public. If it was public, you would not have needed to pay them to attend. A parade is a public event. An Expo is not.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 11:03 PM
1

Right - but I assume someone walked you through the relative cost consequences? I can't imagine your Schedule C "costs" for the trial exceed $20,000 - and there's a good chance the Defendants would accept a reduced amount to simply make this whole thing go away. If you go to an appeal, you're incurring another $10,000 - $25,000 in legal fees plus further costs exposure if you're unsuccessful (maybe another $6,000 - $10,000?). The rational part of your brain knows about the sunken cost fallacy, b…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 10:49 PM
2

If you're at serious risk to losing your house, maybe consider not pursuing an appeal. Sure it sucks to eat your pride and move on, but is this really the hill you want to die on? From what I read, Kopyto made a career out of tilting at windmills - and look where it got him. This is a guy who was never willing to back down or admit he was wrong. Sure, it helped him win a lot of cases, but he alienated his entire profession because he couldn't admit when he'd been wrong. If he's telling you that …
/r/MensRights04/09/18 10:29 PM
2

Let's be careful with what the judge said. Judge didn't say Ms. Tieman violated her contract not to engage in any form of harassment. Judge said that Expo didn't breach its contract, on a balance of probabilities, for expelling Ms. Tieman. As always, its important to be careful and remember that in law, a double negative =/= a positive. Of course, Ms. Tieman is exaggerating about the right to advocate for Men's Rights publicly. Freedom of speech means freedom from government censorship. It does …
/r/MensRights04/09/18 10:19 PM
2

Well, hopefully they did get real legal representative for the appeal - even if they haven't funded it yet. One thing that really stands out to me are how many misunderstandings of the judge's decision they have. The worst is probably the discussion regarding the "audio tape". The judge apparently agreed to "take it under advisement" that Tieman's conduct in the recordings was not inconsistent with the other attendees, unless the defendant's disputed that version of events. They then claim the j…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 07:33 PM
1

Once again, you obviously don't like us/me. So why interrupt us when we're making a mistake that will destroy us? For the same reason people say to bury lawyers 6 feet underground - because deep down, we're nice guys.
/r/MensRights04/09/18 07:15 PM
1

You will find that most contracts don't have such generous expulsion language. Your positions vis a vis gender in gaming won't have any impact outside of gaming communities. And be honest, you guys attended that seminar with the purpose of challenging its very premise. You knew your attendance would cause controversy - that's why you recorded it. You're not going to be "unpersoned" in every single financial interaction, because you don't deliberately cause controversy everywhere you go. So who's…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 04:57 PM
2

You should post a copy of the filed appeal, which (presumably) lists the 15 errors made by the trial judge. Also, who is representing you on appeal? Kapyto isn't a lawyer and can't represent you at the Court of Queen's Bench - and if he even helped you prepare an appeal, he's probably in breach of the Legal Profession Act. And to answer your question about whether you can be discriminated against for being associated with gamergate: There is no prohibition against discrimination for speech or as…
/r/MensRights04/09/18 04:19 PM
2

I was speaking about the expo seminar - not gamergate.
/r/MensRights31/08/18 05:11 PM
0

Again, you are misunderstanding what the judge is saying. If you had got the Defendant to admit that the complaints were solely about the events in the recording, then you could rely on the recording as a complete accounting of the events in question. What the judge is saying is that the recording doesn't show any particularly bad behaviour, but the recording doesn't prove that nothing bad happened because we don't get to see the before/after of the recording.
/r/MensRights31/08/18 05:10 PM
0

You also omit the portion of the decision where the judge essentially says, "I can't put any real weight on the portions of the recording of the panel discussion we heard, because we didn't hear the full thing." Alison asked to play the whole thing at trial, for the purpose of providing the full context of the discussion and her participation in it. Both the judge and the defence said they would take her word for it. So basically, in his decision the judge overruled his own prior ruling. You par…
/r/MensRights30/08/18 10:33 PM
-1

To me, this is where the ultimate answer to this entire dispute lies. The expo wants to host an event where everyone walks away happy and comes back next year eager to pay again. They don't want controversy or animus. HBB attended the event with a chip on their shoulder. They boasted about "infiltrating" the event (sarcastically), suggesting that they knew they would be unwelcome by other attendees. They attended the seminar with the intention to attack the very premise of the seminar. They reco…
/r/MensRights30/08/18 10:13 PM
0

No. He said that the Expo was subject to its contractual obligations, and there was insufficient evidence that it did not do so, notwithstanding that its investigation was "not thorough" or that it disregarded the procedures laid out as obligating it in its contract. So basically, the judge said that the Expo had obligations re its contract, ignored those obligations, but did not violate its contract. That is, the judge erred in law. The judge repeatedly uses, regarding the Expo's actions, the p…
/r/MensRights30/08/18 10:01 PM
1

tagging /u/girlwriteswhat I'm a little late to the discussion. I've read the decision. Here's my comments. The discussion about HBB vs. Tieman is a purely administrative matter. Judge is just clarifying exactly who the plaintiff is. It doesn't have any impact on the reasons for the decision. It is very bizarre to see that plaintiff's agent argued "unequal bargaining power". The judge correctly dismissed it out of hand. Judge correctly says that the contract required that applicants abide by the …
/r/MensRights30/08/18 09:48 PM
-7

For the sake of balance: SCUM Manifesto is a radical feminist manifesto by Valerie Solanas, published in 1967.[1][2] It argues that men have ruined the world, and that it is up to women to fix it. To achieve this goal, it suggests the formation of SCUM, an organization dedicated to overthrowing society and eliminating the male sex. The Manifesto is widely regarded as satirical, but based on legitimate philosophical and social concerns. Wikipedia
/r/MensRights30/07/18 10:04 PM
-1

That's why I said "not so clear". There's a lot of evidence with wildly different numbers. The important thing is that all of those studies show the incidence of Female on Male violence is much higher than popularly believed. That needs to change.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 05:51 PM
0

No, you are arguing that your mother's sense of victimization caused her to behave this way, and that her sense of victimization is a result of feminism. I have no reason to believer either of those premises.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 05:47 PM
0

That argument is 100% conjecture. You don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 05:40 PM
-3

But that's a strawman argument. No one argues that women don't commit crimes or engage in violence (domestic or otherwise). Some people believe that women commit violent crimes at lower rates than men (which is true). Some people believe that women commit domestic violence as lower rates than men (not so clear). But you can't hold up one instance of a woman murdering her husband as evidence about rates of domestic violence. A single instance would only disprove the argument that women don't enga…
/r/MensRights30/07/18 05:37 PM
0

You are going to need to explain to me how your mom (a woman) complaining about consequences of punching her mom (a woman) has anything to do with feminism.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 05:35 PM
-4

Hill is currently in Jefferson County's detention center on felony probable cause for capital murder in the shooting death of her husband without bond, and will stay there until her court date next week. I don't see a men's rights issue here.
/r/MensRights30/07/18 05:25 PM
1

I can't speak for Scotland, but in Canada spousal support typically lasts for 1/2 the length of the marriage, and lifetime is only available if the marriage lasts over 20 years.
/r/MensRights18/07/18 08:46 PM
17

http://www.timminspress.com/2017/11/01/18-months-for-infants-death Canada: Dad gets 18 months for letting a baby starve to death. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sabrina-ray-carla-bousman-teenager-starved-to-death-sentenced-20-years-perry-iowa-a8295116.html UK: Grandmother gets 20 years for starving teenager to death. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/02/24/parents-found-guilty-of-first-degree-murder-in-death-of-diabetic-starved-son.html Canada: 15-year old allowed to st…
/r/MensRights10/07/18 09:07 PM
-4

To anyone else who thinks this is a clever idea, this is most definitely insurance fraud. It makes a good political point, but that will be small consolation if the Insurance Company refuse to payout a claim because OP breached his duty of utmost good faith.
/r/MensRights30/04/18 03:06 PM
15

Well, you're wrong. She got a minimum of 18 years
/r/MensRights27/03/18 03:36 PM
1

We do not want to go back to the time before no fault divorce. Solve the issue of stable families with something new. Not something old that we know had serious problems.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 01:59 AM
2

Ok, you're right. I was being a mite ironic in that comment. Your is more correct... and much more wholesome :)
/r/MensRights16/02/18 01:57 AM
2

....and we're done.
/r/MensRights16/02/18 01:06 AM
1

Before no fault divorce, you needed to prove cruelty or adultery. That meant that you had to hire private investigators to catch them cheating, or extensively document extreme violence. It was a massive waste of court resources, and often precluded poor people from divorcing even when it was necessary. Worse, is that people would FIGHT divorces even when they wanted to get divorced, because no one wanted to admit that they were cheating or beating their wives. No fault was a good thing. Sure, it…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 11:17 PM
0

92% is statistically significant. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest that men aren't overwhelmingly the perpetrators of mass shootings are men. Don't be pedantic. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476445/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-gender/
/r/MensRights15/02/18 10:03 PM
-1

I would have liked a more comprehensive analysis, but there's enough evidence in those articles to support the argument. I accept - mass shootings are disproportionately perpetrated by men from broken homes. As an aside, I 100% disagree with this paragraph from the federalist. No-fault divorce is not the only factor pushing fathers out of the household. If no-fault divorce gave fathers a way out of their kids’ lives, redefining marriage from its traditional definition of one man and one woman ha…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 10:02 PM
1

Do you have stats on what proportion of mass shooters were raised by single mothers? I haven't seen any.
/r/MensRights15/02/18 09:47 PM
1

Simply solution: give parental leave that can only be used by the other spouse. Sweden and Germany have both done versions of this. In Sweden, if the second spouse uses a month of parental leave, the couple gain an extra month to use - it's a round about way of saying "you can have an extra month of leave, but only the father gets to use it". The best part? One of the most powerful arguments in favour of splitting parental leave more equally is that it has positive ripple effects for women. Afte…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 09:29 PM
0

I do agree with what he's saying. It is undeniable that the only constant variables in mass shootings are (1) the gun, and (2) the shooter is a man. That being said, I'm not sure you can necessarily make the argument that because "all shooters are men" therefore "all men have a problem". It's a logical fallacy. I do, however, agree that men are missing the language to address the problems they face a gender. Feminism succeeded in giving language to women's issues, and Men are struggling to do th…
/r/MensRights15/02/18 08:59 PM
1

Trump once boasted that this tax cuts were "not good for me" and that a lot of his Billionaire friends were not happy about it. The guy is an irrepressible liar.
/r/MensRights15/02/18 08:49 PM
-1

I'm pretty sure that #MeToo is not exclusively about rape. It's the full spectrum running from unwanted touching and sexual harassment to rape. But you're litigating a completely different issue. The fact that this woman supports #MeToo and is engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct has no bearing on the movement as a whole.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 09:51 PM
9

Yup, that kind of denial is entirely consistent with non-denial denials from people like Roy Moore. Of course, this doesn't mean the entire #MeToo movement is tainted. It just means that this person is a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights09/02/18 04:57 PM
0

This. He was "being asked a question" from a crazy religious lady who couldn't get around to asking a question because she was too busy explaining why her religious order is so good. He said "peoplekind" to dismiss her and move on to the next question. He was being facetious and dismissive, not actually arguing that we should use that word.
/r/MensRights08/02/18 09:17 PM
2

Enlighten me. I don't live in Scotland.
/r/MensRights02/02/18 03:26 PM
0

Yeah, Judges read and interpret laws, and do a better job of it than most internet commentators. "A Partner" is gender neutral language. A Judge is smart enough to recognize that.
/r/MensRights02/02/18 03:23 PM
1

Why is it laughable to assume that a law will be applied as it is written? Most criminal charges are the result of a report to police. If men report this kind of abuse to the police, and the facts justify the charge, why wouldn't they charge?
/r/MensRights02/02/18 03:22 PM
2

There is a difference between the justification of a law, and the effect of a law. Posted in 3 seperate comments in this thread (including me), is a list of completely gender neutral applications of this law, using the term "a partner".
/r/MensRights02/02/18 03:20 PM
-2

The difference between my comment is yours, is mine is based on evidence. Yours is entirely based on conjecture.
/r/MensRights02/02/18 05:55 AM
0

I did read the entire article, and the language was quite clearly and explicitly gender neutral. I quote: The new legislation says abusive behaviour is: Behaviour that is violent, threatening or intimidating Behaviour whose purpose is one of the following: making a partner dependent or subordinate isolating a partner from friends, relatives or other sources of support controlling, regulating or monitoring a partner's day-to-day activities depriving a partner of, or restricting, freedom of action…
/r/MensRights02/02/18 02:02 AM
2

Appalling? Seriously? This legislation would be gender neutral, making psychological abuse a criminal offense. It has been long established on this subreddit that women engage in higher rates of psychological abuse than men - and that one of the problems with domestic violence laws is that they only take into account physical violence (the type primarily perpetrated by men). This legislation is actually a good thing.
/r/MensRights01/02/18 11:19 PM
2

Right, but I am skeptical that those situations are as common as you suggest. If you can produce any evidence to support your position, I will certainly change my position.
/r/MensRights01/02/18 10:42 PM
1

Well, thankfully we have google to help us resolve this difference of opinion. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states In the US in 2011, 55% of pregnancies were intended. 42% of unintended pregnancies were aborted. So it looks like a slim majority of pregnancies are planned, but almost half of unintended pregnancies don't result in a birth. Unfortunately the stats only look at intention from the woman's perspective, and does not look at the man's intention.
/r/MensRights01/02/18 04:15 PM
0

OP's Title: Its now illegal to pay women more than men in Iceland, but not the other way around. Equality, right boys? The Article OP Posted: Dagny Osk Aradottir Pind, of the Icelandic Women's Rights Association, told Al Jazeera: "The legislation is basically a mechanism that companies and organisations ... evaluate every job that's being done, and then they get a certification after they confirm the process if they are paying men and women equally." How about that. It sounds like the language i…
/r/MensRights31/01/18 09:54 PM
0

You're not an MRA, yet you use the pronoun "we". And you write an entire post about me without naming me, yet incorrectly assume I am an MRA. You've really got to get a better grip on your labels. Labels aside, I don't think need to "do anything" with me. Instead of trying to "fix" my beliefs, why not instead engage with me on an issue by issue basis? People are comprised of a complex intersection of ideas and beliefs. Trying to label and fix people is a pointless exercise. Talk about ideas. Not…
/r/MensRights31/01/18 09:47 PM
3

As I have had to say to 2 other people, my comment has nothing to do with their respective philosophies. I am talking about their style. Elam has always engaged in inflammatory tactics to draw attention to his issues. He gets peoples' attention, but in the process he alienates a lot of potential supporters. The result? MRAs are pariahs because moderates who are sympathetic to the movement have long ago been turned off by the rhetoric. Peterson is the opposite. He lets the ideas speak for themsel…
/r/MensRights31/01/18 09:39 PM
7

If you want a good model for someone who can promote controversial ideas. Like Peterson, I chose my words "very, very, very, carefully". I am not saying his ethos is what you should look to. I am saying his method of delivery is. Elam's article is about "style". My comment was also about "style".
/r/MensRights31/01/18 09:34 PM
1

I don't think I'd be off based to suggest that most men who have children do so because they want to. Of course there are some men who end up with unplanned children they didn't want, but I'm confident that most children born in the developed world are planned and/or wanted.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 09:32 PM
0

fuck you Yeah, that is exactly what I am talking about. Like Elam, you are being a poor ambassador for your beliefs.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 06:50 PM
-4

If you want a good model for someone who can promote controversial ideas, look to Jordan Peterson. I never suggested he was an MRA. I suggested that he has a better model for talking about issues that run counter to popular opinion. Paul Elam is indistinguishable from an /incel poster. If you want to know why so many people hate MRAs, it's because of people like that. Sure Peterson gets a ton of pushback, but I have never seen a news cycle of articles in mainstream publications coming out saying…
/r/MensRights31/01/18 06:23 PM
3

I believe that. That is the kind of issue MRAs should be complaining about, not nonsense like what OP is asking. Divorced Husbands should not be expected/required to maintain maximum earning potential indefinitely. Imputing income should be used to stop payors from being deliberately and substantially underemployed, not to mandate maximum earning potential at all costs.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 06:16 PM
2

You can ask a court to let you slow down. Courts will "impute" a higher income if you are earning less than your potential, but they are perfectly willing to lower child support if you lower your earnings for good reasons.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 06:01 PM
2

That's an absurdly high amount of child support. Again, I can only speak from a Canadian perspective, but that kind of award would require that there are lots of kids, the kids have special needs (disabilities or expensive hobbies), and/or his earnings are very high.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 05:55 PM
4

Almost all of them Name one. And then show me the politicians who campaigned on that law, and how women elected them for it.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 04:37 PM
-8

And I don't care what Paul Elam thinks about what I think about his style. I think Paul Elam is toxic, and has harmed his cause far more than he has helped it. If you want a good model for someone who can promote controversial ideas, look to Jordan Peterson.
/r/MensRights31/01/18 04:32 PM
2

What laws did "women dictate"?
/r/MensRights31/01/18 04:31 PM
4

Hi. I am a lawyer in Canada, so I can only speak to Canadian Law. If one partner brings all or most of the money to the table, the other partner can walk away with half. They can divorce for any reason. This includes cheating on you and then leaving you when you are willing to work things out. Not true. If one partner comes into the marriage with property/money, that property is not divided 50/50. It is typically treated as exempt property. You only lose the exemption is you intermix that proper…
/r/MensRights31/01/18 04:30 PM
10

He should ask that question to a lawyer. Assuming his wife gets the kids full time, his child support for 4 kids and $140K/year would be about $3,000 per month if he lives in Canada plus he would have to pay 100% of unusual expenses like braces, or special sports programs. Alimony is a tougher question, and very fact specific. It depends on what kind of work she did before she stopped working, and what her earning potential is. Assuming he's Canadian, his worst case scenario would be about 50% o…
/r/MensRights29/01/18 10:38 PM
2

27 years in prison? That's "life". Hardly a pussy pass.
/r/MensRights29/01/18 09:56 PM
2

Thank you for setting the record straight. You beat me to it!
/r/MensRights29/01/18 09:55 PM
423

I want my wife to be required to maintain a sexual relationship with me for our entire marriage and if she fails to do so by abstaining from sex without mutual consent for a period of greater than six months than she doesn't get any alimony or child-support from the divorce. Hi, I'm a lawyer. That wouldn't be even remotely enforceable, and an argument could be made that by signing that contract you could be charged with soliciting prostitution. Also, you need to seriously evaluate what a relatio…
/r/MensRights24/01/18 06:27 PM
2

And I'm sure you would be pretty ticked if Jordan Peterson had a speaking engagement cancelled. These sorts of things cut both ways.
/r/MensRights24/01/18 06:19 PM
1

Yep, it's as simple as that. A strawman argument is where you do not argue the other person's point, rather you construct a "strawman" and argue against that instead. "So you're saying" is an attempt to re-frame what was said, in order to argue against a different position than what was actually argued.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 06:52 PM
4

I like it when Bill goes on this type of rant. He's a progressive, but he's not afraid to call out the excesses of progressives. I especially like this because he's insisting people be more nuanced. The loss of sophistication and nuance in modern (internet/social media) political discourse is a serious problem. Politicians can't make good policies because reasonable and moderate positions will always been open to attack from extreme and simplistic views. There's a serious problem in Hollywood wh…
/r/MensRights23/01/18 06:38 PM
2

Your beliefs about gender relations should have no bearing on your beliefs about economic policy, tax policy, foreign policy (etc). Don't put yourself in a box. Don't join a team. Believe what you believe!
/r/MensRights23/01/18 05:52 PM
7

Pay attention MRAs. Peterson is calm, reasonable, and careful with his language. He's not a "concern troll". He's an effective speaker. Now his ideas are getting a ton of recognition, and people are taking him seriously. I have been advocating this approach for years, and have been constantly dismissed as a "concern troll" and "women will never listen. That's nonsense. A calm, level headed person, who is respectful to the people he's interacting with, will always be more persuasive than someone …
/r/MensRights23/01/18 05:02 PM
2

Oxford gives all students more time on exams to help struggling female students?
/r/MensRights23/01/18 12:54 AM
-12

So?
/r/MensRights23/01/18 12:53 AM
9

Oxford University gives all students, male and female, an extra 15 minutes to write exams. Both genders got the same treatment.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 11:46 PM
3

Yeah! A woman was rude to you! Physically assault her! She had it coming! Men's rights!
/r/MensRights22/01/18 11:43 PM
1

Well, I was referring more to wars AFTER WWI, when civilian casualties took off. Also, keep in mind that soldiers spend very little time "in the trenches". Most Soldiers never even made it to the front lines, and most military personal weren't soldiers. Many more were cooks, drivers, administrators, and other logistical personnel. The US Military casualty rate in WWII was about 2.5%. I don't mean to trivialize the horrors and danger of serving during a war. But it's easy to forget that civilians…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 11:35 PM
-2

And if the child doesn't live in the house, the money stops flowing. Because child support is for the child. If the child moves away and goes to school, child support is paid to... (wait for it)... the child! And if a child has turned 18, and moved out, and there are child support arrears owning - then yes, it gets paid to the parent (as a debt, because the other parent was carrying all the costs). Child support is for the child. That's what the law says.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 11:19 PM
1

I literally just used it in a non-pejorative way in my post - which by definition disproves your assertion that it is "always" used as a pejorative. So I am not lying. You're just being belligerent for its own sake.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 11:13 PM
0

Yes, a lot of feminism words were invented to shock and garner attention. Now that a lot of progress has been made towards legal equality, words like "Toxic Masculinity" and "Rape Culture" and "Patriarchy" can put people's hackles up unneccessarily.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 11:10 PM
2

Don't bring up Toxic Masculinity in this sub, because any discussion will be colored by how you define the term (and no one will bother defining it). When a MRA sees Toxic Masculinity, they believe that it means that Masculinity itself it toxic. If you ask a tumblr feminist, you will likely get the same answer. My understanding of the term is that it refers to elements of masculinity which are toxic to both men, women, and society as a whole - primarily: Dominance Excessive Self-Reliance Emotion…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 10:55 PM
-9

I dunno, maybe you're right. But what does this photograph have to do with anything? Apparently protesters were told to do exactly this by the municipality. The protesters did exactly as they were directed, and we're supposed to be mad that paid employees are going to clean up as planned?
/r/MensRights22/01/18 10:48 PM
-4

Well, I did make a point of saying I didn't know it was a first offense - hence the "assuming this was a first offense". And frankly, I appear to be the only person in this thread who bothered to read any of the article. Everyone else seems to have read the title and concluded that she got off because of "mens hormones".
/r/MensRights22/01/18 10:47 PM
3

Child support is for the child, not for the parent. If you don't want to take responsibility for a child, don't have a child. Men AND Women should be paying to support their children.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 10:15 PM
3

It would be much easier to defend or explain the logic if I had more than just the abstract :) What I have seen in the past on this subject is that civilian casualty rates have grown tremendously in the past 100 years. WWI civilians represented a strong minority of casualties (<20%), but in WWII civilians represented a majority of casualties (>50%). Women are the majority of civilians, because so many men are enlisted. While soldiers definitely suffer combat deaths, they are well fed, protected,…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 10:12 PM
-3

Where the complainant wants to reconcile? In Canada, it happens everyday. This woman got 12 months probation. Assuming this was a first offense, this is not a particularly light sentence. Courts in Canada and the UK are more motivated by rehabilitation than punishment. They rarely put people in jail unless the crime is extremely serious, it is a repeat offender, or the offender shows no remorse/attempts to rehabilitate. In this case the complainant wants the charges dropped. The accused showed r…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 09:54 PM
1

A recent addition in Canada is adding "2S" to the end to represent "two spirited" (a First Nations form of gender where a person is simultaneous two seperately gendered personalities). I don't have any issues at least being respectful to this seemingly endless number of discrete sub-gender identities. But the acronym can only take so many additional letters! A line ought to be drawn after the "T" or the "Q", or perhaps reverted to an all encompassing "Queer".
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:29 PM
1

Garbage title. If you read the article, there is no mention of "male hormones" in the decision. Just because someone argues something, doesn't mean the court accepted that argument: Budgen was ordered to complete a 12 month community order and pay £170 in costs. District judge Samuel Goozee, told her: "You have clearly had some trauma in your own upbringing and have been exposed to abuse, but you need to understand what you did to Hayley. "Although your children didn't see anything, if this cont…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:25 PM
-14

And they are going to be unionized, paid for their work, and get pensions and health benefits. Are we going to get equally upset after a banquet when women clear the plates off the tables? How is this a men's issue?
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:07 PM
1

Are you saying that using incorrect pronouns is as bad as using a well-known racial slur? No. I am saying that there is already a precedent for "government controlled speech" in the context of discrimination law. Discrimination laws would not require that you use the correct personal pronoun, but they arguably could prevent you from deliberately using the wrong one. Also, what would the real process for someone using this law to enforce the correct pronouns? I alluded to the process in my previo…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 08:03 PM
0

I am opposed to his position simply for the amount of mental gymnastics you have to engage in to make the argument you just made. The change the government made was adding gender identity to the list of "protected classes" in anti-discrimination laws. So while before it was illegal to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation - it was not illegal to discriminate based on gender identity. Peterson opposed this change based on this series of assumptions A trans person will…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:46 PM
-2

Please explain to me how the fact that male construction workers built a building has anything to do with women wanting to draw attention to issues about sexual assault and not liking the US President?
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:12 PM
-1

It's important that we shed light on gross abuses of positions of power to assault women without consequence. It's important that women who have experienced sexual violence be heard, and that perpetrators face consequences. It's also important that people don't suffer collateral damage from that effort. One can be supportive of #metoo and also feel tremendous sympathy for Ansari. He's hands aren't perfectly clean, but lumping him in with Weinstein is an immeasurable injustice. It's like comparin…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:09 PM
6

This one of those issues where people get mixed up on whether something "is" or "ought to be". Obviously biology has a greater than 0% effect on the sexes. Obviously biology has a less than 100% effect on the sexes. Anyone who claims that biology is destiny is wrong. Anyone who claims that biology means nothing is wrong. What's worse, is very often people will take one of those two position, and then cite the incorrectness of the other as evidence for their own - i.e. "Biology isn't destiny, the…
/r/MensRights22/01/18 05:04 PM
2

I'm a bit critical of Peterson because of his positions on Trans protections in Canadian Law - but I 100% agree that he's a better representative than Milo. Peterson is extremely non-confrontational in his posture/language/rhetoric. He seeks to educate, not criticize. I've been advocating for this approach for years, and I'm glad to see someone employing this strategy and meeting with success.
/r/MensRights22/01/18 04:57 PM
2

I raised too many issues. No one will be able to follow us going back and forth on 6-part comments. Can we just talk about Mary Sue? Let's restate the test again. False Statement. Intention to Injure. Damages resulting from statement. Now because it's injurious falsehood, the onus is on you to prove a statement is false. Exactly which statements in the Mary Sue story were demonstrably false?
/r/MensRights20/01/18 05:54 AM
2

Thank you for answering that.
/r/MensRights20/01/18 04:51 AM
2

We all get sloppy from time to time. But this wasn't one end-of-the-month issue. In virtually all of the 423 accounts examined, the Solicitor's billing practice resulted in accounts being rendered to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan for services which were not performed or were not performed as described. It sounds like it was a chronic problem. The Solicitor agrees that the inaccuracy of his billing practice resulted in the billing of over 2,000 hours to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan that should not hav…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 04:50 AM
2

My understanding was the Kopyto wasn't disbarred for "stealing" legal aid money. It was for lying on his legal aid bills. Legal aid bills aren't like normal bills. They require a lawyer to certify the truth of their contents (Legal Aid doesn't check with the clients to verify the lawyer is being honest). Kopyto signed an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting to all of it. He was disbarred based entirely off of the Agreed Statement of Facts. Here's the unsuccessful appeal of his disbarment. https:/…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 03:24 AM
2

Ok, can I ask a question about the overall strategy? The damages limit of the claim is $50,000. There has been ~$50,000 in fundraising so far for costs (which I assume were spent). There are settlement discussions going on. Given the $50,000 cap on damages, the defendants will not settle for $50,000. You will need to make some concession to get settlement. So let's say you do settle (let's say $25,000 for the sake of argument). That's a substantial net loss. But what's worse is settlements typic…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 02:06 AM
2

By "losing on the law", what is meant is that Injurious Falsehood is a rarely used tort because the legal burden is higher than for defamation. Also, because this tort is rarely invoked, very very few judges have any experience with it. Ok, this is one you can answer for me. When I first heard about this case, I was highly skeptical of the injurious falsehood claim. I read the Mary Sue article, and from my recollection they made no "truth" assertions. Most of what said was "the convention says..…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 01:54 AM
1

What GWW wrote is absolutely plausible. Most sophisticated organizations are comprised of webs of corporations. The intention isn't to make things confusing to potential litigants, it's to ensure that problems with one venture don't spill into others. Typically it's easy to identify the opposing party (for lawyers anyway). This is "first year lawyer stuff". Someone out there is an agreement that the plaintiff signed to book her spot at the convention. The correct corporate name would be on the d…
/r/MensRights20/01/18 01:25 AM
2

Thank you. That was the level of detail I was missing. I'll read everything you've been posting and follow up if I have any questions!
/r/MensRights19/01/18 05:02 PM
1

That statement didn't give much in the way of information. Everything was her opinion, with nothing to corroborate it. She says "we might win on the facts, but lose on the law", but she doesn't bother explaining which facts they would "win", and which law they would "lose". Also weird is the lack of explanation of the court procedure. We were told they were going to Trial last November. Now we are told another Trial "might be required"? Either a judge gave a decision, or a judge didn't give a de…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 05:58 AM
2

No, it's probably standard practice for lots of large corporations or pseudo-governmental agencies. It absolutely makes sense that it's standard for government. It's more about who the parties are, not the type of court.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 08:59 PM
1

<-- Alberta lawyer. I rarely ever go to Civil "Small Claims" Court. Almost exclusively QB. Never had an NDA as part of a settlement.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 08:24 PM
1

So... why are we arguing about this? I said NDAs as very rare in this kind of case. Sounds like we agree about that.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 08:14 PM
2

Well, you are no doubt much more qualified to speak to the kinds of cases your wife handles than me :) The point still stands, government work is very different than small claims work. There is a lot more specialized legislation, and far greater privacy concerns. Hence my comment "very different types of parties".
/r/MensRights18/01/18 07:06 PM
2

No, a case like this is unlikely to find a pro-bono or discounted lawyer to help. It's not politically attractive, and (to be frank), it doesn't have a lot of merit either. The claim against Mother Jones is complete nonsense. The claim against the Expo has a reasonable chance of success, but I doubt damages of $50,000 could be established.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 07:04 PM
3

But it gets better! Ontario's Law Society now also regulates paralegals. Kopyto worked for over two decades as a paralegal after his disbarment. When the Law Society required paralegals have licenses, they denied him his license because he was "ungovernable". This is a very rare finding for a law society to make - and typically results from people who engage in spurious claims and deliberately frustrate the legal process to avoid losing unwinnable fights. Kopyto fought this decision for years, a…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 07:02 PM
1

It's pretty common for larger business organizations to have multiple distinct corporate entities. However, it's usually easy to discern which one you are suing. The Badgers would have signed agreements to purchase a spot at the expo. Those agreements would necessarily have contained the name of the party they were contracting with. Their dispute is over breach of contract, so the party listed on those agreements is the correct defendant. This is first year lawyer stuff - and it is not a good si…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:52 PM
1

Yep. All legal proceedings are glacially slow. The impression I get is that /u/Karissa36 is extremely skeptical that we are being given the whole story. I happen to agree. I recall hearing some very conflicting information when this trial date was scheduled, and the silence following the trial is conspicuous. How would we know the difference between "ongoing settlement discussions" and "we lost the case"? Unless someone wants to walk down to a court house and pay to get copies of the court recor…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:49 PM
-1

Well, it is not a good sign if you want to bring a civil suit in Alberta, that you can't find a single Alberta Lawyer to take your case, and instead you hire a disbarred lawyer from Ontario (who presumably isn't the greatest lawyer on account of getting disbarred, and wouldn't be licensed to practice law in Alberta even if he was still an Ontario lawyer). I'm not sure it's fair to assume someone has a "hateboner" against this guy for being skeptical. If you raising money and claiming to be bring…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:46 PM
2

This is a fair point. If you raise $50,000 for a legal fund, and then win $50,000 in a court case, you are left with $50,000 in your pocket. It's probably easier to raise $50,000 for a lawsuit than it is to raise it "Just cuz"
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:42 PM
-1

There's a pretty easy explanation for that. If your wife worked for the DOJ, she wasn't engaged in civil cases. She was involve in regulatory or criminal work. That's very different law with very different types of parties!
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:25 PM
1

/u/Karissa36 is actually right. Full NDAs are rare in small civil suits. Settlements typically come with no admission of fault, but they are rarely explicitly confidential. However, given the fact that all the parties are particularly public entities, and the Plaintiffs are an activist organization, I wouldn't be surprised that a settlement would come with an NDA.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:15 PM
1

This is actually true. I read the one of the Affidavits and the Badgers' "agent" did have to amend the claim multiple times because he kept mis-identifying the defendant. In fairness, a defendant typically just calls the other lawyer and tells them who the correct party is, and pleadings are amended by consent. However, I suspect the Defendants think this is a spurious claim and want to make things as difficult as possible.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:13 PM
6

This is where I am confused. I have read both that November was a Summary Judgment application, and that November was a "Trial". These are two different things. Summary Judgment is something you seek to avoid a Trial. If you think the other case is so overwhelmingly week, you apply to a court to decide the case immediately before the parties have had an opportunity to gather and present all the evidence. Obviously, the bar is quite high for Summary Judgment - courts will only grant it where the …
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:11 PM
4

I'm actually an Alberta lawyer, so I am intimately familiar with trial procedures. "Gag orders" don't really exist in civil law. "Without Prejudice" settlement discussion are common, but that does not preclude anyone from discussing what happened following the 3 day trial. If this was a trial, there would not be an application for Summary Dismissal. There is no point to summary judgment if you are already at trial. The whole point of summary judgment is you you don't have to go to trial. You typ…
/r/MensRights18/01/18 06:00 PM
7

I'd be interested to hear the result too. This lawsuit got a lot of attention when it was filed, but things have been quiet for a long time waiting for trial. Now it's been over a month since trial, and we're haven't heard much.
/r/MensRights18/01/18 04:42 PM
1

That's easy. The entirety of society is premised on myths, assumptions, and abstraction. Things are valued based on how we value them - not because if inherent traits. Gold, cash, and bitcoins have no inherent value, yet we ascribed value to them by social consensus. Genders are no different - the values people place on them are arbitrary and based on myths and assumptions. You could just as soon argue that men are genetically stronger than women, and strength is more valuable than non-strength,…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:47 PM
1

Yes, society definitely affords value to women because they make babies and men are more "interchangeable" for reproduction. But society is a lot more complicated than that. You can't apply biological or Darwinian principles to explain something as complex as a modern liberal democracy. If reproduction was what drove culture and policy, the US would have paid maternity leave.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:35 PM
1

Ok, looks like we're not getting past labels. It's been nice talking to you.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:23 PM
2

Yes, I do. But that doesn't mean I can make an equation out of it to "prove"... whatever it is you're trying to argue.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:22 PM
2

Still not following.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:12 PM
0

That would be nice. But I'm not so optimistic as to get my hopes up that I'll live to see it. It's so far away that even fiction can't bring itself to dabble in that arena. Cool, so lets stop obsessing over labels. My comment was criticizing the concept of male privilege and yet we are talking about whether I should or should not call myself a feminist. That kind of petty tribalism is exactly what's wrong with internet feminists, and frankly, that kind of petty tribalism is ubiquitous in MRA com…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:11 PM
1

Well then allow me contribute. You're absolutely right. The premise of the thread is flawed. Fragile Masculinity is quite literally "when a man feels pressured to act a certain way because society imposes unfair standards and expectations on him". There is no double standard. OP is literally describing the same phenomenon, but naming it differently when apply it to both genders.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 11:01 PM
3

Sorry - are we supposed to be mad or happy about this? The language used is all gender neutral. The men on the poster could just as easily be meant to say that men are victims too, as to say that men are always perpetrators.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:56 PM
10

This is complete and utter nonsense. As in literally nonsense. I cannot even follow this argument.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:54 PM
1

Oh look, an intelligent and thoughtful response. No wonder its at the bottom of this thread.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:53 PM
-1

I didn't pick the label. And in fairness when it was started it was solely about women's issues because women suffered the most obvious forms of discrimination. The name was appropriate when the movement started. Now Feminism purports to apply to issues facing both genders. In practice, a lot of feminists only care about women's issues. I accept the modern interpretation, and that's how I choose to apply the term. And I think you and I are probably of like minds in believing that Gender should n…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:47 PM
0

"Raising awareness" is a pretty ineffective form of affecting social change. There is too much "noise" in the world that no one will pay attention unless they are already into it. The best way of effecting change is to pick a political objective and organize around that. For the Civil Rights Movement it was the Voting Rights Act. For the LGBT movement it was gay marriage. One of Feminism's best was Equal Pay. Contrast that with Occupy Wall Street. "We are the 99%" is catchy, but contains no conc…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:44 PM
1

What the hell are you talking about?
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:34 PM
3

You first.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:15 PM
1

I'm not going to rule out the possibility of what you're suggesting, but again I look to Occam's razor. Is it more likely that there is an underground organization using sexual assault accusations to extort money and/or engage in paid character assassination? Or is it more likely that some famous people try to leverage their fame and power to get sex, and sometimes engage in predatory behavior?
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:13 PM
1

I gave Al Franken the benefit of the doubt for quite a while, but the accusers kept coming forward with similar stories, and after 4 or 5 I decided to believe them. Similarly, I am giving Aziz Ansari the benefit of the doubt. But, if 5 or 6 more women came forward with similar stories of fingers getting put into their mouths, and verbal cues being ignored, then I may change my position.
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:10 PM
2

This is what's insidious about "male privilege". It lessens the weight of a person's idea and opinions simply by virtue of a trait they were born with, and cannot change. It ignores education, it ignores thoughtfulness, and it ignores life experience. To me, Feminism is about ensuring that everybody is treated fairly and with dignity irrespective of their race. Since we're in proximity to MLK day, I believe people should not be judged by the content of their pants, but by the content of their ch…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:07 PM
1

I don't have an issue with that NYTimes Commerical. If a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct, I am going to take that accusation with a grain of salt. I will look at her story, his response, and come to my own conclusion about who is more credible. But when I read about multiple accusations from a diverse array of women, all with similar sounding stories (i.e. Weinstein, Cosby), I tend to believe them. I apply Occam's razor - is it more likely 59 women conspired to accuse Bill Cosby of sexu…
/r/MensRights17/01/18 10:04 PM
1

Hence the "borderline" rape. Persisting with having sex with someone when they repeatedly tell you to stop is generally viewed as sexual assault. In this case, she admits that while she told him "no", she acquiesced to a certain extent.
/r/MensRights16/01/18 06:47 PM
1

From the decision: Ultimately, C.D. initiated sexual contact. He asked Ms. George if it “would be weird” if he kissed her. Almost simultaneously, C.D. leaned forward to kiss Ms. George. She backed away, but C.D. again moved towards her, and she let him complete a brief kiss. C.D. then “immediately” moved on top of Ms. George, removed the blankets which were covering her body, lowered his pants, and moved her underwear to the side. She asked him what he was doing. She also asked him to stop sever…
/r/MensRights16/01/18 04:29 PM
-3

I am not giving you my opinion. I am giving you the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. Decision Ultimately, C.D. initiated sexual contact. He asked Ms. George if it “would be weird” if he kissed her. Almost simultaneously, C.D. leaned forward to kiss Ms. George. She backed away, but C.D. again moved towards her, and she let him complete a brief kiss. C.D. then “immediately” moved on top of Ms. George, removed the blankets which were covering her body, lowered his pants, and moved her underw…
/r/MensRights16/01/18 06:56 AM
0

I think the court absolutely got it right. What needs to change is that men need to be given similar treatment in similar situations. Oh, look, you didn't even read the third paragraph.
/r/MensRights15/01/18 09:07 PM
-6

People make too much of that case. The law requires that people take reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the person before engaging in sexual activity. In the circumstances of that case, the boy was part of her son's circle of friends who were all 16-17. Most importantly, the boy initiated the sexual encounter. The court took this information and determined that it was reasonable to believe the boy was 16 or older. Frankly, if you read the facts presented in the decision, the boy borderline…
/r/MensRights15/01/18 08:33 PM
1

There are like, 4 charts in the entire article, and you couldn't spot it? Here's the chart in question: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/pi_2014-10-22__online-harassment-02/
/r/MensRights11/01/18 05:14 PM
0

I just want to point out that you are providing a lower intensity example for males and an extreme example for females, almost as if this is the common case. We don't know what the rates are without an unbiased study, and I would hazard a guess that an unbiased and comprehensive study has never been done. Except the study OP linked looked into this exact question, and found that women disproportionately experienced stalking and sexual harassment when they were harassed online. More importantly, …
/r/MensRights11/01/18 03:19 PM
1

I read the report. I pointed out that the infographic doesn't contain any evidence of the claim being made. I also accepted the premise that men are harassed more often than women (because the report said so). You, on the other hand, completely ignored everything I wrote.
/r/MensRights11/01/18 06:38 AM
-1

Two things: First, that infographic does not represent the claim being made. The chart shows a distribution of how seriously men vs. women take online harassment. It's based on percentages, not raw numbers. The only claim you can make based on that graph is that women are more upset by online harassment than men. Second, while I accept the premise that men do experience a similar or greater amount of harassment than women online, your argument requires that we assume all harassment is equal. The…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 11:54 PM
-43

In criminal law, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the appropriate standard. But when it comes to accusation of misconduct (sexual or otherwise), I think the civil standard of "a preponderance of evidence" or "one a balance of probabilities" is appropriate. Bill Cosby is guilty. I know he is. Maybe he won't be going to jail for his crimes, but I have no reservations about condemning him in the public arena. What I am saying is that "innocent until proven guilty" is not an appropriate response t…
/r/MensRights10/01/18 11:43 PM
1

I never suggested that you "didn't spend a year fighting a false rape claim", but if you had been paying attention you would have noticed that you were probably charged under section 271 of the Criminal Code: Sexual assault 271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years or, if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punis…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 07:09 PM
4

This 100%. I can entertain an argument that people should be allowed to exchange sex for some other benefit, but that can only exist in circumstances where both parties are being clear about their intentions, and are free to accept or decline the proposal without consequences. Harvey Weinstein's behaviour doesn't even come close to that standard. he was manipulative, deceitful, and aggressive in his pursuits, and abused his position of power. These women didn't "consent" because they were willin…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:56 PM
1

The law doesn't require you to do "everything" to determine a partner's age. It only requires you to take "reasonable steps". In this case the judge felt that in the circumstances she did take reasonable steps. The biggest factor, I think, was the boy was a part of her son's circle of friends comprised of 16 and 17 year olds. He was an outlier at 14. Further, he looked and acted older, and he initiated the sexual encounter, which the court held was further evidence of his apparent maturity. This…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:45 PM
2

Glad to see someone get into the actual facts of this case. I came here to try to set the record straight, but it's nice to see someone beat me to it. The reason this woman as found not-guilty was because the judge held that the woman had taken sufficient reasonable steps to ascertain the boy's age. He was part of her son's circle of friends who were all 16+, and he was the only outlier at 14. He looked and behaved mature, and a reasonable person would have assumed he was over. What the judge do…
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:41 PM
2

Canada does not have a "rape" law. We have "sexual assault" which includes everything from groping to rape. There is no gendered distinction in how the law is worded. And there is no "made to penetrate" law in Canada.
/r/MensRights08/01/18 06:34 PM
4

Come on! Right to Work was one of pillars of first wave feminism. Labour force participation rates of women have more than doubled in the past 100 years. But that is NOT the point. You ignored the 2nd paragraph, which is the key point in this argument. OP wants us to believe that only manly jobs matter, and that whiny women and feminists contributing nothing to the world. Stop changing the subject.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:57 PM
1

Self-defense is not a blanket authorization to hit people back because it feels good. Self-defense allows people to use force to prevent or stop an attack. It does not exist for retributive purposes. The subtleties of the rule vary from country to country, so I will give you a "law.com" link because it's only 1 paragraph. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse …
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:52 PM
2

It says "a complete and signed court order". It also says it needs to "accurately reflect the living arrangement for the child". The CRA needs several items from that list. You'll note I addressed that in my first paragraph: This is why the CRA doesn't necessarily take them as conclusive proof. You just need to provide them with additional stuff in addition to the court order. Just send them a copy of the report card or school registration, and you'll get your Child Benefits. That's how the syst…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:47 PM
-2

Would you then also state that there are problematic elements of femininity? And how much would you say the feminist movement perpetuate it through its adherents? Absolutely there are plenty of problems with femininity. Passivity, a lack of assertiveness and self-empowerment are big ones. I've never liked the term "Toxic Masculinity". I also don't like the term "Patriarchy" for that matter. You mention "self-reliance" being positive. Of course it is positive! But the issue with Toxic Masculinity…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:44 PM
0

You're putting me in a bit of bind, because you're asking me to come up with terms that don't contain gendered language - but feminism is a field of study that concerns itself almost exclusively with gender. That being said, there's tons of terms which don't really contain any disparaging language directed at a gender. "Intersectional Feminism" comes to mind. "Feminine Empowerment" is pretty neutral. "Victim blaming" doesn't mention genders either.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:40 PM
1

One of feminism's greatest flaws is belief in the Patriarchy. The thing they are trying to describe exists, but it's so much broader than just a system which uplifts men at women's expense. So I agree with you there. Women definitely have lots of gendered shitty behavior too. Someone should do some research on it and give it a name! Recognizing mutual IPV is definitely something that needs more exposure. "Violence" about so much more than physically harming people - and the harmful things men do…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:37 PM
-1

Men are committing suicide because of feminism. Just... wow.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:31 PM
-4

Depends which feminism we're talking about. Most people will say feminism started in late 19th, early 20th century. Getting women out of the home and into the workforce was a huge part of first wave feminism. Female workforce participation rates have more than doubled in the past hundred years (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/1b/1d/331b1d24f0c639ff088b8920b2c9e7e0.jpg) So no, they weren't doing all that before feminism. But that distracts from the central point. OP says that Masculinity gave u…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:05 PM
0

Yep, I agree. It's a bad marketing term. In feminism defense, it's hard to fix a problem without defining/naming it. There is a problem with elements of masculinity. Those elements need a name, but Toxic Masculinity is not a great way to get men on your side.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 11:00 PM
-2

Dominance is very different from striving and excelling. It involves elevating oneself at direct cost to another. No one is suggesting that striving and excellence are bad - but are we seriously arguing that running people over during that process is admirable? Extreme self-reliance means refusing to rely on anyone other than yourself. Self-reliance is healthy. Excessive self-reliance is not. Similarly having control over your emotions is healthy. Repressing them to your detriment is not. Do you…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 10:59 PM
0

There's truth to what you say, but I think we can all agree that there is a definable concept of "masculinity", and that many men identify with that concept. I think we can also agree that masculinity as it is commonly understood includes, inter alia, self-reliance and suppression of emotion - and that men tend to exhibit those characteristics at MUCH higher rates than women (it's no wonder men commit suicide more, right?) I also don't disagree that there are toxic elements of femininity. Heck, …
/r/MensRights14/11/17 10:51 PM
0

By that logic, if I punch someone who dies when their head hits the concrete, it's an equal crime to shoving someone during a disagreement. The law does not agree with you on this one.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 10:48 PM
-6

Women used to be homemakers, now they are in the workforce in jobs like the ones I listed. The GDP and standard of living benefits have been extraordinary, though there are some undeniable social downsides to losing dedicated homemakers. But you're suggesting that men are contributors because they work manly jobs, and modern "feminist" women aren't. That's simply inaccurate.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 10:47 PM
0

Yeah, I agree. It's pretty lousy marketing.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 10:40 PM
3

Just to fill you in on the context, OP, people voluntarily break with Family Law Court Orders all the time. Especially low income people. This is why the CRA doesn't necessarily take them as conclusive proof. You just need to provide them with additional stuff in addition to the court order. Here is the list of stuff they accept - most of which are pretty easy to obtain: a letter from the nursery or school authorities stating the contact information on file for the child, if applicable a letter …
/r/MensRights14/11/17 10:39 PM
0

They engaged in markedly different acts. She slapped him - which is assault, no question. What he did was not assault. He punched her unconscious - that is "assault occaisioning actual bodily harm". Those are different criminal acts. The law is capable of differentiating between assaults based on their severity. A slap is a markedly different act than punching someone unconscious. I think we can all agree that punching someone unconscious is an assault that the justice system should pursue. I th…
/r/MensRights14/11/17 10:04 PM
-1

It seems to me he had a valid defence. Oh, do enlighten me as to his valid legal defense!
/r/MensRights14/11/17 09:55 PM
3

You have no counter-example to make this claim. Conspiracy to commit murder carries a lesser sentence than the person who pulls the trigger. If you think a gender reversed scenario would result in different sentencing, then please provide your evidence. Otherwise, acknowledge that your position is based entirely on your feelings, and not on reason.
/r/MensRights14/11/17 09:52 PM
-6

The term "toxic masculinity" does not refer to masculinity as a whole being toxic. Rather, it refers to elements of masculinity that correspond with problematic behaviors I hate to use wikipedia, but in this case it's appropriate: Such "toxic" masculine norms include dominance, devaluation of women, extreme self-reliance, and the suppression of emotions. This sub is consistently critical of masculinity requiring suppression of emotions and extreme self reliance. MRAs agree with those two points …
/r/MensRights14/11/17 09:50 PM
-17

Doctors, teachers, administrators, lawyers, legal assistants, accountants, social workers... nothing good!
/r/MensRights14/11/17 09:44 PM
2

Post this to a feminist sub, and I suspect most of them will be unimpressed by it.
/r/MensRights27/07/17 03:37 PM
1

Can we all take notice of the fact that other than Sweden, the disparities are much higher in the more conservative eastern european countries, and much lower in the west?
/r/MensRights20/07/17 05:09 PM
0

Wow. What you are describing is blackmail/extortion, and quite possibly criminal. Also, if you're earning less than her, she would likely have been paying YOU support, not vice versa. Your threat didn't keep her from asking for support, THE LAW DID.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 05:01 PM
5

Just to point a few things that no one will care about because we'd rather rant about how unfair courts are to men. Spousal/Child Support don't care whose fault the breakdown of the marriage is. If you had cheated on her, it wouldn't have changed anything. The law is gender neutral on this issue. From the sounds of things, you got an interim without prejudice order - an order used as a stopgap until the court gets a chance to see ALL the evidence on the issue. If it is indeed a "without prejudic…
/r/MensRights18/07/17 04:16 PM
2

/u/xemuj is right. You are moving a lot of goalposts in this thread. The entire premise of this thread is flawed. You ask us to highlight "rights" that women don't have, implying that only legal equality matters, and not substantive equality. Do you believe that men committing suicide at higher rates is an issue? Men have the same "right" to not commit suicide as women, by your logic Men have no right to complain. Do you believe that men suffering workplace injuries at higher rates matters? Men …
/r/MensRights18/07/17 03:16 PM
-7

Thanks for trying, but I have been losing this battle for years. MRAs here whine and bray about "men commit suicide more" and "men are hurt at work more", but then refuse to acknowledge that women might also suffer equity issues along similar lines. Keep fighting the good fight!
/r/MensRights18/07/17 03:06 PM
1

You are absolutely right, but you are forgetting about the criminal standard - beyond a reasonable doubt.
/r/MensRights08/07/17 04:02 PM
2

Yup.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 11:31 PM
4

Again. Her son was 17. Her sons friends were 17. He shaved, regularly had cigarettes, and made the moves on her. The court looked at ALL of these facts, and determined that it was enough for her to be acquitted. Remember that the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't take much to get acquitted of a crime. Even if she is 70% guilty, she still gets to walk. That's how the system works. That is fair.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 11:31 PM
2

She didn't convince him to have sex with her. He initiated sex with her. She said no. Multiple times. I don't know why you're talking about alt-right life rafts. I all I know is you made up your mind on this story without an understanding of the facts. This is EXACTLY what MRAs complain about. If you refuse to look at the facts of this case, then you have no integrity, and no ground to complain gender issues.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 11:20 PM
2

I'm a feminist and I don't oppose men and boys achieving equal rights.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 11:17 PM
4

Here's another Canadian Case: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc120/2017onsc120.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAYIm1pc3Rha2VuIGJlbGllZiBpbiBhZ2UiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=7 He said that after he went to sleep he had a strange feeling, like being startled, and got up to find the complainant beside his bed. He said that she was giggling around. He asked what she was doing there. She responded that she wanted to ask for a smoke. He said that he did not have any smokes but he would share one wi…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 09:31 PM
1

Seriously, you're going to make me write this all out again?? I suppose we can conveniently ignore the fact that this poor rapist was at a party hosted and attended by high school students. Besides, any reasonable adult knows that it's extremely unlikely that a 17 year old would be have any friends under the ripe old age of 16. Her son hosted the party. Her son was 17. Most of the people at that party were likely 16-18. This was one of several pieces of evidence the court relied on in determinin…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 09:24 PM
4

What a shitpost.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:57 PM
2

They average less than a post a day, and rarely have more than 20 people online at any given time. It is a tiny subreddit with a tiny userbase. There is no hidden feminist boogey man downvoting your posts. If you don't believe me, say that you're a feminist in one of your comments and watch what happens.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:56 PM
2

They aren't mutually exclusive, they are two sides to the same coin.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:54 PM
1

You must be new here. This sub has been guilty of this since I found it over 5 years ago.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:53 PM
10

Yup. I can scrub the scum off of the bottom of internet threads to paint ANY ideology to look stupid. This is shitposting plain and simple, and the audience here eats it up. No one cares about advancing the case of men. No one wants to learn anything. They just want to complain about stuff they see on the internet.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:53 PM
1

No double standard. Read any of the many posts I have on this thread. This was a very detailed and well-reasoned decision.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:48 PM
2

Again, that isn't even remotely what they said. They said that the way the boy initiated the sexual encounter was consistent with him being older or more mature. And that was only 1 of several other indicators of his maturity. I've got a much longer post on this thread where I go over all the reasons the court cites. Read that and then tell me there's a double standard.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:46 PM
5

Here's a case where a 24 year old man was acquitted for sex with a 15 year old because she was often drinking: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2017/2017onsc120/2017onsc120.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAYIm1pc3Rha2VuIGJlbGllZiBpbiBhZ2UiAAAAAAE&resultIndex=7 Here's another: Accused was 21 and the Complainant 14. Accused was found guilty of sexual assault (there was no consent), but acquitted on sex with a minor because his belief that she was older than 16 was reasonable. https://www.canlii.org/…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:43 PM
-1

And that's only part of it. He was a friend of her sons, who was 17 years old. He also initiated the sexual encounter and she repeatedly told him to stop.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:34 PM
6

The age of consent in Canada is 16. Her son, age 17, hosted the party. The boy was one of the son's friends. He also initiated the sexual encounter, and she repeatedly told him to stop. As you say, best case scenario she knew she has having sex with a high schooler. This is one of those best case scenarios, and having sex with a high schooler isn't a crime if they are 16 or older in Canada.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:33 PM
4

Put down the pitchforks guys. Here's the SCC Decision: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/16723/1/document.do First, this took place at a party hosted by her 17-year-old son. It would be reasonable to expect the other guests to be a similar age. The sexual activity happened after Ms. George’s son — who was 17 at the time — hosted a party at their apartment. Second, he came to her bedroom on his own, and they talked for a long time about "mature" topics. However, after the party ended, …
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:32 PM
3

Not even remotely true. The Court expressly stated that it was his conduct prior to the encounter which was relevant to her mistaken belief in his age. It was not the sex itself, but the way in which he initiated the sex that mattered.
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:27 PM
4

The court actually deals with EXACTLY this issue. Here's their commentary on the issue: First of all, it goes without saying that an accused person cannot rely on the impugned sexual activity itself as a reasonable step in ascertaining the complainant’s age before the sexual activity... Here's the Trial Judge: The most compelling activity engaged in by [C.D.] suggestive of a level of maturity beyond his years, was the sexual encounter itself. Not the mere fact of sexual intercourse with a signif…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:26 PM
2

You didn't read the decision, clearly. The court didn't say he had lots of sex, therefore it was ok. The kid borderline sexually assaulted her, and she repeatedly said no to him. The court said that the comfort with which he initiated the sexual encounter suggested he was more mature (among many other reasons). This woman isn't a skank. She showed bad judgment in failing to pull this kid off of her when he tried to have sex with her, but hardly groomed this kid or initiated the encounter in any …
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:19 PM
2

The mistaken belief of age defense is well established in Canadian Law, and MANY men have beat sexual assault charges by pleading it: http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Mistaken_Belief_of_Age
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:14 PM
1

Not even close. Read the decision: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/16723/1/document.do
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:13 PM
3

Put down the pitchforks guys. Here's the SCC Decision: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/16723/1/document.do First, this took place at a party hosted by her 17-year-old son. It would be reasonable to expect the other guests to be a similar age. The sexual activity happened after Ms. George’s son — who was 17 at the time — hosted a party at their apartment. Second, he came to her bedroom on his own, and they talked for a long time about "mature" topics. However, after the party ended, …
/r/MensRights07/07/17 08:12 PM
3

You're missing the important point, but not for the reasons that everyone else is citing. Yes, the judge gets a chance to rule on admissibility of this evidence, but the defense is forced to do this before the trial. This is a problem for two reasons. First, this evidence was typically used to impugn the credibility of witnesses. If she is going to lie on the stand, it's nice to be able to show documentary evidence to catch her in that lie. Now, you have to share that evidence with the Crown BEF…
/r/MensRights07/07/17 07:48 PM
3

1) Find a men's issue that has some sort of nexus to your local jurisdiction. 2) Find a person who has the power to do something about that issue. 3) Find an actionable thing that person can do. 4) Make a written proposal and send to that person, or ask to meet with them to discuss it. 5) Work constructively and collaboratively to bring about positive change on your issue of choice. That's how advocacy happens.
/r/MensRights30/06/17 08:45 PM
3

The question was "how can the MRM" improve itself. I said "they need to start by not vilifying feminism, and insisting that the MRM's missions to akin to feminism's mission". You replied by saying "feminism is evil". I don't owe you an explanation as whether feminism is evil or not. It doesn't matter if that's true or not. The reality is that feminism is generally accepted in western political culture. If you want to advance MRM interest, you need to stop portraying it as its worst incarnation, …
/r/MensRights30/06/17 06:19 PM
1

Thank for your being a caricature of the exact problem I am describing. That is precisely the kind of attitude that has relegated the MRM to the seedy corners of the internet.
/r/MensRights30/06/17 03:57 PM
1

Ok, you win. I had no idea those existed, and I'm kind of a little sickened to see so many millions of views on those things. People are so petty.
/r/MensRights29/06/17 08:50 PM
1

List 5.
/r/MensRights29/06/17 02:00 PM
1

This is one of the obscene strawman arguments I have never seen. That's an awful lot of talk about an undescribed "they". The title says "Western Women", but half the time we're talking about feminists, as if the two are the same thing. French chicks sleeping with Nazi men, manspreading, alimony reform... it's a mishmash of random thoughts and statements that asks us "What is the solution"? Western women don't hate their own men. Feminists do not possess a limitless "depth of depravity". Men don…
/r/MensRights28/06/17 09:51 PM
0

Remember that App which let players beat up a picture of Anita Sarkeesian? I'm sure that was "criticism" and not harassment. https://www.destructoid.com/new-game-invites-players-to-beat-up-anita-sarkeesian-230831.phtml
/r/MensRights28/06/17 04:30 PM
6

Which raises a second issue. People like Elam are incredibly toxic and only hurt the movement's credibility.
/r/MensRights26/06/17 03:52 PM
9

So what if there is a feminism "for balance" all the MRA needs to do is continually insist that "The MRM is not opposed to feminism. They are two sides of the same coin." There is nothing more credible than a person being attacked by another all the while saying "Why are you trying to fight me, I am not your enemy".
/r/MensRights26/06/17 03:26 PM
1

For the first two: you argument doesn't work. Having a solution available is not the same as having to endure the problem in the first place. Also, the 'solutions' you proposed are not as easy as you posit. It's also really hard to pick up the phone while you're being forcibly raped. Male workplace fatalities? Just change jobs. Get an education and work someplace where heavy machinery won't kill you. If the machinery is about to kill you, just call the foreman to come fix it. That's what you jus…
/r/MensRights24/06/17 12:01 AM
2

Your post was stupid, and I didn't want to expend the energy explaining why. Edit: Ok, that was unfair, I'll respond to your post.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 11:51 PM
1

Let's break this down. You just argued that the lack of clear government-granted rights and enforced responsibilities that prejudice women is proof that woman have no reason to complain. I countered with several examples of Men's Rights issues where government rights and enforced responsibility are not at play. The implication being that you're being a hypocrite. You try to force me to answer an incredibly narrow question, while refusing to hold yourself to the same narrow question. Workplace fa…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 11:50 PM
2

Just under one-third (31%) of spousal violence victims in the provinces reported sustaining physical injuries as a result of the violence. Women were proportionally more likely than men to have reported physical injuries, with 4 out of 10 (40%) female victims reporting injuries compared to just under a quarter (24%) of male victims. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14303-eng.pdf revious research has shown that approximately 80% of victims of intimate partner violence, meanin…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 09:25 PM
-1

Oh come on. I can sit with my knees together without causing myself physical injury or serious discomfort. The issue isn't that men have balls, the issue is that taking up too much space on public transit is an issue of courtesy - not genitalia! Manspreading is a stupid concept because tons of women take up too much space on the subway. Everyone needs to be considerate of everyone else - not just men.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 09:19 PM
4

Both genders commit suicide, so Male suicide isn't a thing. Both genders don't get custody sometime, so custody inequity isn't a thing. Both genders suffer workplace injuries & fatalities, so that inequity isn't a thing. That is the argument you just made.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 09:14 PM
2

With all the criticism, interrogation, and ultimately denial that we could possibly be feminists from commenters here, it's no small wonder the feminists don't speak up much. Every time I answer yes to this question, I am confronted by people who try to 'educate me' about what feminism means, and how I am not really a feminist if I believe the things I claim I believe.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 08:49 PM
2

By your reasoning, every post here about newspapers that call statutory rapes cases between a female teacher and male student using words like "sex" or "affair" is irrelevant because it's not a government-granted right or enforced responsibility. How about male suicides? Who cares if Men kill themselves at higher rates? The government doesn't make them do that, so it's equal! Workplace fatalities? Men aren't forced to work those jobs, so if they don't like it, they can go be nurses and reception…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 08:44 PM
5

Remember the part where I said I was feminist.. Of course I can talk about things freely with other feminists! What I find astounding is now that I have proved my credentials as someone who can talk the talk about MRA issues while still identifying, you cannot conceive that there are other people like me. Your conclusion is that my friends aren't really feminists (and by extension, I should also could not be a feminist). There's another explanation. You could be wrong about feminists. You could …
/r/MensRights23/06/17 07:52 PM
7

See what you're doing right there - is exactly what I hate about this subreddit. You compare "manspreading" to actual serious issues to make feminism look stupid. Watch me do the same thing in reverse. lol that's retarded. You can't compare things like "fathers in sitcoms are always stupid" to serious oppression of women like being victims of domestic violence, being victims of sexual assaults, being viewed as bitchy simply for being in a leadership position. Manspreading is stupid. Both sexes t…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 05:57 PM
5

Men are typically payor-access parents following a divorce. Their financial obligations from the marriage are preserved, but they lose the love and affection. Media Language issues: When men die newspapers say "3 people were killed". When women die, it's "10 people died including 3 women." Similarly, when a male teacher has sex with a student, they say "male teacher rapes student", when its a woman, it's "female teach has sex/affair with male student." Male Disposability: Probably my personal bi…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 05:50 PM
1

I googled it and found the tweet, so nevermind. It is real. It is from 2014 and has 35 likes. So you, know, she's pretty influential.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 05:24 PM
5

Yes, I do. I believe women face all sorts of systemic oppression because of their gender. I also believe that men face all sorts of systemic oppression because of their gender. I believe, on the balance, that women suffer more issues than men, but that men's issues receive disproportionately less attention than women's issues. I am happy to argue MRA talking points among friends alongside feminist ones. Both sides have meaningful things to contribute.
/r/MensRights23/06/17 05:19 PM
1

Especially when its a fabricated meme from 4chan...
/r/MensRights23/06/17 05:14 PM
1

This has devolved into a discussion of Bio-truths. I am not looking to discuss biology or gender theory. I was discussing Bill C-16.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 03:07 PM
2

This very quickly devolved from a discussion about whether or not Trans people should enjoy equal protections under law, to a referendum on whether "trans" people are real. Literally 1/2 of the text of your comment are criticism of trans people themselves, and the politics of pronouns, and has nothing to do with Bill C-16. Again, if you're objections to Bill C-16 were that HRTs overstep, then you would be arguing in favour of HRTs being reined in. But that's not what you're arguing. You're sayin…
/r/MensRights20/06/17 02:41 PM
1

Still not a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 02:29 PM
0

So you get to define what the word means, and I don't? If you're an MRA, you must believe that women belong in the kitchen, and are lying manipulative false-rape accusers. You hate trans and gay people, and are just a lonely alt-right internet creature. If this doesn't describe you, and you just believe that the sexes should be equal, then you're a feminist. Most of that probably isn't true, but that is essentially what you tried to do to me.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 02:23 PM
0

That's a lot of assumptions about me based on one word. Suffice it to say you have a tremendously poor read on my beliefs.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 04:38 AM
1

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: No.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 04:37 AM
1

You can't commit genocide against "people who think gender theory isn't true". The linked page describes groups as: "a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." None of those fit your category.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 04:35 AM
1

So you think it should be legal for a person to publish materials promoting the killing of jews?
/r/MensRights20/06/17 12:14 AM
0

You clearly misunderstood me. Please identify "the group" having their children taken away.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 12:12 AM
0

Let's not mince words about Peterson's position. Here is an interview he did with CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.3786140/i-m-not-a-bigot-meet-the-u-of-t-prof-who-refuses-to-use-genderless-pronouns-1.3786144 JP: It depends on the nature of the accommodation and at what price? I don't believe that it's reasonable for our society to undermine the entire concept of binary gender in order to hypothetically accommodate a tiny minority of people. JP: No. It's no…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 11:49 PM
2

How do you surreptitiously record 3 hours of audio? With that out of the way, you have a 9/11 call and a visit from an Officer which are not evidence barred in your state. If she claims you raped her the previous evening, then you can point out that she and another girl were at your house for several hours after that, that they called 9/11 while pinning you to the ground and made no mention of a sexual assault to the 9/11 operator or the officer that attended at your apartment. You don't even kn…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 10:29 PM
1

To play devil's advocate then, if a kid is gay, and their parents forbid them from seeing members of the same sex, is that ok? Also, this bill doesn't allow for children to be seized from parents for opposing gender transition, it just adds that to the list of factors that are in the "best interests of the child". It's a factor, not a determinative one. The only reason I am calling out the mensright issue is that a lot of people think MRAs are just alt-right types who don't actually care about m…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 10:00 PM
0

I don't think "literally genocide" is the phrase you are looking for here.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 09:50 PM
0

You didn't explain how this disproportionately affects men. It's not a gendered issue.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 09:50 PM
1

I sounds like you might not understand exactly how the Criminal Code operates when it comes to hate crimes. There are only two changes the C16 The first change adds gender identity to the "Genocide" provisions in section 318. So if you publish a newsletter saying "kill all the blacks" or "kill all the jews", you can be charged under this seciton. Before C-16, saying "kill all the trannies" would not be an offense under section 318. I can't imagine this is a controversial change. The other change…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 09:25 PM
1

I have no qualms about being labelled as a feminist, and I don't feel the need to distinguish "what kind" I am. I believe in equal rights for women. I am a feminist. I think SJWs have too much time on their hands. I am still a feminist.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 09:09 PM
1

I have three answers for you: First, I am not ok with "kill all men" or "boys are dumb throw rocks at them". I never said I was. Second, saying "kill all men" is arguably promotion of genocide under the criminal code, and it was BEFORE this bill was proposed. Sex was already a criteria on these criminal code lists, and it is gender neutral because it applies equally to men and women (hence why they use the word "sex" instead of "women"). Third, Bill C-16 has nothing to do with throwing rocks at …
/r/MensRights19/06/17 08:49 PM
1

I don't have the same "ick" response to feminism as you do. But realistically, how bad has the "feminism" of Justin Trudeau been? He picked a gender parity cabinet, but most of the picks were good, and I can't name any solid male contenders denied spots. He agreed to a public inquiry into missing & murdered aboriginal women, excluding male victims, but that call existed long before he ran. I don't fault him much for that.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 08:45 PM
0

I don't know if I can adequately respond to everything you have raised as I am short on time, but I will try. You have raised a lot of points. First, let me highlight the absurdity that this debate is even happening on the mensrights subreddit. There is no gendered dimension to this issue. I find this perplexing. (1) I'll start with Peterson. The issue with Peterson isn't that he's refusing to use a gender pronoun, it is that he is pre-preemptively declaring that he will never accommodate a requ…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 08:42 PM
1

You mean like re-instituting the long form census? Legalizing Marijuana? I'm actually pretty ok with Trudeau's Liberals. They failed on electoral reform, but they are still miles ahead of the Harper government.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 06:07 PM
2

I am well aware of the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. The reason I mentioned "Gay" in my comment was to illustrate that the law currently protects sexual orientation, but not gender identity. Human Rights Violations are not criminal, they are regulatory. They cannot send you to prison. They can only issue directions and issues fines. Only the criminal code contains criminal offenses, and the changes to the criminal code are non-controversial. As for Jordan Peterson, h…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 05:33 PM
2

Here's the Bill: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading Here's the Criminal Code: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html See sections 318 and 718 for what I was describing.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 05:25 PM
12

This article is fake news. There are only two changes to the Criminal Code in this Bill. The first is adding "gender identity" to the crime of advocating genocide. So if you publicly call for all trans people to be killed, you can now be charged under this section, whereas before you could not. The second change affects sentencing of someone charged with a crime, where hatred of an identifiable group was a motivating factor. So if you beat up a guy because he's gay, you are guilty of assault, an…
/r/MensRights19/06/17 03:54 PM
5

Just another day for your average female teacher? Really OP? All women teachers sexually abuse their students?
/r/MensRights12/06/17 05:56 PM
4

A woman has the right to choose whether or not to have a baby. She is responsible for the personal and financial repercussions. A man has no right to choose whether or not to have a baby. He is responsible for the personal and financial repercussions of the decision of the mother. A man should not be able to force a mother to carry a child to term, or to have an abortion. That should be her decision. A man should, however, have the option to forfeit all of his rights to a child in exchange for a…
/r/MensRights08/06/17 05:14 PM
11

You didn't call her a feminazi, and calmly explained your position. And it worked. Go figure.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 07:30 PM
5

I'm on both sides on this article. On one hand, the editorial is properly defending the accused's right to a fair trial: After studying the evidence advanced by Stubblefield’s attorney in support of her appeal, we are astonished by Judge Teare’s refusal to admit evidence that could have exonerated Stubblefield, while admitting contrary evidence from the prosecution. ...independent evidence suggests that D.J. is literate and able to communicate. Her assessment was filmed by cameras in two positio…
/r/MensRights04/04/17 09:54 PM
4

You overstate the problem. I'm a lawyer, and have seen first-hand the issues the former Justice of the Peace is complaining about. It's real, and I fully acknowledge it. That being said, I have never had someone apply for an Emergency Protection Order (EPO) against me. I have no friends who have applied for, or had an EPO made against them. I don't know a single person outside of my work life who has been involved in one. EPO are easy to get, but when they are granted they automatically come wit…
/r/MensRights04/04/17 09:41 PM
-5

There's a difference between believing the victim, and condemning the accused. People who claim they've been raped should always be believed. It's cruel to subject a person who's been victimized to cross examination and suspicion. But on the other hand, we should not condemn the person who is accused of the crime.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 09:46 PM
0

The fact that Dunham's 'transgressions' occurred when she was a child makes it impossible to equate her treatment with MILOs.
/r/MensRights27/02/17 06:07 PM
-4

You're assuming that "they let you do it because you're famous" means "they consent and like it", as opposed to "they don't resist or report".
/r/MensRights24/02/17 11:05 PM
3

Uh-huh. So in 1 tweet, this woman makes a joke where she is implying that a child is hitting on her, and she is seriously considering it, but doesn't want to be a child molester (hence the "I'm going to need a quick answer on this"). It's a self-deprecation joke, and is hardly encouraging child molestation. In the other tweet, she's again making a self-deprecation joke by suggesting that she doesn't know about puberty - while also making a joke about the excessive sexualization of young girls. (…
/r/MensRights24/02/17 10:51 PM
0

I really appreciate the sentiment, but don't you think that the term "pussy pass" has some endemic misogyny baked into it?
/r/MensRights22/02/17 08:29 PM
1

I went and pulled the text - you're right. This is a reverse presumption, nothing more. Very sensible. https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB453/2017
/r/MensRights10/02/17 10:31 PM
2

That's what I figured - it's fun to point at SJWs, say mean things, and feel good about yourself, but that doesn't do much for improving the reputation of the MRM.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 09:46 PM
3

How does fat acceptance affect men's rights?
/r/MensRights10/02/17 09:42 PM
0

That doesn't sound right to me. They are asking for custody the be required to be 50/50. That doesn't work for most families, and is likely not in the best interests of the child. I'm all for a presumption of equal custody (i.e. the onus is on a party to show why custody should not be equal), but not an inflexible requirement of 50/50 custody. I like how Canada does it. Here's s.16(10) of Canada's Divorce Act: Maximum contact (10) In making an order under this section, the court shall give effec…
/r/MensRights10/02/17 09:40 PM
37

Paul Egan, who records the phone listings for the Diamond Cinema, told the Irish Mirror : "Well, it's meant to be a titillating film so I thought it might be better to keep the single men outside until we suss it out. "Sure it could lead to all sorts of temptation with women's hormones flying all over the place, while watching the film. "It might be better to keep the men outside the door until we see if women can control themselves," he laughed. It's not a ban. It's a publicity stunt. And the c…
/r/MensRights10/02/17 09:34 PM
5

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s
/r/MensRights10/02/17 09:31 PM
2

Right, but when you refuse to be respectful, polite, factual, etc - you lose moderates. There are several users commenting on this thread (myself included) who used to be active users, but got sick and tired of all of the outrage porn and self-pity.
/r/MensRights10/02/17 06:43 PM
4

So imagine my disappointment when the sub steadily became a dumping ground for outrage-porn about random bad things that some bad girl did to some poor guy, countless posts about how bad feminists are, how much easier women have it, how unfair the world is to men and how women or feminists are responsible for all our suffering, and of course the creeping culture of just constantly trying to cast doubt on women's issues, of attacking women and making every issue about women in some way. ... I lef…
/r/MensRights10/02/17 06:37 PM
2

Good job advocating for murder.
/r/MensRights08/02/17 07:00 PM
2

Two things: First, I said suicide is not increasing in the developed world (where feminism is more wide-spread. https://ourworldindata.org/suicide/ Play with this chart for a while, and you'll notice that most developed countries suicide rates are fairly static. By your reasoning, these rates should be increasing steadily. Also, from your own link: Mental health disorders (particularly depression and substance abuse) are associated with more than 90% of all cases of suicide. However, suicide res…
/r/MensRights06/02/17 04:37 PM
6

The entire premise is also incorrect. Male suicide rates in the developed world aren't increasing since the advent of feminism, they have been decreasing. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779940.html https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/39/6/1464/736597/Suicide-in-England-and-Wales-1861-2007-a-time How on earth can you claim that men were "fine for thousands of years" in their traditional gender roles? In a traditional gender role, a man is responsible for supporting his family, and a man who can…
/r/MensRights03/02/17 05:09 PM
3

Also, the person being quoted here isn't Donna Hylton, but another one of the girls. Not trying to defend her for being involved in it, but criticisms should be based on facts.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 06:36 PM
0

I saw a ton of rape culture comments about 50 shades of grey. I think the reason it doesn't seem that way is because 50 shades is a little too obvious. You see the article, and think "no duh", and it doesn't even register.
/r/MensRights18/01/17 06:46 PM
4

Absent any context, it's hard to provide any constructive criticism or advice. In my experience, lots of MRAs are very confrontational when bringing up MRA issues. It's possible you have been doing this, too. When you are talking with people who don't agree with you, it is rarely effective if you approach it from a "they are wrong, I am right" perspective. For instance, in your comment you say you "rebuke society for not giving a shit and ridicule our culture". If someone is rebuking and ridicul…
/r/MensRights18/01/17 06:23 PM
-2

I think your question has a flawed premise...
/r/MensRights18/01/17 06:03 PM
1

Did Mary Sue also fail on their summary judgment application? I'm not surprised to hear the Expo lost the summary judgment case, but Mary Sue had several very strong summary judgment arguments. Did the judge consider all of Mary Sue's argument and deny summary judgment?
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:13 PM
1

It's very rare for judges to give an oral judgment in court, and then go write one after. Typically if they write a judgment they "reserve" their judgment and you find out what the answer is when it gets released.
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:12 PM
1

Did Mary Sue also fail on their summary judgment application? I'm not surprised to hear the Expo lost the summary judgment case, but Mary Sue had several very strong summary judgment arguments. Did the judge consider all of Mary Sue's argument and deny summary judgment?
/r/MensRights16/01/17 06:06 PM
2

I'm not an MRA, I'm just sympathetic to most of the issues raised by MRAs. I don't run into much trouble raising MRA issues with her and with others, because I don't couple it with blaming feminism. I just explain them in a feminist framework (i.e. socialized gender norms lead to different treatment and outcomes for both genders).
/r/MensRights09/01/17 04:25 PM
7

That was incredibly incoherent. In any event, there's another explanation other than "my wife isn't right in the head". The other explanation is that you're wrong about how all feminists behave and think.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 12:45 AM
12

My wife is a staunch feminist, and we also split tabs or took turns paying when we dated. We were more like best friends than boyfriend/girlfriend. Virtually all of the women I dated before her were the same. I think you are putting too much stock in your partners political beliefs. It just sounds like you're in a good relationship - so good for you!
/r/MensRights04/01/17 09:45 PM
1

I couched my comment by saying it "appears" to not be a trial. Obviously I don't have all the paperwork, though I have never heard of a Trial being conducted simultaneously with a Summary Judgment Application. It would be self-defeating, as the whole point of summary judgment is to avoid a trial. But you're in Provincial Court, where the rules are made up but the points do matter. In any event, best of luck to you next week. I will be interested in reading the outcome.
/r/MensRights04/01/17 09:01 PM
-1

The best part is that they haven't even retained a lawyer. Instead they have their "legal agent", "Harry". He's an agent because he got disbarred in Ontario for defrauding Legal Aid. The reason this is being done in Provincial Court is because their "lawyer" cannot represent them in Queen's Bench because he is not a lawyer. He can, however, appear as an "agent" in Provincial Court. The downside to Provincial Court is that, as you say, there is a $50,000 limit to their claim. Further, the Provinc…
/r/MensRights04/01/17 07:30 PM
11

I don't think a former secret service member publishing a book during the peak of an election where he discloses salacious secrets about a former president and his wife now running for president is the most credible source on "character". Hate Hillary all you want, but these kinds of books are petty.
/r/MensRights06/06/16 09:47 PM
1

Yep - it will almost complete resolve the reproductive choice quandary... provided that it is affordable.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 08:52 PM
1

I appreciate your Edit. It's a mark of maturity to change your opinion if people convince you that your position is wrong. You have correctly highlighted one of the toughest dilemmas facing men. Sadly, there isn't a clearly better way of doing things than we already do - and the result is that men have considerably fewer reproductive choices than women. There are only really 2 solutions to this problem: The financial cost of supporting children needs to be born 100% by the state in all cases. Th…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:46 PM
2

He's referring to "blank slate" - the idea that people born the same, and society makes them into what they are. Of course, I never said men or women were better or worse, I said that genetics has no play on a person's worth. Sure men and women are different, and genetics has a large part of that, but genetics has no application to a person's right to be treated fairly.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 07:34 PM
2

Not a real story: http://www.hoax-slayer.net/have-saudi-scientists-concluded-that-women-are-mammals-but-still-not-100-human/ And how you managed to twist a story about women being treated like objects in Saudi Arabia as evidence that feminists are stupid is astounding. I would highly recommend deleting this post and your blog entry before anyone else reads it.
/r/MensRights19/04/16 05:38 PM
15

No, it's not true. The Y Chromosome is much smaller than the X Chromosome, but the Y Chromosome has many genes that are unique to it, and not contained in an X Chromosome. More importantly, however, you should not even be engaging in this kind of debate. A person's worth has little to do with their genetics. Suggesting that women are inherently "better" than men because they have a bigger Chromosome is a "biotruth" and has no place in rational discussion. Men and women are biologically and genet…
/r/MensRights19/04/16 05:24 PM
-1

Oh no? India is going to make it illegal to rape your wife?
/r/MensRights19/04/16 05:10 PM
1

It should be a choice, unless the aesthetic requires it. I can seem room for an argument that a game premised on feeling dis-empowered (i.e. survival game) might also want you to be incapable of choosing your appearance to add to the feeling of powerlessness.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 08:41 PM
1

Way a minute - what did they change about Minsc? Who was offended by a miniature giant space hamster??
/r/MensRights18/04/16 08:39 PM
2

I actually agree. I tend to prefer games which offer choices. That being said, the game already had a deliberate policy preventing you from choosing your appearance. I suspect the decision has something to do with the "realism" of the game - by taking away fun customization options, they are making the game feel gritty and unfair (on purpose).
/r/MensRights18/04/16 07:36 PM
-2

In a 20-page report, psychologist Karla Fischer wrote that Sena was controlled by her husband. ... For more than a decade, Christopher Sena wielded control over wife Deborah, and ex-wife, Terrie Sena, and their children through intimidation and abuse. He would monitor phone calls and tell the women how to dress. He prohibited them from making friends. He set up video cameras around their trailer, inside and out, watching them at all hours. If they didn’t obey his orders, the children would be be…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 07:12 PM
2

Oh for sure. I think the article mentions that 95% of the game's players are male. I am sure that number is fairly accurate. I am also fairly sure that they are seeing such a strong backlash because most of the gamers are male. Women have often complained about the lack of female playable characters (and rightfully so), but they are smaller in number and consequently not as vocal. We only see this backlash as being so big because of the sheer number of players affected.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 07:08 PM
11

Calm down guys. Put down the pitch forks. Previously the game only had male avatars (with body/skin color/face features totally randomized and outside the player's control). Now it has female avatars, and now the sex of your avatar is outside the player's control. Previously, women were forced to play as male characters. In many/most games, women are forced to play as male characters. The comment "half the population" was already living with those "feelings" is referring to women playing male av…
/r/MensRights18/04/16 06:23 PM
1

I'm a male feminist, and I neither hate myself, nor do I hate other men. In fact, I am more sympathetic to MRA issues than most female feminists.
/r/MensRights18/04/16 04:05 PM
-2

I enjoyed the read, and saw some minor parallels to my journey of self-realization - though I never really bought into MRA ideology like this guy did. I had the benefit of having taking some courses on feminist theory prior to being exposed to MRA ideology, so I never became anti-feminist. I just see MRAs as men looking at men's issues in the same way that feminists look at women's issues. They use a lot of the same tools of analysis. I am pretty firmly in the "feminists and the MRM are two side…
/r/MensRights15/04/16 07:39 PM
1

I rest my case.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 02:56 AM
1

Allow me to add another emphatic: "No" Edit: And for good measure, another "No"
/r/MensRights14/04/16 10:40 PM
2

Absolutely insane article that I literally do not believe someone would write outside of satire. CHECK OP is calling on us to engage in a witch hunt against a random internet person (who is based in Oregon) by reporting them to an agency based in California. CHECK OP's account is 1 day old. CHECK. Complete and utter troll.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 10:39 PM
8

Fun fact - this is what an Alberta Court would find as well: 8(1) For the purposes of section 7(2)(a), unless the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities, a male person is presumed to be the biological father of a child and is recognized in law to be a parent of a child in any of the following circumstances: (a) he was married to the birth mother at the time of the child’s birth; But note that this is a rebuttable presumption. Because they are married, it is presumed that he is the fath…
/r/MensRights14/04/16 05:40 PM
3

At least it tries to acknowledge that Red Pillers are human beings. I disagree strongly with the ideology, and I think it's wrong. But at least I understand how a sane person can reach the conclusions that they reach. At least I understand the anxiety and feelings of powerlessness that lie at the root of TRP ideology. This article tries to empathize, while still calling out the problematic and hateful things about TRP. I think it's good.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 05:04 PM
1

You are correct, which is why I was careful to say "men in the western world". There's no contesting the fact that conscription is alive and well in many parts of the world.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:45 PM
1

Well, I am Canadian so things are little different for me.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:44 PM
2

Thank you. Nice to know someone agrees and doesn't want me to go fuck myself.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:43 PM
1

But this isn't a matter of opinion. She said what she said. The video is consistent with what she said. It is not consistent with Trump and the Campaign Manager asserting that they'd never met her or touched her. And she certainly never "changed her story" when the video came out.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:39 PM
3

Yep. I definitely missed that part. That's pretty ridiculous.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:36 PM
1

You call them out on it, and hope people notice.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 04:31 AM
3

Sorry - I wasn't clear. I was referring to the poster above who suggested fields "was dragged to the ground and lied". My quote is what she actually said, which contradicts the suggestion she lied.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 04:30 AM
-4

Nobody gave a shit about this story until Trump and his campaign manager lied about it having happened at all. The video proved that it did. If they had just said, "she was being disruptive, and was asked to stop pestering Trump. She refused, and was physically removed. We apologize if she felt too much force was used," that would have been the end of it. instead they called her a liar - which she wasn't.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:55 AM
4

Sorry - are you suggesting that the recession was deliberately engineered to force men into volunteering for military service? And women are just as affected by economic recessions, and are also able to join the military if they're desperate for employment. Your argument is invalid.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:53 AM
3

You seem to have the facts right. She said she was "almost pulled the ground", but kept her balance. It's hard to see the amount of force used looking at the video, but the bruising is indicative of his using more than little bit of force. What I find amazing is that people are quick to say she was lying or exaggerating, but no one is criticizing Trump for saying this: “She had a pen in her hand, which Secret Service is not liking because they don’t know what it is, whether it’s a little bomb,” …
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:51 AM
1

No, don't apologize. I know better and you were right to call me out. I have amended my post accordingly.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:47 AM
4

"I was jolted backwards," Fields wrote March 10. "Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken." She said no such thing. This has been fact-checked, and you clearly did not read my link. You can choose your positions, but you cannot choose your facts.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:46 AM
2

Men weren't conscripted for Afghanistan or Iraq wars. Volunteers only.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:44 AM
1

I don't dispute any of your points, but I think Dunham is referring to "microaggressions", not actual violent attacks. The fact that men are the recipients (and the perpetrators, to be fair) of physical violence is true, but not directly comparable to the treatment of women's gender.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:10 AM
0

Well that's reasonable, I suppose. I too noticed it mentioned a lot, and it always got my back up. This story isn't about gender. It's about a man running for president being blatantly dishonest.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:09 AM
4

I don't see the word "patriarchy" anywhere in this article. Is there something worth discussing here, or are we just arguing with a Straw Feminist? Edit: The paper quoted a parent of one of the girls as saying that while students and parents were embarrassed by the situation, the girls had never been in danger. The stripper did not touch any of the girls, the parent said. Wow. How is that necessary?
/r/MensRights14/04/16 03:08 AM
1

While not big on numbers, I really like Scott Adams "verdict" on the wage gap. He doesn't get into the stats, but he summarizes the arguments very well. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:59 AM
1

I don't see the men's rights issue here.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:57 AM
-6

Politifact did an analysis of this issue, and found that her story was entirely consistent with what the video depicted. If they're not pressing charges its likely that it's because the assault in question isn't serious enough to merit a prosecution. But the issue isn't about whether it should be prosecuted or not. The issue is that her allegations were true, and both Trump and his campaign manager blatantly lied about it. The video proves that they lied. The issue isn't that he grabbed her, it'…
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:57 AM
1

I am familiar with the White Feather campaign. It took place in WWI. That's even more inapplicable to the men in the second photo above, who are clearly modern soldiers on a desert deployment (i.e. NOT conscripts).
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:52 AM
3

So was the problem with the extremes of the comparison or what? Yes, that is my problem. Men are attacked in similar ways to women, and dredging up WWII conscription is a facile comparison. It happened too long ago, and the practice of conscription is waning considerably in present day. Virtually none of the people on this subreddit (possibly zero) have ever been conscripted, so it's dishonest to claim "men had to fight in WWII, so I know what it's like to be attacked." There's a better argument…
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:50 AM
1

Also white men are attacked because for this reason all the time. Which was my point. There's plenty of legitimate examples of men being attacked for their gender. Bringing up WWII is a poor example - and a facile argument.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:47 AM
0

Those men aren't in WW1, WW2, Korea, or Vietnam.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:46 AM
1

You're right - of course. I was sloppy with my language. I should have said "sexual assault of women" can't be reduced below zero.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 02:44 AM
-5

And there hasn't been a draft in the US in over 50 years. Dunham's comment is that women today are feeling attacked because of their gender. Men today aren't being drafted in the US. No one on this subreddit has ever been drafted, and so they can't trot out WWII as a defense to everything. Now, of course, men do know what it's like to feel attacked. They feel it all the time - often from feminists and SJWs. They get told to shut up when talking about gender issues. They get told to "not rape wom…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 10:01 PM
1

Yeah, your facebook friend is pretty wrong. Child support is an obligation of both parents. If the man is the biological parent, he is obligated to pay support. Now if the man raped the woman, there's a good chance that he will be denied access to the child - but he'll still pay. What's really scary is that if you flip the sexes, the outcome is very different. If a woman rapes a man, then she will likely get to keep the child, and the male rape victim will be obligated to pay child support.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:56 PM
1

Oh god, grow up already.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:53 PM
-1

They were being attacked because of their nationality. Throw a few women into those landing craft, and they'd have been shot at just the same.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:52 PM
-1

The story doesn't provide much detail, but it's actually plausible that this is assault. If you threaten someone with physical violence, it's sexual assault. If you threaten someone with non-physical violence (i.e destruction of property) it's sexual assault. Imagine this case: let's say you bring a woman to your place, and for deranged reason you have a $12,000 bearer bond in your apartment. She grabs the bond, and threatens to destroy it unless you have sex with her. That's sexual assault, bec…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:51 PM
8

This is a dumb issue. "Given our policies, we are mystified as to why the current administration feels that forcing our club to accept female members would reduce the incidence of sexual assault on campus,” [graduate board president Charles M.] Storey wrote. “Forcing single gender organizations to accept members of the opposite sex could potentially increase, not decrease the potential for sexual misconduct. The club doesn't accept women, and has no direct affiliation with Harvard. Harvard wants…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:44 PM
1

If the issue is that Wikipedia doesn't run background checks on management, then the issue does not have a gender component. The article contains a quote from Wikipedia admitting that they didn't run background checks. Their employing her is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:36 PM
-1

It means you're ignoring the complexities of an issue in order to appear correct. It means you're argument is superficial and without nuance.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:34 PM
-3

No. I am saying that the way in which the TV star is using the phrase "under attack" is inconsistent with the organized violence employed by and against professional volunteer soldiers. Don't be facile.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:13 PM
1

Ok, so post that that. Don't just post a "TIL a woman committed crimes."
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:12 PM
-8

I'm not disputing that men have been forced into military service through conscription. But the men in that photograph sure as hell weren't.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:11 PM
-17

Thank you. Poor marks on reading comprehension from /u/arakin. Even poorer marks for the racism.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:06 PM
-8

And you do? That photo was used to represent the statement "these men are under attack". Nothing in that photo represents that statement.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:05 PM
-18

I actually disagree with that picture too. Those men aren't "under attack". They are professional soldiers on deployment. These men weren't drafted. They weren't "shamed" into enlisting because of their gender. They volunteered because it was something they wanted to do, and felt was important. They deserve to be praised - not treated like victims.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 08:34 PM
1

Well, you're reading Yahoo's "Beauty" section. I don't think you're going to get much quality journalism there - on any topic.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 08:32 PM
-9

I agree that she is overstating the point. Women as a gender aren't really "under attack" in the modern western world. Sure, women's reproductive rights are "under attack" in the US, but not the sex as a whole.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 08:31 PM
147

Look, I agree with the hypocrisy of feminists undervaluing the societal expectation of men to be 'protectors' and to sacrifice themselves to protect their family and community, but this comparison isn't fair. Dunham's comment is suggesting that White Men don't know what it's like to be "under attack" because of their race or gender. Your example of WWII isn't appropriate, because it's now 3 generations old, and these men aren't being "attacked" because of their race or gender. Men and "White Men…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 08:10 PM
1

Feminism and men's rights should be two sides of the same coin. Right on. I've been using this expression for years. What MRAs do is apply feminist analyses to Men's Issues. They look at issues affecting men in the same feminism has looked at issues affecting women for several generations. Unfortunately, both sides waste so much time screaming at each other.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 08:06 PM
1

Woman in the story didn't "leave crying" because he refused to microwave her meat separately. She left crying because he berated her for asking. Further, pregnant women aren't supposed to eat deli meats or hotdogs unless they are cooked hot enough to kill listeria (it's supposed to be steaming hot). And this isn't internet recommendations - it's recommended by the CDC and doctors. If the Subway guy toasts the bread with the meat on it, then the meat won't be hot enough to kill bacteria. If he co…
/r/MensRights13/04/16 08:00 PM
2

According to Florence Devouard, the Chair of the WMF Board of Trustees, background checks were not performed on anyone until at least 2007, but that recently, the Foundation began to perform them. During that time, Brad Patrick was acting Executive Director and he did all the hiring. "In fall 2006, we did not perform criminal background checks. From what I understood, Mike took care of this and this is now being done. It is fairly recent, the board did not get any report on this," said Devouard …
/r/MensRights13/04/16 07:54 PM
4

So?
/r/MensRights13/04/16 04:41 PM
0

Just read the comment I provided earlier. It's not a "kickback", it's funding support tied to performance standards - most of which have no bearing whatsoever on the quantum of child support awards. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3gpxry/request_for_information_us_custody_judges/cu1lqun
/r/MensRights12/04/16 11:03 PM
0

Yeah, that's the program I am referring to. Did you read it?
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:33 PM
1

It's entirely possible that the story is fabricated, and she's using it to get ahead. It's also entirely possible that the story is 100% true, but there's no reasonable chance that the police can do anything because there is no evidence other than her word. The point is I am in no position to know which one is true. Consequently, I am not going to believe Tobuscus is guilty of a sexual assault, and I am not going to condemn him. Similarly, I am not going to assume malice or deceitfulness on the …
/r/MensRights12/04/16 02:32 PM
15

While I don't agree with public witch hunts over allegations that cannot be substantiated, I believe that should apply to both accusers and the accused. If there's no evidence besides this woman's word, then I don't think anyone should criticize this "Tobuscus" guy. But that incredulity needs to go both ways. I also don't assume this woman is lying either. There's lots of reasons for why she doesn't want to go to the police. For instance, like OP points out, it's likely her word against his. The…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 09:33 PM
1

How old is your friend?
/r/MensRights11/04/16 09:27 PM
0

Laws are argued. Facts are proven. In any event, this whole discussion is a misnomer. Top Comment was a guy "pointing out" that states get 10% "kickbacks" from child support collection. This isn't even remotely true. There is a program which incentivizes State run enforcement agencies to hit certain performance metrics that have little to do with amounts collected. There is no "kickback" of 10% of child support collected. Child support goes to parents, not governments. It's a lie, and people who…
/r/MensRights11/04/16 09:24 PM
0

You don't have to prove laws in a court of law.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 07:14 PM
0

I'm not trying to solicit you. I am merely pointing out that you are operating under a misapprehension. But who cares about truth or accuracy of information, right?
/r/MensRights11/04/16 04:11 PM
-3

This is a manosphere myth, and simply not true. Here is a post I made after reviewing the legislation. For context, I am a lawyer and have practiced in family law. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3gpxry/request_for_information_us_custody_judges/cu1lqun
/r/MensRights11/04/16 03:17 PM
2

Yup, this is an incredibly stupid post from a website that I've seen tons of MRAs insist is "NOT AN MRA SITE". Either RoK is, or isn't an MRA site. If it is, then MRAs need to defend that stupid Mad Max boycott. If it isn't, then stop posting it. Given the quality of this drivel, I vote for the latter.
/r/MensRights05/04/16 08:40 PM
7

While she certainly had the book thrown at her, and even though the article did say there might be additional "victims", it still makes reference to a "sexual relationship". 30 year old people do not have sexual relationships with 13 year olds. No matter what the genders.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 09:28 PM
1

You're deliberately taking 3 words out of context to defend a defenceless position. "Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance." She quite clearly indicates that she did not fall. The video confirms this. As for bruising, it's entirely possible that she was gripped extremely tightly. If she was gently led aside, it likely would not have bruised her, and we would likely not be having this conversation. However, i…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:52 PM
3

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/ Really?
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:46 PM
2

No ammunition is good - but even then in Canada it's a criminal offence. Here guns need to be locked at all times, and the ammunition needs to be stored separately.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:38 PM
2

And don't forget Michelle fields lied too. She said that she was thrown down by lewandowski. That clearly didn't happen. "Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards. Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken. Original Article You are parroting a talking point. She never claimed she got knocked down. She described it exactly as it appears on the v…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 02:33 PM
1

Seeing Elam go fills me with joy.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 09:03 PM
1

As a fervent opponent of most of what gets said here, a lot more can be accomplished by engaging in discussion than attempts at disruption. The former may get ignored, but the latter merely solidifies their belief that they are right, and that you (and the ideas you represent) are the enemy. You aren't "aiding" the progression of your cause. You are hindering it. And it's spelled "Controversial".
/r/MensRights31/03/16 09:00 PM
3

Firearm storage is serious business. Kids love to play with "toys", and playing with an AR-15 could lead to some tragic outcomes. In Canada, leaving an AR-15 in the living room unattended would actually be a criminal offense.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 08:53 PM
2

Yup, I don't believe this story for a second. No judge would speak that way. "I'm sick of you interrupting me so I'm gonna grant you that EPO. And you're also going to be granted a 30 days eviction notice. You WILL pay back every dime you made off of selling his horse and horse trailer. If not, we will have the sheriff confiscate them from the new owners and in past cases like that, it's not unheard of for the seller to be sued." Not in a million years would a judge say this. First of all, if th…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 08:30 PM
1

How about you make this post AFTER they get different sentences?
/r/MensRights31/03/16 08:03 PM
0

I don't think you know what a "Double Standard" is. The Trump manager isn't being charged because he "touched" a person. He's being charged because he actually inflicted harm (she had visible bruising on her arm). Further, the public backlash has more to do with his and Trump's blatant lying about the event, than the actual event. Your gif doesn't show something even remotely comparable. Most significant of all is the fact that the woman isn't going to get a bruise from a gentle touch on the sho…
/r/MensRights31/03/16 08:01 PM
2

Had to scroll down really far to find the one sane comment in this thread. An existing organization that provides needle exchange to MEN AND WOMEN is expanding its operation to include service at a women's shelter. There's just no cause for rage here. At all.
/r/MensRights31/03/16 07:52 PM
2

Well, the Police don't seem to be putting much stock in this complaint, and the guy clearly isn't going to suffer any consequences. How is this evidence of a Feminist Dystopia, as opposed to a sane country?:
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:43 PM
-6

By your own admission you only sent in the photographs and made a report because she broke up with you. You could have sent them earlier, but you chose not to because you didn't want to hurt her. Once she hurt you by cheating, you were ok with hurting her back. If a woman did this, the MRAs here would be furious.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:16 PM
3

That's got nothing to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 10:42 PM
4

Even after stripping out the impact of part-time or temporary work people may choose to do, Statistics Canada data shows that women earn 72 cents for every dollar a man makes doing the same type of work: full-time, and full-year. My assistant and I both work full time, full year. We do not earn the same amount of money, and we do not do the same type of work. This is a really lousy article on the wage gap. It readily acknowledges that women are over-represented in under-compensated jobs, but the…
/r/MensRights07/03/16 09:42 PM
4

Redpill nation belongs in /r/theredpill. Also, the internet needs to stop comparing everything to nazi germany.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 05:02 PM
0

No it isn't. How many businesses are men launching? How many of those 1,200 new businesses are still operating in 1 year? How many male business are still operating in 1 year? How do those 1,200 business earn compared to new male business? More importantly, the feminist claim is that women run into a "glass ceiling" in pre-existing organizations, not new start-ups. Saying "women are starting lots of businesses" is not a counter-argument to "big businesses aren't hiring women as CEOs or high leve…
/r/MensRights07/03/16 04:58 PM
16

Thank you for catching OP on his lying. Harassing women with a "shotgun approach" like that, and then crying when women alert one another that he is using this pickup technique on them, is NOT a men's rights issue. OP is being a creep.
/r/MensRights07/03/16 04:44 PM
13

Truth is a defence to libel. OP is a redpiller who is getting called out for his antics. See the comment by /u/andaliteBandit Link
/r/MensRights07/03/16 04:43 PM
1

My son got a urinary tract infection despite bathing nearly every day. Circumcision may have prevented the infection despite our being very careful. The infection was no big deal, and I do not regret our decision to not have him circumcised. But the statistics are what they are. HIV risk is pretty minor in the developed world if you're heterosexual. I agree it's a remote risk, but not a 0% risk either. It's still a benefit to have reduced susceptibility. You are the perfect example of why people…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:57 PM
4

I'm usually arguing with people on this sub, but everyone's got the right answer: Until technology allows the baby to be safely transplanted and grown in an artificial or surrogate womb, it's got to be the choice of the mother. We can't force women to abort or not to abort. They carry the physical risks of carrying a child to term (or of having an abortion). We don't get to control their bodies.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:54 PM
6

Child support obligations don't go away if the other party earns more than you. Both parents have an obligation to support a child in proportion to their respective incomes. If your buddy is paying support that is consistent with an income higher than he earns, he can get it lowered to his income level. He can also work towards shared parenting. If he becomes a 50/50 parent then both parents have an equal obligation to pay the other child support - in which case she's going to pay him because sh…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:52 PM
2

pads are covered too. My point is that not every engages in sex needing contraception. All women have need of sanitary products. The two aren't 1:1 comparable. I still like OPs suggestion though. Condoms shouldn't be thought of as a "luxury", and people she be encouraged to buy them.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:48 PM
2

Yeah, those are good sources. And if you take the approach taken by Time : "If we're genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight" ...You're not attacking feminism, you're trying to help it. You don't want to come at this as someone trying to trying to attack feminism, because you look biased. But if you're approaching it from an academic perspective, then people are more receptive.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:47 PM
26

From the sounds of things people just didn't believe you because they'd never heard the counter arguments. Remember, you're challenging orthodoxy. People believe it because it's been repeated to them so many times, and never looked at it critically. There's an opportunity here. Why not put together some research, and share it with your professor and ask if you might make the argument to the class? You're right that college is about "intellectual space", and challenging orthodoxy is part of that.…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:04 PM
2

Well, OPs link is for a US State's 'Luxury Tax'. I just used the GST example because I am more familiar with it. That being said, GST is similar to a luxury tax. Most basic foods (fruits/vegetables/bread/milk) are GST exempt because they are basic necessities. Feminine products were added to that list because it was successfully argued that they were also "necessities". I don't think I ever heard anyone call GST a luxury task during this debate. In fact, it wasn't much of a debate at all. Everyo…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 08:00 PM
1

Canada recently stopped charging a sales tax on women's hygiene products. I agree with the decision, because these products are basic necessities for women. They're not optional luxuries. Condoms aren't strictly the same, because there are other forms of contraception, and some people don't have much (or any) sex. All women need feminine hygiene products. The same can't be said of men and condoms. That being said, I don't think condoms should be treated as a luxury either. Preventing unwanted pr…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:09 PM
1

Most criminals are acquitted of most of the charges laid, and they still landed four counts of felony child cruelty. As for sentencing, let's keep this in perspective. Among the alleged actions that brought charges against her are snapping rubber bands on the wrists of children, stepping on toes because the children weren't wearing shoes, tripping them and biting a child's finger. If she gets less than life imprisonment, don't get upset. From the sounds of things she bullied the children, not ab…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 07:05 PM
1

Why are we upset that a woman was convicted of child abuse? Isn't that a good thing?
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:58 PM
1

Yeah, I wish CPS would put more emphasis on the ethics issue. I am, however, sympathetic to their position. Circumcision has a religious element to it, and a particularly inflammatory religious element given the persecution of jewish people in the past few generations. Condemning a jewish cultural practice runs the risk of sounding anti-Semitic, so they're taking the safer "parents should decide for themselves" approach.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:57 PM
1

Yeah, that's pretty much my position on circumcision. But if the pros/cons more or less equal out, then why do it in the first place? It's a medically unnecessary operation performed on babies who can't consent to it. So why do it?
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:54 PM
-1

I agree. There's no good medical purpose to do it. It shoudn't be done. THAT is a good argument. Calling it torture is not a good argument. It's clearly rebuttable, which distracts from the good argument.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:33 PM
-1

So if I amputate the breast-buds of new born girl (under surgical conditions), she will have zero chance of acquiring breast cancer during her lifetime (down from 18%). Is that a "medical advantage"? Yes, it is a "medical advantage". When ISIS cut off someones hand, they reduce that person's chances of developing cancer of the hand by 50%. And their chances of developing arthritis in that hand by 100%. Is that a "medical advantage"? Yes, that is a medical advantage. Where you seem confused is th…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:32 PM
0

So what? All you've done is pointed to a double-standard between FGM and male circumcision. That in no way rebuts my position. Other redditor claimed "there are no medical advantages to circumcision". I showed that he was wrong. You're just trying to change the subject.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:13 PM
1

Those Paediatricians, if you bothered to read the link, don't recommend the procedure as Americans do. Rather, they say it's up to the parents. I also disagree with your belief that doctors are motivated only by money, and not by professional ethics or a desire to help patients. Your view is extremely cynical, and entirely inconsistent with all the Doctors I have ever known. Why should I be less inclined to believe the position of an association of professionals than some random dude on the inte…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:08 PM
-2

No, it's isn't remotely akin to torture. Torture involves deliberately inflicting pain, typically to get something in return. Pain is the primary objective. Below is the Wikipedia definition. Torture (from the Latin tortus, “twisted"[1]) is the act of deliberately inflicting physical or psychological pain on an organism in order to fulfil some desire of the torturer or compel some action from the victim. Torture, by definition, is a knowing and intentional act; deeds which unknowingly or neglige…
/r/MensRights04/03/16 06:04 PM
-3

This comment is the kind of crap that gets me so frustrated with this subreddit. OF COURSE there are medical advantages, and OF COURSE it is "easier" to clean. Simply denying that arguments from the other side doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's the page from Canada's Paediatricians. It's got a very balanced look at the medical risks and benefits. And let me be clear: I am anti-circumcision. But I am not the one peddling misinformation here. There are advantages to the procedure, I just don't …
/r/MensRights04/03/16 05:57 PM
8

Depending on the what's feasible in the context you're working, either (1) keep the door open, (2) record the conversations, or (3) have someone else attend the meetings. If none of these are feasible, just be careful about topics you discuss and don't offend anyone. I meet 1on1 with female clients all the time and I've never had any trouble.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 05:40 PM
-4

This kind of overstatement is neither constructive, nor accurate.
/r/MensRights04/03/16 05:35 PM
2

For me the issue is that the pros and cons of circumcision are basically a wash. It's got medical advantages, and it's got risks inherent to the procedure. It's easier to clean, but reduces sensitivity. But if the pros/cons more or less equal out, then why do it in the first place? It's a medically unnecessary operation performed on babies who can't consent to it. So why do it?
/r/MensRights04/03/16 05:13 PM
2

Personally, I take biggest exception to threads/discussions dealing with the "innate nature of women". This includes: Women behaving badly posts: some woman somewhere commits a crime. MRAs flock to discuss that she's a cunt, will get a soft sentence because of a pussy pass, and people need to learn that women can do bad things. I dislike this posts because they are single instances of a things meant to stand in for a trend. NO ONE believes women are incapable of violence. Rather, they believe wo…
/r/MensRights03/03/16 10:14 PM
2

/r/ thathappened.
/r/MensRights03/03/16 09:49 PM
1

A lot of MRA hate is overstated, but not all. There are legitimate criticisms about MRAs and they positions they take. Personally, I believe the criticism about MRA issues is unfair, but criticism of MRAs themselves are fair. Also, just because you agree with most of what you see here doesn't mean everything here is reasonable. You could be unreasonable, yourself, and think everything is moderate. It's no different from some of the legitimately hateful feminists who hang out in their own subs an…
/r/MensRights03/03/16 09:48 PM
-15

Divorce initiation is not about "who wants out of the relationship", it's about "who needs help from the court". Starting divorce proceedings allows you to seek corollary relief like child support, alimony, and property division. People rarely start a divorce proceeding simply to "get divorced", rather they do it because they need corollary relief. Statistically speaking, women tend more often to be stay-at-home caregivers, and men tend to be the higher wage earners. The man has no incentive to …
/r/MensRights03/03/16 09:44 PM
2

Nice to see someone fully grasped what I was trying to communicate. I don't necessarily assume that "group sex" is likely to have occurred than "gang rape" in a vacuum. It's the full context of these events that begs so many questions - especially the public incest immediately preceding it.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 07:20 PM
0

You're going to have to explain how my statement is in any way contradictory to the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof imposed on the prosecution in a Criminal Case.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 06:26 PM
11

This subreddit is filled with people who understand we can't label a man a rapist immediately simply because a woman says so. I agree, but those same people will turn around and condemn a woman's story over the slightest inconsistency or suspicion. It's correct to resist condemnation without having all the facts, but people need to be consistent when doing so.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 06:12 PM
1

I have.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 06:11 PM
35

As the Reddit user who is the subject of this Article, I'd like to engage on this issue and get on my own soap box for a bit. I'm a practising lawyer, and I have learned long ago that you can never take your own clients version of events 100% seriously. There's always more to a story. People will always report on a event in a way that casts themselves in the best possible light. This is why we always look for corroborating evidence from unbiased 3rd parties. Now as Pierce correctly points out, t…
/r/MensRights26/02/16 04:42 PM
-7

/u/PierceHarlan In your research did you see any explanation of what happened from the perspective of the accused boys? I find the whole thing very odd. A young woman is having sex with her father in a park, and then a small pack of boys show up and take turns having consensual sex with her? My instincts hearing facts like that are that the woman is low intelligence - likely intellectually disabled. She's being abused by her father, and then a group of boys show up, and take advantage of the sit…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 10:02 PM
2

Sadly, if you're having trouble getting that great job back, a Court will just excuse you from the obligation so long as you make an honest effort :(
/r/MensRights23/02/16 02:07 AM
3

This has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 07:12 PM
19

This is how Child Support Calculations work: Everyone has a Child Support Obligation based on their income. The higher your income, the higher your obligation. Both fathers and mothers use the same formula. If the kids are 100% with one parent, then the other parents pays 100% of their Child Support Obligation to the other. However, if the kids are with both parents 50/50, then BOTH parents pay their full Child Support Obligation to each other. However, rather than having both parties pay each o…
/r/MensRights22/02/16 04:16 PM
2

I've said before that I believe one of the biggest failures of Family Law is that it preserves the financial ties of a family following a separation, but cannot preserve the love/support ties of a family following separation. The consequence is that men (the typical wage earners) are forced to maintain the support obligation to the family while losing out on the love and support they used to get. The result is you get these angry, alienated fathers, and you get kids who grow up with poor role mo…
/r/MensRights19/02/16 10:43 PM
2

I would lose a lot of respect for MRA's if this was a true movement. I'm sure that's exactly why people did it. I can't imagine why, there are plenty of legitimate reason to impugn the movement, there's no need to resort to petty crap like that.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 10:37 PM
0

Please explain how this affects men's rights?
/r/MensRights19/02/16 10:36 PM
2

No. The justification for legalized abortion is that it should be the woman, not the state, who makes the decision because she is faced with the physical and health consequences of the pregnancy.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 10:35 PM
2

You clearly do not understand what "Pro Choice" means. Saying that women should be the ones to decide whether to carry a baby to term or not is not the same as saying "aborting a pregnancy has zero moral consequences". If executing this woman is so important, they could just wait 'till the baby is born, and then kill her. Stop trying to make this about reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 10:34 PM
12

The so-called MRA "Boycott" of Mad Max: Fury Road was based on an article run by the website Return of Kings that essentially argued because the film had hired a "feminist consultant" the movie should be boycotted. Many anti-MRA commentators jumped on this, tried to use it to slander the MRA movement. The only issues with this were: (1) Return of Kings isn't an MRA site. (2) No other MRA sites or personalities joined the bandwagon. If anything, MRAs thought this call for a boycott was stupid. I …
/r/MensRights19/02/16 10:26 PM
-1

So post analysis pieces discussing that. Or compare two very similar cases with divergent outcomes. This is just an isolated case a violent woman. She's probably going to prison for a very long time. Men, and the treatment of men, never factor into this story.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 10:30 PM
-5

Nor do men. The only people who face jail time are people who consistently do not pay child support, or are deliberately under-employed and "unable" to pay child support. If a man loses his job, he needs only apply to a court and inform them that this has happened, and provide sufficient evidence that he is searching for gainful employment. I've seen this take place in court rooms many times, and I have never seen a Court treat a man unfairly who has lost his job. Also, women are equally suscept…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:44 PM
1

Hmmmm.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:42 PM
1

You pose an interesting research question, but to play Devil's Advocate - are girls passing up on STEM careers because of experiences with boys in their schools, or because of the overall impact of socialization?
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:41 PM
2

Than a man scorned? You realize the person making the revenge website is the man right?
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:24 PM
2

Men and women both face consequences from pregnancy. Women are a bit worse off because they suffer the physical consequences/risks of pregnancy, and both sexes face the financial/responsibility consequences. You overstated your point, provided no explanation for why you hold that opinion, and prefaced it by saying "BAHAHAHAHA". I would have downvoted you too.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:21 PM
-2

How is this the result of boys being told they can't hit girls? You know none of the context of this incident. If they were in a relationship and she attacked him because he didn't return her text fast enough, it's abusive. If he had been bullying her and she retaliated, it's understandable (but still wrong. Hitting is wrong). This has nothing to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 08:37 PM
-3

This is a shameless "woman behaving badly" post. This doesn't disprove that "men are the violent ones" because it's a single instance that doesn't prove a rate or trend. It only invites us to hate her because she did something bad. It's got nothing to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 08:35 PM
-1

Full Quote for Context "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow - and I will if they deserve it, if they pose a systemic risk, I will - would that end racism?" It's not quite as stupid a quote if you don't remove the middle part.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 04:22 PM
24

This is a huge part of where sexual assault comes from. If men are expected to pursue, and women are expected to not encourage, then you never get "enthusiastic consent.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:26 PM
2

I'm anti-circumcision, but this is a stupid comparison. Maybe you can't clip their ears and tails for cosmetic reasons anymore but we still cut their balls off so they can't reproduce. Baby boys have way more legal rights than dogs. You don't need to be embarrassed by your Canadian heritage, but feel free to be embarrassed for massively overstating this issue.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 10:26 PM
2

I don't care for dunham either - but this is definitely not a Men's Rights issue.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 05:57 AM
11

No kidding. OP starts will a well established fact: "Married men tend to live longer". OP then goes on to explain how marriage is a terrible decision for men these days, and therefore single men will live longer. OP provides zero evidence to support this theory (likely because it's not true). Really poor logic/reasoning. I also agree with your comment. Marriage takes work. My marriage isn't anything like what OP describes. I picked a good partner, we communicate well, we're a team.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 08:08 PM
5

I don't see anything wrong with this. It says "taking advantage of", not simply "making out with". The picture they used is pretty clear that she doesn't want the attention. If my friend was assaulting someone at a party, I ought to intervene. Obviously this kind of rhetoric can be taken too far. But the words and picture used are appropriate for the kind of interventions that are called for.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 08:41 PM
35

If a story sounds unbelievable, it's possible that it's because the story should not be believed. http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/childsupport.asp
/r/MensRights18/01/16 09:38 PM
1

Hate on Hillary all you want, but I am not seeing an electable or palatable Republican alternative.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 10:02 PM
-3

Yeah, it's not complicated. They are try to use shame to stop creepy people from staring/leering on public transit. Leering has always been considered a form of aggression, and is exceedingly rude. This isn't a law, it's an education campaign. And it's aiming to improve courtesy on public transit. Men's rights aren't at all impacted by this.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 04:43 PM
1

A woman earns property during her youth, marries, and then has to forfeit all of her property to her husband. This, to you, is female privilege?
/r/MensRights04/12/15 04:16 PM
0

Oh the irony! Fun fact - prior to 1882, women were legally treated as extensions of their husbands. So if a wife incurred a debt, the husband would be liable to pay. Similarly, if a wife owned property before marriage, the husband would become the legal owner of her property (to her exclusion). So the reason this guy has to post a notice that he won't guarantee his wife's debts is because his wife has no property rights. OP - you're trying to be sarcastic by calling this the "the Privilege of Pa…
/r/MensRights03/12/15 11:43 PM
1

Well - to be fair - mass shootings are rarely perpetrated by women. This is an anomaly. Suggesting that masculinity is partially responsible for mass shootings might be a defensible position. Suggesting that "toxic femininity' is at play here isn't.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 11:38 PM
6

Every report I have read/heard this morning has identified the attackers as a married couple. No one is hiding the fact that one of the shooters is a woman.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 05:08 PM
3

Woman bashing belongs in different subs.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 08:08 PM
11

As I see it there are only 3 possibilities each with their own solution. Either: A) Boys are inherently smarter than girls, in which case the education system should adjust to cater to girls' needs to address the inequity. B) Girls are inherently smarter than boys, in which case the education system should adjust to cater to boys' needs to address the inequity. C) Boys and Girls are equally smart on average, in which case the education system should adjust to cater to the needs of underperformin…
/r/MensRights02/12/15 06:29 PM
3

If Hillary uses her gender as a reason to elect her, I will accept that it's a men's rights issue. But Hillary Clinton, in and of herself, is NOT a Men's Rights issue. This post is garbage, but the anti-hillary circle jerk catapults it to the front page. The result? This sub looks exactly like what its detractors believe: the MRM is anti-woman, not pro-men.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 06:19 PM
1

And she's likely going to jail for it. I don't see any men's rights issue here.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 09:32 PM
17

Good for CAFE. The only way any change will happen is if people understand and appreciate that this kind of bias exists. Gathering stories and showing how often this happens is both how the public comes to understand the problem exists, and convincing government to do something about it. Edit: And while I am not a big fan of the Aaron Harms blog - he would be a good candidate to talk to. His story is a good example of this form of Police bias. It was alleged that he had sexually assaulted the da…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 09:31 PM
1

Grow up. Also, it's spelled "Hilarious". Edit: Also - TwoX is a subreddit for women. /r/ feminism is a subreddit for feminism. This sub is often anti-feminist, but it is NOT anti-woman.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 09:28 PM
5

/thread.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:37 PM
2

Yeah, so it turns out Planned Parenthood provides a lot of services other than abortion which can certainly be called "health care". And this rhetoric about selling baby bits on the black market is complete and utter bullshit. Tissue donations are optional, not mandatory, and abortions are the only way that fetal samples can be obtained for scientific purposes - research which is carried out for "health care" purposes.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:36 PM
8

Article is right about the issue, but expresses it wrong. The issue is that men are shamed for showing "weak" emotions like fear, sadness, or insecurity. Men are allowed to show "strong" emotions like anger or pride. And the problem isn't limited to what men believe is acceptable. Women also enforce this gender role on men - and it is a serious problem.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 06:55 PM
0

Sorry.. what feminist shaming tactic are you referring to? All I see is an acontextual exchange between two people on the internet, where the guy is suggesting that people should avoid having sex with the woman. I don't see where we get "feminist" out of this, and I don't see how this is even remotely related to men's rights.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 06:50 PM
1

It varies from Province to Province. In Alberta your worst case scenario is 33% property division for a long-term cohabitation where the asset disproportionately went to one party. In BC common law now has 50/50 division.
/r/MensRights20/11/15 05:48 PM
1

k. Edit: No seriously, how has this not been removed yet?
/r/MensRights20/11/15 04:10 PM
3

Polinski said evidence obtained from a search of a woman's home in St. Cloud led them to the White Horse Ranch. The woman is a supporter of the "Protective Parent" movement that argues the family courts are broken and frequently award custody to abusive parents. On its website, the White Horse Ranch describes itself as a nonprofit where abused children and horses come together: "Broken children and hurting horses are able to bring each other to a place of healing through God's unconditional love…
/r/MensRights19/11/15 09:42 PM
1

It IS serious then? Ok. Just because a woman insist that someone "is not her boyfriend" does not make her a feminist. Simply exhibiting one shred of behaviour consistent with a feminist belief does not make her a feminist. The fact that she is an Islamic extremist pretty much negates any likelihood that she is a feminist (the ideology has no respect for women). Finally, and most importantly, even if one Paris terrorist was a feminist, it would be a meaningless fact. Feminism doesn't call for the…
/r/MensRights19/11/15 09:37 PM
1

True 'dat.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 09:33 PM
1

Also keep in mind that this particular study is looking at world incomes. So we're grouping the west in with some developing countries where rampant discrimination against women is very real. But what everyone else here is saying is the core of the issue - it's isn't a wage gap, it's an earnings gap. When you try to adjust for experience, education, hours, working conditions, life fulfilment, etc, there's no compelling evidence of substantial gender discrimination in pay. Heck - it is illegal to…
/r/MensRights19/11/15 09:16 PM
-6

Yep. She's clearly speaking ironically. "I don't date because men are mean and won't date me?" That one of those facetious answers you give when you don't want to talk about the real issues. This is a story out of nothing.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 09:12 PM
2

Ditto. Never been burned or spurned by women. Only positive dating experiences. Happily married with a son. Not a blue-collar worker - overpaid lawyer. I am the epitome of white male privilege, but I still recognize how many other men struggle.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 09:10 PM
0

I don't like your opinions, Demonspawn, but I like your taste in television.
/r/MensRights19/11/15 09:08 PM
1

I'm assuming this ironic humour, right?
/r/MensRights19/11/15 08:58 PM
-3

She repeated a position that is held by pretty much the entire political and legal establishment. It's wrong, but it's not punishable firing-by-petition. OP doesn't even bother providing a link or a quote of the offending remark. The petition barely provides it. Be better than this.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:51 PM
2

Your comment represents a legitimate grievance in general, but it is not applicable to this story. People in this sub like to brag about being intellectuals, but there is very little intellectual rigour applied. Stuff like this makes the movement look petty.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:49 PM
3

Then edit your comment. Too many people are reading the title of this post and making a ton of wrong assumptions. You've got the top comment. Change it to educate people about what this story is really about. This sub should care about truth over ideology.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:42 PM
0

This is a stupid petition. She expressed an opinion on the internet that this subreddit disagrees with. This is not grounds for having her fired. This is a witch hunt, and it is petty. The response should be to educate, not name and shame.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:41 PM
1

Of course, one of the problems with the myth is that there is no such thing as equal work between two employees of any gender. Exactly. The whole issue with the earnings gap is that it is very difficult to make comparisons between workers and their compensation. There are too many factors to account for to definitively conclude that sexism the primary cause.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:38 PM
2

What "cunt"? Where in this story is there a woman behaving badly?
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:36 PM
6

If you read the case, this was the story of a serial rapists - the rapes did occur. The only issue is that the wrong man was arrested and convicted. There is no issue with false accusations here. Also, the man is not being made to pay $334K. His ex-wife is asking the state to pay the child support that would have been paid if the state had not wrongfully convicted him, with interest. No one is going after this man.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:36 PM
3

Correct. But he is being compensated financially by the state. The state has already acknowledged they were wrong, and are attempting to make amends.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:33 PM
2

The state is paying for it. This is a fight over the state paying the child support that would have been payable had he not been wrongfully imprisoned, and how much they should pay.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:32 PM
1

No lawsuit necessary. State is already paying him for the wrongful conviction. This fight is over how much of that compensation should go to child support.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 05:30 PM
5

Above all, write in a neutral way. Don't have an axe to grind - approach the issue with genuine curiousity. Here's a nice write-up by the guy who does the Dilbert cartoons: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/114055529676/my-verdict-on-gender-bias-in-the-workplace Both neutral and balanced, though light on sources.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 04:47 PM
2

This presumes that the market is 100% efficient, and that workers are completely interchangeable. It's a good rhetorical question to frame the argument, but it is not definitive proof that the issue is debunked.
/r/MensRights06/11/15 04:45 PM
2

I respect and treat men and women equally.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 08:52 PM
2

Bahar Mustarfar Was charged over the content of a tweet, not murder.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 08:51 PM
2

Considering how incredibly wrong you were above, I am not inclined to trust you. She threw an infant out of a window, and has been charged with 2nd degree murder. The only way she walks is if she's found not criminally responsible, and that will require a trial. No way that happens in a couple months. This woman in all likelihood will go to prison or into a psychiatric institution. Trust me.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:46 PM
1

OH REALLY? Turns out she was charged with 2nd degree murder almost immediately. Just like I said they would. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/nyregion/baby-girl-thrown-6th-floor-window-injured-bronx-investigation.html?_r=0 If you're going to go through my post history to challenge me on things I say nearly a month ago, at least do your homework.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 07:15 PM
0

ALL feminists hate men. I'm a man, a feminist, and I don't hate men. That was a remarkably easy statement to disprove. How do you know that all, or substantially all feminists think this way? Have you met many? Or are you just basing it off of this sub's opinion, or based on the garbage you read on tumblr?
/r/MensRights05/11/15 05:01 PM
3

Buzzfeed will buzz. It's a stupid article, with a stupid title. It doesn't even argue that "keys" is offensive to women. It just says that the word "means something different to women". Ignore it. It's internet garbage.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 04:50 PM
0

Some feminists do hate men, and are hateful people in general. But the current opposition to MRA initiatives is not driven by a hatred of men, but a hatred of MRAs.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 04:47 PM
-1

The best way to "win hearts and minds", so to speak, is to endear. Our image should be amiable, friendly, and cooperative. Yup. Most feminists don't hate men, they just hate MRAs. Best way to win hearts and minds is not be what people think MRAs are. Don't be anrgy, don't demand that feminism be destroyed. Find the common ground. I have been saying for years that feminism and MRAs are just two sides to the same coin. Both sides need to wake up and realize that.
/r/MensRights05/11/15 03:41 PM
2

Trudeau only cares about one person - himself Not sure where you got that impression. In about an hours time (at the time of this writing) we will see his decision on the cabinet which he stated previously that half will be men and half will be women. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were all women. Ok, first, turns out that didn't happen. Second, how does "only being interested in himself" translate into "gynocentric society"?
/r/MensRights04/11/15 09:55 PM
5

Not in this post, but I've never kept my being a feminist a secret.
/r/MensRights04/11/15 09:49 PM
93

Let's see if I have this right: Brietbart publishes a story about guy writing a blog story, saying another guy told him that an organization was trying to "collect scalps" from male tech leaders. Notwithstanding that this is two degrees of heresay, citing only a source who has been "well informed and completely trustworthy in the past", but cites no other evidence whatsoever in support of these claims. Breitbart then goes on to wonder why no one else is covering this story! Despite widespread di…
/r/MensRights04/11/15 04:27 PM
8

Speaking as a Canadian Lawyer, this is not true at all. Cabinet ministers are not "window dressing". They are the heads of their respective departments. The equivalent of the President's Cabinet in the United States. It's only in the past 10 years under the previous government that the Prime Minister's office has exerted more influence on government departments, but that government is now gone (and to be fair, Cabinet Ministers were still very important under that system).
/r/MensRights02/11/15 06:06 PM
2

You're very funny ;)
/r/MensRights21/10/15 07:27 PM
0

That is an overwhelming lack of evidence for a claim as outlandish as: Some individuals at the Phoenix VA may to have decided to selectively kill men veterans by intentionally focusing their secret wait lists and denials of service at medical procedures that men needed to detect prostate cancer and live. Simply failing to provide adequate care for veterans is not evidence of a conspiracy to selectively kill male veterans. Building a solar car park (presumably using money made available for capit…
/r/MensRights21/10/15 03:44 PM
3

I remember when you first launched the site. Glad it's paid off for you.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 06:01 PM
2

Reacting WHAT WAY? They are almost certainly going to file charges. There's literally no evidence that she is being given special treatment.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 06:00 PM
1

This is not an abortion debate. This is a "throwing live babies out of windows" debate.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 10:06 PM
1

No they aren't, and you're wrong. Mothers don't get to murder their babies. The article even cites two recent instances with nearly identical facts where the mothers were charged.
/r/MensRights16/10/15 09:18 PM
4

The woman is clearly nuts, and they are probably evaluating how best to proceed. And in two similar cases charges were filed against the mother (bottom of the article) Last month, a newborn girl with her umbilical cord attached was found dead outside an apartment building in the University Heights section of the borough. Authorities arrested her mother on murder and manslaughter charges, saying she hid her pregnancy and threw the child to her death from a seventh-story window shortly after givin…
/r/MensRights16/10/15 09:17 PM
1

And yet there is a photograph of the two of them together holding their new baby together. (with faces blurred out). Isn't the media weird?
/r/MensRights08/10/15 07:30 PM
-3

Oh stop being so dramatic. If women had a stranglehold on democratic politics you wouldn't see so many abortion restrictions in the United States, and you'd probably also see a lot more women in political office. People don't vote exclusively along gendered lines, and not every votes solely in their own self-interest. Democracy is far more complex than that.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:59 PM
14

I think this is the truth of the matter. It's amazing how innocent and innocuous things like this are. Sure, cracked probably loses both male and female writers to other organizations, but they probably lost no men to babies. The result? a disproportionate number of male writers. Just because there is a gap, doesn't necessarily mean the gap is caused by sexism.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:47 PM
-3

If you think those feminists should fuck off, then you agree that the same should be said about Elam and AVFM.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:42 PM
3

You explained that better than I did. Thank you.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:38 PM
1

I find it more likely that an author with a history of obsessing over the Clintons is fabricating a hit piece about them during an election, than these behaviours somehow went unnoticed during 8 years of Clinton Presidency, and 4 years of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. If any of the right wing media stations had gotten wind of any of this, they would have drilled down and exposed it at any cost. Look at the amount of attention the personal emails issue got, and the amount of attention th…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:19 PM
-2

Elam and AVFM are the perfect strawmen for opponents of men's issues. Heck, most feminists I meet have no objections to men's issues, they just object to MRAs. And they equate MRAs with people like Elam. Hateful, abrasive, people. Get rid of the vitriol and a conversation might be possible. (and I fully acknowledge that there are more than a few feminists who are equally abrasive and lightning rods for controversy. They also need to be ostracised). If you want proof of the pettiness of AVFM and …
/r/MensRights08/10/15 06:09 PM
2

You're just reinforcing my point, Paul. Your vitriol has caused more harm to the movement you claim to care about than anyone else. You provide the perfect real life "straw man" for opponents of men's issues to criticize. Also, if you don't care what reddit says, you wouldn't feel the need to defend yourself on reddit, and resort to personal attacks against a complete stranger you know nothing about. You are behaving exactly as your detractors claim. A bully. Yes, AVFM is indefensible. Largely b…
/r/MensRights08/10/15 05:52 PM
9

Sounds like it's completely made up, and written by a maniac.
/r/MensRights08/10/15 05:39 PM
-1

Says the redditor.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:52 PM
-1

You are confusing being deliberately offensive with being smart.
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:43 PM
0

I've been calling for this for a long time. AVFM is indefensible. Also, this little gem is beyond absurd. It's isn't 'activism' by any description, so why is it on their website? http://www.avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/the-blair-bitch-project/
/r/MensRights06/10/15 07:42 PM
-3

If you think that sexually taunting people like that, and then uploading it on youtube is neither offensive or bad, then you fall into the category of "insane MRAs" I was originally referring to.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 06:30 PM
-4

No, seriously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfimcqjWHIQ They aren't normal people.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 05:53 PM
1

Yup. That is part of the problem.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:34 PM
-1

http://www.avoiceformen.com/
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:33 PM
2

I am attempting to describe the emotional state of a woman waking up after being black out drunk. I am not endorsing the reasoning. I am talking about fear.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:08 PM
1

Not a clue, nor do I think there should be an obligation for emotional support post divorce. I just want to highlight the disparity, and point out how the legal system privileges the financial relationship over the emotional one.
/r/MensRights25/09/15 02:05 PM
15

Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men. It is the case against the prison industrial complex and for community-based treatment where it works better than incarceration. But there is evidence that prison harms women more than men, so why not start there? Great. So why aren't we just reducing the prison population of non-violent offenders? Why the focus on only women prisoners?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 09:52 PM
1

And getting your online feminist & white knight buddies to vote up your views is really rather pathetic. Yeah, but only this view. I only break out my secret cabal of feminists and white knights for the comments that really matter. Thats why most of my comments are net downvotes. If I had my minions upvote everything I posted the mods would catch on. /s
/r/MensRights24/09/15 09:21 PM
5

Best to take it one step at a time. Get lawyer. Get bail. Get disclosure from prosecution to see their case. And then deal with the system one step at a time.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:59 PM
2

No one has seen this video and the police have literally no evidence on him, besides this woman's word (how is this legal?). How do you know that? The police rarely make arrests without evidence. How do you know the police haven't seen the video? In any event, the answer here is lawyer. The internet can't help. But I would give you one word of caution: it is possible your dad is guilty. It may seem hard to believe now, but be prepared for that possibility.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:49 PM
3

Actually, I think the biggest problem with the current divorce system is that it maintains the financial obligations between the parties as if they were still married, but they don't maintain the love and affection of the relationship. So the earners keep financially supporting the family, but there's no reciprocal obligation for emotional support. The earner shouldn't be losing the benefit of the family. That's my answer.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:44 PM
6

Part of it stems from fear of date rape drugs. Many people wake up in their beds the next morning after a crazy night, and assume they drank too much but don't remember how they got home. But if you wake up in a stranger's bed, the fear is that you didn't drink too much, but were drugged. That's the problem of being blackout drunk. You're fully conscious at the time, but you have no memory afterwards. You don't know if you were a willing participant or unconscious.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:42 PM
0

Well, then you're "callings things" in a very feministy way. Just with men's issues instead of women.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:37 PM
0

Feminists are always trying to show how subtle little things are sexist and misogynist. This is the same thing. I agree. This is an example of sexism. What OP is doing is engaging in a "feminist" practice of showing a subtle way in which gender impacts the way we treat people. It's not "proof of misandry", but it's clearly sexism.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 07:18 PM
6

Hey look - it's my mantra!
/r/MensRights24/09/15 06:56 PM
-1

feminists over-react to simple things that aren't even an issue By this I assume you're referring to air conditioner temperatures in office buildings? I certainly agree that many people who self-describe as feminists bring up some pretty trivial nonsense. I also agree that women have been "initialized" by some of the policies championed by feminism, but isn't it fair to say that women were treated as "the weaker sex" long before feminism came around? Do you agree that women were viewed as "weak"…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:46 PM
-6

I think you're right, she will most likely get a "slap on the wrist". But I don't know if you've ever been put before a judge... the process is extremely intimidating and is a form of punishment unto itself. Jailing a person like this wouldn't accomplish anything other than cost the tax payer. Simply filing the charge is enough to say that her behaviour is inappropriate, and she doesn't get to "just walk away".
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:44 PM
2

Your initial opinion was a little antagonistic, but you came around and accepted that what the other person was saying had merit (and to be honest, I pretty impressed by that explanation!) Unfortunately, the mods chose to ban you, so now you are here having your opinions about "feminazis" confirmed. It's too bad. That was a productive discussion, but you got banned because your initial position was "wrong". That's the problem with the moderating on those subs. It's turning away people who might …
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:41 PM
1

No, no, no, I insist this is friendly verbal pugilism! I am not yelling behind this text. So dealing with your example of women getting away with heinous crimes simply because they are women, I acknowledge that there appears to be a sentencing disparity between men and women for serious crimes. But you attribute this to feminism. What, in your opinion, has feminism done to create this "sentencing gap"?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 05:34 PM
1

I've often heard that gay men are one the wealthiest demographics in North America, and anecdotally that seems to be true to me. But I can't help but wonder if it's a myth. Do you have any studies that support that?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:58 PM
-1

Alright, so it looks like you and I need to have a fight. You are taking a very small subset of feminism, and claiming it represents the whole. Some feminists, no doubt, are irredeemable man-haters. But the movement on the whole is about breaking down gender roles, not demonizing men. If feminism is guilty of anything, it's focusing their attention on "gender issues" that only affect women. You were talking earlier about men being forced to fight, and some not wanting to risk their lives for a c…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:54 PM
9

I've said this many times - the earnings gap can largely be explained by priorities. Men tend to prioritize earnings and status, and women tend to prioritize self-fulfilment and quality of life balance. When we see women earning annually 77 cents for every dollar men earn in that same period, why don't we ask why men aren't willing to work fewer hours in safer, more fulfilling jobs? Maybe the solution is for men to learn to value work-life balance, not for women to learn to martyr themselves on …
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:42 PM
3

Yeah, I wouldn't claim there no biological basis behind it. And yes, either way it doesn't mean we can't change!
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:35 PM
0

A lot of people ask that. My understanding behind the decision not to require accounting of child support funds is that it is an onerous requirement that invites frivolous litigation over minor issues (you spent $200 on school supplies?? I am paying too much support). That being said, there are situations where an accounting is required. In Canada, for instance, there is a "base" amount of child support based on the parties incomes. But on top of that there are reimbursements for "special expens…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:27 PM
-3

Why do you think feminism, specifically, is behind that kind of treatment of men?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:23 PM
-2

You don't think those two black men were members of the international feminist conspiracy do you?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 04:06 PM
8

Nonsense. If a person shows up at a Police Station saying "Help, someone just stole my car", the correct response isn't "Bullshit, prove it". You believe their claim, you offer sympathy, and you investigate.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:44 PM
1

Well, I would argue that all of those examples fall under the same bias I mentioned - men are deemed capable of taking care of themselves. (which I disagreed with). But if you need to raise all those other examples, can you really say that the video alone is "proof" that society is misandric?
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:40 PM
17

That is a very measured and intelligent point. I am editing my post.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:20 PM
-6

Before this thread descends into the usual arguments about the extraordinarily high sums of money in support, try to remember that the reason child support is so high in these situations is so that there is no a huge disparity for the child living with both parents. The child is accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and shouldn't be expected to live "rough" while with one parent, and "lavishly" with the other. As for support, to notional idea is that a marriage is a partnership. And if one parents …
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:20 PM
3

Quite the contrary. The system works flawlessly most of the time. It just rarely makes the news when it does.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:14 PM
3

We've all seen this video before and it is sad. However, I would not go so far to say its "proof that society is misandric". While no one comes to the defence of the man, no one cheers the woman on either (with the possible exception of the two black guys who seem to think it's pretty funny). For the most part people are uncomfortable, and a little surprised. The difference is that people are socially conditioned to defend women who are incapable of defending themselves. And they are socially co…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:10 PM
11

Yup, believe her initially. Investigate. Respond appropriately to results of investigation. The system worked as intended.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:04 PM
2

I am actually a feminist, but I a sympathetic to MRA issues and hang out here very often. I still fundamentally support feminism, but I certainly acknowledge its' flaws. Biggest Flaw - Combative Rhetoric and insistence on division I strongly object to how obsessed modern feminism is about dividing people into camps, and excluding them from conversations. If you got any feminist-type subreddit, you'll see how everyone has a flair identifying the type of feminist subcategory they identify as. I on…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 03:03 PM
2

Great - now lets see if it actually happens, though. In any event, this is what awareness does. Last week the Afghan President wasn't even thinking about this issue. Now he's promising to do something (though he likely won't).
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:38 PM
153

So a woman lied, and is possibly facing jail time for it? Where's the men's rights issue? Edit: /u/Yambag makes a good point that this article raises awareness that false accusations happen, and that unbelievable stories are sometimes hard to believe because... well... they aren't true.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:27 PM
0

Fun fact: women got the vote before all men did. That's strictly speaking "true", but a distraction. In SOME countries, SOME women got the vote before SOME men did. So rich women got to vote before poor men did, yes. But poor women didn't get the right to vote until poor men did too. The voting rights of men were never "inferior" to womens. Also, in the US, blacks got the right to vote before women. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:26 PM
2

Well, as I was trying to imply, we don't know what "asking for sex" means in this situation. If she prodded him awake, asked for sex, was declined, and then started crying because she felt unloved, resulting in him attacking her, I see her as the victim. On the other hand, if she woke him up and starting a sex act, got declined and then started attacking him, then he's the victim who then went on to take his self-defence too far (making her a victim too). But again, my point isn't to argue who t…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:22 PM
1

Oh, no doubt Muslim men are equally if not more oppressed. And I agree that westerners are more prone to detect oppression of women than oppression of men. But the language OP uses is just unreal. Claiming that "oppression" is "liberation" is just insane. If he wants to argue that both genders are equally oppressed, I'd get on board. But trying to argue that "women have it good" doesn't fly with me.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:19 PM
1

No, I think you've got that backwards.
/r/MensRights24/09/15 02:16 PM
8

Well, the guy is pretty clearly a spouse abuser, and I think that's reason enough to boycott his music, or to boycott a venue he's performing at. But denying entry to a country? The man isn't a war criminal. He's just an ordinary criminal who served his time for crimes committed. After all, if Australia denied entry to people with a criminal record, there wouldn't even be an Australia ;)
/r/MensRights23/09/15 09:55 PM
6

That was my feeling too. But of course, we don't know he choked her. She just claims her did. For all we know she tried to rape him in his sleep, he never laid a hand on her, and she cried rape. But then again, for all we know she did nothing to him, and he made up the story about her wanting sex, and he punch her and choked her because he felt like it. The point is we don't really know, so it's not fair to jump to any strong conclusions. But in the absence of competing evidence, we should take …
/r/MensRights23/09/15 09:52 PM
2

This one is tricky - if minimum strength requirements are set so ensure that the offer meets a minimum criteria for job performance or personal safety, then it makes no sense to lower that standard for women. Doing so would mean putting officers on the street who lack the requisite strength to do their job or to stay safe. On the other hand, if the minimum strength requirements exist as an arbitrary way to reduce the pool of potential applicants, then it does make sense to have different standar…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 09:49 PM
0

That is the most backward "traditional" rant I have ever read on this sub. Secondly, a woman does not have to find a husband for herself. She does not have to display her charms and make the thousand and one plans through which she hopes to attract a future mate. The terrible anxiety of having to find a husband and of missing the opportunity if one does not try hard enough at the right moment is spared the Muslim woman. Being able to remain true to her nature, she can afford to sit at home and w…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 07:54 PM
1

Ok, yours is better than mine.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:21 PM
5

OPs title is A LOT misleading.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:12 PM
5

"Dashing male teacher avoids jail time for relationship with 15 year old student" The use of language is astounding. Why does it matter if she's hot?
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:10 PM
7

I don't know and I don't care. I don't support this proposal for the very reason you cite. I just don't like OP twisting the words to sound like "women shouldn't have to write exams".
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:31 PM
17

Shumbris told police he was sleeping when Leeann Scott woke him up to have sex at about 12 a.m., according to the criminal complaint. Shumbris claimed he told Scott he didn’t want to have sex and Scott antagonized the situation. Scott told police Shumbris struck her in the face and choked her, the complaint says. Two issues with your post. First, the article does not indicate there was an attempted sexual assault. It says "she woke him up to have sex". This could easily mean she prodded him awak…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 04:14 PM
2

Yes, I also dislike the narrative that men are some kind of "beast of burden" that a woman trains and moulds for her purposes. It's meant as a joke, but it has a nasty undertone.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:55 PM
2

Sorry about that - I feel the same way about any jokes that assume I love drinking beer and watching sports. I don't particularly enjoy either, so jokes where that is the punch line don't amuse me.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:37 PM
49

That's not what the writer is suggesting at all. She's proposed doing away with entrance requirements. Anyone who wants to go to a school, can go. Whether they can perform well enough to pass courses once they get there would be another issue. Wow - downvotes for clarifying the author's message without endorsing it in any way?
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:36 PM
2

And let me guess - she really wanted your input when she couldn't decide, and once you finally gave in and offered her an opinion she disagreed with you?
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:32 PM
1

I'd venture a guess and say you're not married and have never had to choose paint colours with your wife before! Once you go through that harrowing experience you will appreciate the light-hearted joke this is. :)
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:19 PM
6

Call agents in both states. Draw their attention to the discrepancy. Offer to provide a digital copies of both balances to show discrepancy. Emphasize that you want to stay on top of this to avoid any issues. And when dealing with agents, ask for their email addresses or direct lines. That way you don't have to run through the switchboard and wait in line, and have to explain your problem anew every time.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 03:08 PM
2

Men need to learn more about work/life balance than women do. I'd wager a good chunk of the earnings gap can be attributed to men prioritize earnings over quality of life - so "empowering" men to enjoy more work/life balance might the be best way to address the "wage gap".
/r/MensRights23/09/15 02:51 PM
1

You're right that the two get conflated. Rape is a crime of power only when the perpetrator knows that consent is lacking. Other forms of sexual assault are less "severe" insofar as the perpetrator's mental state is concerned. In those situations the lack of consent has more to do with a lack of communication than a deliberate exercise of power. Edit: and I'm hardly brave to come here. I'm here all the time, and my being a feminist is no secret. I happen to sympathize with most MRA issue, but I …
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:29 AM
0

And if we were talking about those legitimate issues with the study, I would have no problem.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:26 AM
1

Well, I figured that when discussing issues of consent with respect to sexual assault it would valuable to consider it's proper "legal" definition.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:37 PM
1

Well, I guess I'm bucking the trend then.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 07:36 PM
1

What you're describing is precisely why sexual assault is a difficult crime to prosecute. The law is fairly cut and dry, but the evidence is incredibly difficult to obtain. That's why the presumption of innocence and the "beyond reasonable doubt" test are so important.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:57 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_(law) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/capacity And it turns out I'm wrong... Websters DOES have it. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal%20capacity
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:50 PM
2

Right. This is how it happens, every time.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:17 PM
2

Yeah, that's the single biggest challenge in sexual assault cases. Too much of the case hinges on the subjective experience of one of the parties. It's a very unique crime in that respect.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:04 PM
0

How is giving you my legal opinion lying? Incapacity is a legal concept, and the one that is used when deciding sexual assault cases. I am not arguing the fact that it is a difficult to define term and that no one knows what the respondents thought it meant. Cool down, and don't let it get personal.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:03 PM
2

Done.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 05:01 PM
2

Great, now they need to take one more step: "had sex with" -----> "preyed upon/assaulted/raped"
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:43 PM
3

In cases where both parties are too drunk to consent, according to the law, both parties are guilty of sexual assault because intoxication is not a defence to the commission of an offence. But I acknowledge it rarely plays out that way.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:42 PM
2

Actually a man, but thank you.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:37 PM
2

Incapacity is a legal concept. Websters Dictionary will not provide you guidance as to it's meaning.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:36 PM
8

Great article. It's important for people to realize that sexual coercion is not a uniquely masculine trait, and that being a victim of that coercion is not a uniquely feminine experience.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 04:07 PM
12

Yeah, that's a pretty clear double standard at work. Sex by threat of weapon is pretty severe, and the article keeps calling it "having sex".
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:56 PM
2

Kissed on the cheek. Also, might have been a little girl. What am I supposed to be imagining?
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:31 PM
2

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:20 PM
1

These are my biggest gripes too If I was invited to participate in a study about sexual assault for $5, I might pass because I've never been assaulted. If I had been assaulted, I might jump at the chance to share my story. The questions themselves seemed fine enough. The self selection and low response rates are very problematic - and pretty much defeat the purpose of the whole exercise.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:16 PM
2

G5. Since you have been attending [University], has any of the following happened to you while you were unable to consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, asleep or incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol: That sounds a lot of like sexual assault to me. • went ahead without checking in or while you were still deciding This one is more contentious.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:13 PM
-5

Believe what you want, but the failure to communicate "no" does not legitimize non-consensual sex. If you bring a girl into your room where you keep your knife collection, and she's too afraid to say know for fear of angering you, then it's not consensual sex. Similarly, if she's too drunk to consent and you have sex with her oblivious to that fact, it's not consensual sex. And contrary to what this sub believes, changing ones mind after sex is not sexual assault. What matters is whether there w…
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:11 PM
-1

No. Read the link. That quote is from the harassment section of the study. Not the assault section. They did not classify "asking people out repeatedly" as rape. OP lied to you.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:06 PM
7

The quote you cited is from the "Sexual Harassment, Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence" section of the study, not the sexual assault section. The numbers for harassment were 47.7% of respondents. The numbers for assault were 1 in 4. The 1 in 4 stat for assault did not include continually asking a person out as you suggest. Your comment is incorrect.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 03:05 PM
7

Yup. Divorce results from circumstances and compatibility of a couple. The inherent traits of the woman are not more or less important than the inherent traits of the man.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 02:48 PM
5

Hi! I am a feminist. The answer to your question is that you are talking about two kinds of "rape" (I will call it sexual assault). One type of sexual assault is the violent coercive kind. This is the kind where there is no question that the victim isn't consenting. She knows it, the perpetrator knows, and any objective observer would know it.This is the kind that is an "expression of power". The feminist argument would be that this act isn't about sex (he isn't looking for love and companionshi…
/r/MensRights22/09/15 02:47 PM
-1

I don't know if you are prejudiced or just not smart enough to understand. It's the latter. I am not very smart. I missed the "subtlety" of his argument. The oppression of the male gender is clearly the result of a deliberate attempt by plutocrats and their stooges to prevent violent revolution.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 01:41 AM
2

You're right. When someone invades your personal space or touches you when the relationship doesn't justify it, the problem is with you for "feeling" creeped out. The act itself isn't inappropriate.
/r/MensRights22/09/15 01:39 AM
2

Well, thanks for clearing that up.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 11:56 PM
-8

So she's a turd too, now? At least that's not a gendered insult.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 10:53 PM
-8

My point is that she's not dressed as a man in the first place, and how she dresses is irrelevant. This isn't about cross-dressing.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 10:52 PM
-7

Yes, aren't "they" just like that.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 10:51 PM
-7

The one I just described.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 10:46 PM
-7

Politician bemoans the use of diminutive language directed at female politicians like "shrill and hysterical" or “throwing a tantrum”. OP describes her as "whining". Does this not prove her point?
/r/MensRights21/09/15 09:48 PM
-3

Amazing absurdity coming from a woman who dresses like a man and gets away with it. Just checked the photo. It's a woman's shirt. The buttons go from right to left. Also, what relevance does the way she dresses have on the point she is making?
/r/MensRights21/09/15 09:47 PM
-6

I considered saying this exact thing, but the thread was already too bloated and no one here wants to hear it. You are correct. The portion of his settlement that was attributed to "lost future income" could be subject to division. The portions for pain and suffering or medical expenses would not. But yeah, don't waste your time trying to explain these nuances to a subreddit that just wants to call her a cunt and congratulate each other for doing so.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 09:26 PM
1

Well, there's a lot of male-specific content to this article. Normally I am the first one to call out stories that aren't "Men's rights" issues, but I believe this one is appropriate.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 09:21 PM
1

“The court shall consider that it is in the best interests of the child to promote the child’s healthy growth and development through safe, stable, nurturing relationships between a child and both parents” (italics mine). I've often said this. It's strange that we can 'divorce' the best interests of the child from the way parents treat one another. So one parent can act completely inappropriately but still receive a favourably custody award because their behaviour has no impact on their parentin…
/r/MensRights21/09/15 08:56 PM
1

I was shocked that it wasn't already on this sub - because I saw it on the front page last night. I guess I caught it before it was removed, and no one else saw it.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 08:51 PM
-1

Absolutely it is, provided there is equality in the first place. Taking corrective measure to address and inequity is fair, however. Also, I was addressing OPs comment - that they were hiring preferentially. The article does not say that.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 07:46 PM
0

We are thankful that in our meeting with the administration we were able to have a frank conversation about these complex considerations. I understand the difficult situation the administration finds itself in and the competing priorities they must balance. We have had many highly successful events at the University of Toronto. The administration has supported all of these, despite the difficulties I’ve described. We can therefore respect this one exception in which the circumstances are so extr…
/r/MensRights21/09/15 07:16 PM
22

She's right - neither of them should be lumped into the same category as paedophiles. They're not sexual criminals, they're just idiots who had sex in public.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 06:58 PM
-8

Some men are creepy because they engage in creepy behaviours. The article describes ways to not engage in those behaviours. Where's the issue?
/r/MensRights21/09/15 05:37 PM
-1

Right, but you're employing speculation and innuendo. The linked article only talks about opening support groups. There no evidence whatsoever that hiring practices will change.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 05:35 PM
1

How does establishing "lean in circles" affect hiring practices? If anything, this is more likely an attempt to pay lip service to gender equity without actually doing something. Evil feminists have not infiltrated the pentagon. National security is not at risk.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 05:02 PM
2

Big difference between encouraging women to apply for or strive for these positions and preferential hiring practices. This article describes the former, not the latter. Your fears are misplaced. Arguably, there could be many women candidates who are the most-qualified for the job, but they don't apply because they don't think they want it. Initiatives likes these aim to encourage those women to "lean in", and apply.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 04:57 PM
-2

That may happen, but it's unfair to accuse him of brigading when there isn't even subtle encouragement in his article. Especially when this sub pretty blatantly engaged in overt "brigading" (activism?) of the same nature. Not that I disagree with the definition as it stands. The other definitions below it are really childish.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 04:54 PM
-5

Nothing in that article encourages people to brigade urban dictionary. It just mocks this subreddit for doing it.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 04:37 PM
3

It's an article about living with a spouse in a home with less than 500 square feet. I don't think there's be much reaction if you replaced "husband" with "wife" or "spouse".
/r/MensRights21/09/15 03:52 PM
1

Report it to the Police if you want, but above all it's time for you to get out of that relationship quickly and without drama.
/r/MensRights21/09/15 03:01 PM
1

I deal with this all the time. I am a lawyer. These other guys are crackpots. Fleeing the country is the stupidest thing you could do. By far.
/r/MensRights20/09/15 05:19 AM
3

Jesus - your only response is to flee the country? https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cs/calculator/index.php That is the Texas child support calculator. Enter your information there, and you'll notice that child support is not a crippling obligation. If you can't afford a lawyer, look for low-income options in your state, there are options. Here's a list of free consultation lawyers in your state. http://www.sll.texas.gov/self-help/where-to-go-for-help/legal-hotlines/ Call one, and get their …
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:46 PM
3

This guy has clearly been through the process. This is what I recommend to men going through a parenting fight. Always take the high road and play the long game. And yes, do get a lawyer. If you're proactive in this you can probably get through it faster and cheaper and with better results.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:39 PM
21

A user on another thread on HPV posted this: On herd immunity- here's a study that looked at the cost/benefit of vaccinating women vs vaccinating women and men. It estimated the cost per QALY of a female-only vaccination programme at $14,583 against $442,039 for one that also vaccinated men: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328990/ That's 30 times less effective to vaccinate men. A common cut off point per QALY is $50,000, so on the herd immunity argument that isn't anywhere near mak…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:36 PM
0

Alberta, Canada. Member of the provincial bar, too.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:30 PM
-2

But that's not what's going on. The state loses money on the family law system. Courts, clerks, judges - these are incredibly expensive. And the state does not recoup these losses. The federal grants are not tied to the size of an award. In fact, the only one of 5 metrics which favours making awards it the % of cases in which an order exists. There's no need for that award to be high, only that there is one. 60% of the national's male population is paying child support? I don't believe that in f…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:29 PM
-1

Bullshit. You need to provide evidence for that statement. Show me evidence that family law judges are paid kickbacks from privatized jails.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:29 PM
2

Yeah - I don't think there are legal or physical barriers in the way. I think it's mostly socialized and cultural. And because there are so few women, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy to it. The women have few peers, and the men are not used to interacting with women because they are so uncommon. And again, the solution isn't quotas, it's soft influences like ad campaigns and scholarships. Once most women choose STEM on their own, more women will see it as a valid choice for their futures. An…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:27 PM
-2

See, where I come from, if a father's income falls and he can no longer pay child support, his child support obligation falls too. His support obligation will rarely exceed 30% of his income. I have only ever seen fathers get in trouble when they (1) refuse to pay their support, or (2) don't bother getting the order updated when they lose their jobs. They only lose their licenses and passports if they get behind on payments and take no action. In fact, I have never seen an application for a stay…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:25 PM
-2

Where are you people getting this information!? What 1/3 cut???
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:22 PM
0

I read that law, and provided a summary in this post. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3gpxry/request_for_information_us_custody_judges/cu1lqun
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:39 AM
-3

Right, but those are reimbursements. The state wouldn't be making those payments in the first place if the support had been made as they were supposed to. The state isn't making a profit off these, they're just "loaning" money to parents of children so that the children don't live in poverty. They wouldn't need to do this if both parents were supposed their child.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:10 AM
-3

Do you think the children are getting this "interest"? Yes. They are.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:07 AM
-1

Yeah, but there are no private courts, or private child support collection agencies. Only the lawyers are private, and they don't get a cut of child support.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 12:25 AM
-2

1/3 of support goes to the state? What world are you living in? Child support goes to the recipient, not the state.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 12:24 AM
1

How does "providing an economic incentive to tear family units apart" benefit the government. Family units need less social assistance and cost the government less than single parent households. And as for #2 - really? The family law court system is designed to oppress men to fend off violent revolution? Do you even hear yourself speak?
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:00 PM
2

I see what you're getting at but it's not the same. Quotas mandate a certain proportion of men to women. Scholarships, educations programs, advertising, etc... those indirectly address gender disparities. Quotas do it directly. I support reasonable efforts to improve gender disparities. I do not support Quotas.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 09:56 PM
0

I don't care if someone supports getting more women into STEM. Women are under-represented in STEM. It would be nice to see male scholarships for nursing and primary education, though.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 09:41 PM
2

No. We should defend or attack Hillary Clinton based on her support/opposition of specific policies. We should not blindly support her, nor blindly condemn her. This sub tend to be guilty of the latter. This article doesn't discuss policy. OP is just inviting us to circle jerk about how much we hate Hillary Clinton. There is a lot about her I don't like. And there is a lot about her I do like. I am happy to condemn her for the bad, and celebrate her for the good.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 08:13 PM
7

This is my biggest (and only) objection to gender or race quotas. It's valuable to try to correct bad gender/racial imbalances, and it sure, sometimes you'll get sub-par candidates (most job hirings and elections are crap shoots anyways, so the best "on paper" candidate is rarely the best). But above all, quotas means that able and competent people who benefit from quotas are automatically stigmatized and treated with suspicion, because "they're only here because of the quota".
/r/MensRights18/09/15 06:33 PM
5

He for She isn't mentioned anywhere in this article. The article makes no mention of the actual law that she is referring to, nor does it discuss it. There's no context to her comment whatsoever. But I would assume it means "alimony and child support obligations are protected in bankruptcy", which actually doesn't harm men at all. If a man is bankrupt, it doesn't matter to him how the money her forfeits is divided. And if a woman is bankrupt, owing a man alimony and child support, then he is pro…
/r/MensRights18/09/15 05:23 PM
1

Way to go out of your way to mudsling against feminism when the topic has nothing to do with feminism.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 05:04 PM
4

Bravo - not only is this apparently a misunderstanding, but it's not a men's rights issue to boot!
/r/MensRights18/09/15 05:02 PM
2

Bail isn't a punishment issue. It's about ensuring public safety and ensuring they show up for trial.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 05:01 PM
4

Or we could show a little class and not post low-effort feminism bashing memes.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 04:20 PM
1

None of those examples describe children.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:47 PM
3

That's what I was looking for. So it's sexist, but the numbers absolutely justify the different treatment.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 09:03 PM
2

That's my suspicion too. We assume officer's are men, so it doesn't bear special attention.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 08:24 PM
6

Yup. Not a men's rights issue. I'd prefer my cops, male or female, have the requisite fitness to perform their job. It's a policing issue, not a gender issue.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 07:25 PM
11

Historical treatment of women in the workplace and child birth aren't excuses for sexist treatment of men. I wasn't alive in the "mad men" era of the 1960s. I didn't benefit in any way by the sexist environment of that time. Why should I, as a man, pay a penance for something that happened over a generation ago?
/r/MensRights17/09/15 07:22 PM
-2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfimcqjWHIQ So shocking. So effective. Right.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 07:18 PM
1

A generous plea deal? Attempted murder? How much less generous could the prosecutors have been while still offering a "deal"?
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:08 PM
2

That's what I always believed was the case.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 03:06 PM
3

To be fair, orders rare list reasons. They delivered orally by the judge, so we are dependent on court reporters to tell us what was said. Really complicated decisions get published in their entirety, but not a routine CPS case.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:24 AM
3

I dunno, I'd say the majority of apprehension cases I've been privy to have involved some pretty horrible parents. But I definitely concede the there isn't enough oversight of foster parents.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:23 AM
4

It's possible to condemn rape without calling on it being perpetrated on others.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:22 AM
-16

No feminist has ever claimed that 13 year old boys can't be raped by adults. Edit: Many downvotes, not a single example to prove me wrong.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:21 AM
2

Does anyone know why this was removed? None of the articles provided the reasons the judge ordered it.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:20 AM
-6

But the Plutocrats and their government stooges are men. That makes no sense whatsoever.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:17 AM
0

It's not the opinions of feminists that worry me - it's the opinions of the general public.
/r/MensRights17/09/15 01:00 AM
1

That's my suspicion too. If it was my country, I could probably dig up the particulars, but I don't know my way around the UK court reporting sites.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:55 PM
1

I agree that confirmation bias is at play. If you're looking for men to condescend, it's easy to overlook women doing it But I wouldn't go so far that the entirety of feminist is premised on confirmation bias. Everyone everywhere suffers from it. I won't deny feminist is rife with it, but I disagree that it's fair to criticize it. It's not more prevalent in feminism as compared to anywhere else, even the MRM.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:54 PM
2

Ok, It's a stupid word too.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:29 PM
1

Well, if you've read some of the transcripts he posted, it's pretty likely that the accusation wasn't true. Maybe I am stretching, though.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:29 PM
1

Your point is valid, though I would say the word was bad from its inception. The origin story of the term is Rebecca Solnit was at a party, where she met a guy who struck up a conversation about a book he had read. Unbeknownst to him, Ms. Solnit was the author of that book. Now instead of laughing at the situation, and disclosing this fact to the man, she instead sat in silence judging him until a friend explained it to the man. And so the term "mansplaining" was born. As if being clueless and/o…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:28 PM
1

And I am a sucker for punishment, but thanks for the encouragement.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:21 PM
1

He's writing as though he is a stranger to the sub, and that a "friend" recommended he come try us out. He also posted an identical post to /r/ menslib. He's been here for ages, always posting updates to his blog. And apparently doing so from 3 separate accounts (and a 4th that has been deleted).
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:12 PM
0

Ok. I am scared of being labelled a misogynist for being associated with a movement containing people like Paul Elam, even though I am not even remotely misogynist. But that's the way public opinion is constructed right now. And if you want to change it (and I do), the movement needs to cut it out with the woman bashing and anti-feminist rhetoric (which I try to do). Edit: I acknowledge I am not likely to succeed, but I'm still trying.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:08 PM
1

Where's the men's rights issue? Or are we in the business of mocking SJW for it's own sake?
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:03 PM
7

Yes, and there's a big difference between protecting "the population" and protecting "citizens". Immunizing girls might be good at protecting the amorphous blob that collective we call "the population", but that's small solace to the individual citizens (and taxpayers) who are left to get sick for the greater good.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:01 PM
10

Interestingly, future risk kind of already is used, if indirectly, in calculating prison sentences. It's just judges using their intuition instead of algorithms. But I definitely agree. Letting algorithms decide is terrifying.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 10:00 PM
-8

As always we agree. I just wish you wouldn't cater to the unsavory elements here so much. It shouldn't be a competition about who gets raped more, or who has it worse. And I'm sorry for getting lazy about the statistics in this thread. I am supposed to be better than that. Thank you for reminding me. But you recognize that using the verb "clucks" is akin to calling a women a hen, and insinuating that her arguments are more akin to purposely gossip than substantial argument. It's a low blow, and …
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:52 PM
-1

Sorry - but I'm not prepared to draw links between my online personae. It exposes me to potential criticism for posting here, and my other personae make it pretty clear who I am irl. As much as I care about MRA issues, I cannot risk being "outed". That's why I am so obsessed with calling out the garbage that gets posted here. I am literally too afraid of being associated with people like Paul Elam to publicly support these issues. If the MRM weren't so unsavory, I wouldn't have to worry about th…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:50 PM
2

No one raped anyone. There were no rape charges. They were both charged with public indecency.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:37 PM
3

This was my first thought. But I read it again: was ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work after admitting outraging public decency. The woman who was with him on what was their first date, Allison Jennings, 39, of Chelmsford, and who had pleaded guilty previously to the same offence Kinda sounds like they both pleaded guilty, thought not explicit. Do you know for sure if she plead guilty and he fought it? The article isn't very good about clearing that up, and you might have some local k…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:37 PM
-3

Yeah, and that's not a gentle backpedal either. He pretty much went from saying "the need to prosecute sexual assaults trumps the rights of the accused" to "sexual assault is a problem, but it can't trump the rights of the accused". Almost a full 180.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:34 PM
-4

I bet you believe in the wage gap too, eh? No, I don't. It's been thoroughly debunked by intelligent and thoughtful people. Unlike your claims about false accusations. I will 100% change my position if someone brings me something more substantial than what you've provided. Go fuck yourself. This is why I usually avoid discussions with you.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:30 PM
-2

That's a great write-up, Pierce. I guess I have to agree with you that "more studies are needed". But that still doesn't mean I should accept claims of 60% when the evidence is really weak. I wish more people here would put the effort in that you do. Though I would prefer it if you would describe female writers as "clucking" :)
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:09 PM
-1

r/feminism does not tolerate criticism of feminism. It's their rule, so I respect it. I think it's a mistake, but I am not a mod there. Edit: And I should add, the #1 difficulty I face when criticizing feminism is the Men's Right's Movement and the manosphere. Feminists are constantly on the defensive from legitimately stupid attacks from the manosphere, that they almost always start with their backs up. And heaven forbid you raise a men's issue that the MRM supports, you get instantly attacked …
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:06 PM
83

I'm always interested in hearing more about this debate whenever it comes up (and it comes up a lot in Canada). Sadly, newspaper articles rarely go into the amount of detail that is needed to really look at the cost/benefits of the issue. It seems like the health community is saying that there is less of a health benefit return per dollar of investment when immunizing boys. Basically, if all the women are immune, then it can't pass from women to men, and them are also effective "immune". Now of …
/r/MensRights16/09/15 09:05 PM
-2

Perhaps instead of trolling the Men's Rights board you should go condemn these feminists (whom you will no doubt insist are insignificant outliers) in their own spaces? Or are you too frightened to criticize your masters? You are confusing reddit with the "entire world". I am very critical of those "feminists" in venues you do not frequent.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:58 PM
3

Yeah, I don't think he can possibly claim he 'misspoke'. He repeated his point several times, and provided examples and illustrations in support of his claim. This was not a slip of the tongue. He said it, on the record, and people applauded. That being said, his "apology" editorial is actually fairly good. Too bad he didn't take that position when he was speaking at the hearing.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:56 PM
-5

No idea. But I am generally more inclined to trust the government than "some guy". Not to say the government is always right, but I believe the onus should be on opponents of their statistics.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:51 PM
1

Quite the contrary. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3ky4zw/are_people_here_ok_with_this_or_is_it_time_to/cv1nk7s
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:47 PM
-3

Your link opens with the following phrase: It is a common rhetorical technique to use language that tells the reader whom to believe without actually presenting any evidence It then proceeds to make claims about two studies without providing links to those studies, or to their datasets. So I looked for criticisms of these two studies, and found a pretty thorough criticism here: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/OCADVSA_RapeAndFalseReports_2010.pdf It does contain actual information from those studies,…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:38 PM
11

Not much explanation offered for the difference in sentencing. Absent an explanation, I would definitely call that bias.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:24 PM
-1

Never heard of manflu. Disagree that Misandry isn't real, though it is vastly overstated on this sub. Male tears is also used ironically, but it's incredibly condescending and should stop. No sexism against men is a semantic argument. If you accept that sexism = power + discrimination, then arguably men can't experience 'sexism' because "they have the power". It's nonsense though because men don't have "all the power", not all men are equal in power, and sexism has too strong of a popular meanin…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:18 PM
0

Better provide links for those, because I am extremely skeptical.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 08:14 PM
7

Also stupid words. Edit: Mansplaining already has a gender neutral word: condescending. There's no evidence that men are more condescending than women. Stupid word. Manspreading already has a gender neutral word: discourteousness. Women take us extra spaces on public transit as often as women. Except men are expected to be the first to give up a seat to a woman or elderly person. Stupid word also.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:59 PM
0

Nothing to do with men's rights. They're being charged with attempted murder for god's sake!
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:59 PM
4

Yeah, the sheer number of people who only come here to reinforce their negative opinions of women has pretty much buried everything else. And don't give me that "it refutes 'women are wonderful'" argument. It's complete crap. If you spend all your time trying to prove that women aren't wonderful, then you are literally spending your time bashing women.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:52 PM
-1

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRightsMeta/comments/3jdc6o/lets_discuss_women_behaving_badly_posts/ The above is an essay I challenging everything you just said. Women behaving badly posts are a blight on this subreddit.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:48 PM
4

Well, to be fair, it's a stupid word.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 07:33 PM
4

The sexual encounter in question took place in March 2012, in the spring semester of Sterrett’s freshman year. Legal documents described how the female student, CB, who was a friend of Sterrett’s, asked to stay in his room because her roommate was having guests. He expected her to sleep on a mat on the floor and was surprised when she got into his bunk bed. Soon the two were kissing, then more; CB asked Sterrett about a condom, and he got one. Their encounter went on for so long, and was so loud…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 04:47 PM
1

Hello, It was suggested by a friend that I contact you as you might very well be able to help me get some justice from what has occurred to myself. Uh-huh? So you're not the same guy who has been posting your blog for months under the following three accounts (including the one that posted this very comment)? https://www.reddit.com/user/maninstruggle https://www.reddit.com/user/maninstruggle1 https://www.reddit.com/user/thedaringslave I feel for you because of what you went through with that fal…
/r/MensRights16/09/15 03:04 PM
9

Here's a link to the actual law: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: I don't have time to parse is carefully, but based on the summary that OP posted, it isn't quite a requirement that contractors purchase stuff "only from women owned businesses". Rather, it seems to require that contractors ensure that women and minority owned businesses receive a "fair share" of work. So it's not true that you have to buy ONLY from women owned businesses. There just needs to be balance. It's …
/r/MensRights16/09/15 02:55 PM
0

... financial redress in civil court is precisely what is being proposed.
/r/MensRights16/09/15 01:23 AM
1

That's the right approach. They should be taken seriously, given comfort, and not be subjected to immediately cross-examination But that belief should only apply to the victim. It should not be used against the accused.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 05:52 PM
3

How’s this for adding insult to literal injury? In New Jersey, a spouse, whether it’s the husband or the wife could be forced to pay alimony to their ex even if their former spouse was convicted of abusing them in a domestic violence case. Sounds reasonable. To be perfectly fair, however, there would need to be a better appreciation of the abuse men face in relationships.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 05:01 PM
7

No, if a certain number of people condemn abuse perpetrated by a woman, then it cannot be said that she is being given "a pass" because she is a woman. And if you that isn't the case - there's no men's rights issue. Because no men are affected by this story. It's just a woman behaving badly.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 12:09 AM
-1

I hear that analogy a lot too. But can you provide ONE concrete example of his radical stuff getting any positive attention? The Men's Rights Conference probably drew some positive attention, but that was him being a decent activist. He wasn't being a squeaky wheel there.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 11:15 PM
-3

I've got my hands full doing exactly that with this subreddit.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 11:05 PM
3

Yup.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 11:04 PM
-3

I am pretty open about being a male feminist here. I just happen to sympathize with men's issue a lot. I also happen to have no patience for a lot of the crap that gets tossed around as "rational argument". The wage gap is a myth (it's an earnings gap). Men are discriminated against in terms of sentencing, and outcomes in family law (though the family law issue is more discrimination against wage earners, who happen to be men). Male suicide rates are an issue, and female attempt rates in no way …
/r/MensRights14/09/15 10:19 PM
-5

Yup - it's time to disavow AVFM. The MRM doesn't need hate-mongering any more to get its message out.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:41 PM
2

AVFM needs to exist, just like for feminists the radicals need it exist - its been the main driver of this movement for a few years now . I've heard many people echo that sentiment, but I just don't agree. Even just looking at the youtube comments I see several people saying "yup, pretty much confirmed all my biases about MRAs". Sure, radicals like this incite a lot of other radicals to join a movement, but they do so by permanently alienating moderates who might otherwise be supportive. I see c…
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:14 PM
0

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. A crude way of describing the difference is assault is the application of force, sexual assault is the application of force that is a turn on to the offender.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 09:06 PM
2

So are feminists actually trying to tear down your videos, or are you just trying to advertise your content?
/r/MensRights14/09/15 08:42 PM
1

Not exactly. Kicking someone in the groin is assault, not sexual assault. I guess it would depend on the context of how she managed to bite him... there. But absent getting a sexual thrill out of it, it's likely just plain old assault.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 08:40 PM
1

And archived to boot. The whole article is about pictures, but we can't see pictures on the archived version. Also, nothing to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 07:05 PM
3

Where's the Men's Rights issue? This woman behaved badly, and pretty much the whole world is condemning her for it.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 06:54 PM
6

A nice reminder that being simply criticizing a woman in public life is not sexist if the content of that criticism speaks to their actions and activities, and not their gender.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:30 PM
6

Where's the men's rights issue?
/r/MensRights14/09/15 04:18 PM
-5

This is the most depressing circle jerk I have ever seen on this subforum.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:10 PM
0

So what's the point of this post then?
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:07 PM
2

How about you post the calls of Patriarchy when they come, instead of anticipating them so gleefully.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 03:00 PM
9

(1) Provide Link (2) Biting genitals is not rape, it's assault. (3) Yes, let's follow the trial and see how much time she gets. It's improper to assume the courts will "get it wrong" before they have even tried the case.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:59 PM
2

You clearly aren't understanding me. I am asking whether they kept any of that money. Obviously they garnished it from you, but you claimed they took a percentage. That's what I am asking about. Also, I only asked for a source for your claim about "for-profit" courts. No courts are operated as a business, and no courts generate a profit. But I like to keep an open mind, so if you could provide a source for that statement I would entertain the notion. Sincerely, - Cockroach.
/r/MensRights14/09/15 02:58 PM
1

I was actually aware I committing that fallacy - but the above commenter was making a statement without evidence or argument - the biggest fallacy of them all!
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:43 AM
1

There's no option for voluntary payment? Garnish only?
/r/MensRights12/09/15 02:40 AM
1

Another product for sale to help dad's in court? What is this scam?
/r/MensRights12/09/15 12:03 AM
3

Sorry... for-profit courts? I am going to require that you post a source for that. And how exactly do you know that your child support was taken by the state? Did they give you a receipt showing their share or something?
/r/MensRights11/09/15 11:49 PM
-3

A military issue doesn't necessarily preclude it being a gender issue. the draft is a military issue that is absolutely a gender issue. But this one isn't. Apparently female soldiers aren't as good as male soldiers is raw combat effectiveness, and that may put their predominately male compatriots at risk. But the men aren't being put at risk because they are men. They are put at risk because they are soldiers, and this command decision is putting them at risk. During the Iraq and Afghanistan war…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 10:22 PM
3

You're gonna make me work, eh? The reason mothers usually end up with custody comes down to three factors. (1) The fact that women tend to be primary caregivers in a relationship, (2) burden of proof rules in court, and (3) "the best interest of the child test". Here's how it goes down. In your typical separation, the husband leaves the house voluntarily, leaving the mom and kids behind. Mom has been caring for the kids most days while he works, and he's doing the "honorable thing". So the statu…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:47 PM
-9

But not because they are men. But because they are soldiers. Their gender is a secondary characteristic.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:30 PM
1

Isn't that exactly what I said? I did say "vote Hillary", I said "being a woman can be a reason to vote someone into office".
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:29 PM
1

No, it is a fund that pays out depending on how successful they are on 5 metrics. From the linked thread: The program provides financial incentives to States based on five performance factors. They are as follows: Paternity Establishment Performance Level Support Order Performance Level Current Payment Performance Level Arrearage Payment Performance Level Cost Effectiveness Performance Level The Paternity Establishment Performance Level is the percentage of children born out of wedlock in the st…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:25 PM
-5

But you stop once the rest of the sentence supports my interpretation! "I'm just a woman, and now an unemployed mother of small children, who made a bad decision in a situation of panic. I am truly sorry," She's not asking to be excused for her actions, she's asking for forgiveness! "I'm just a man who made a bad decision in a situation of panic". It works just fine if you insert 'man'. I think you're looking for outrage when none is there. Heck, I am not even that outraged that she tripped the …
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:19 PM
-14

If you're using it here, then you're still using it too often.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:14 PM
-9

And that's a military issue, not a men's issue. Are the women in the military, and the women at home not also put in danger by bad military policy? It's a gender neutral outcome, localized to the military. It's not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:13 PM
2

It's a myth Here's a link to a thread here where I looked into the myth in more detail: www.reddit.com /r/MensRights/comments/3gpxry/request_for_information_us_custody_judges/ Basically, the US federal government has an incentive program for child support collection agencies to be successful and cost effective at enforcing child support orders. If they perform well on metrics, then the state gets more money. However, these metrics are all about the percentages, not raw numbers. So if a state ord…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 09:11 PM
2

As a feminist, I won't deny that I snickered a few times reading it.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:58 PM
2

Ms Laszlo said: "I do not deserve the political witch-hunts against me, nor the smears or the death threats. "I'm just a woman, and now an unemployed mother of small children, who made a bad decision in a situation of panic. I am truly sorry," she said. Note she is not saying "I'm a woman." She is saying "I'm just a woman", in the diminutive. In the context of the previous statement, I would paraphrase her as follows: "I was not making a deliberate political gesture - I reacted on instinct. I am…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:53 PM
10

Just so that no one makes themselves look foolish - this is satire!
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:48 PM
-15

Ok, it's time to stop posting this. My rights are not impacted by the performance of women in the military under performing men. It's a military issue, not a gender politics issue.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:28 PM
-2

If you're going to vote for somebody purely because of what race or gender they are The statement says "don't vote for me only because I am a woman, vote for me on merits. Being a woman can be meritorious, but it's not enough on it's own." “I'm not asking people to vote for me because I'm a woman, but I think if you vote for somebody on their merits—one of my merits is I'M A WOMAN” No one is saying vote for her purely because she's a woman. Rather, her being a woman is one of many factors that s…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 08:25 PM
16

I like this argument: But ignoring that problem for a second, let’s look at the implications of what Polis is saying about those “one or two” who “did it”: Those rapists can simply continue their schooling at another institution. Does he have no reservations about the danger this would pose to students at the transferring student’s new institution? How could bouncing attackers from school to school possibly protect the safety of American college students? There's some common ground here. Everyon…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:54 PM
1

No. Not even close. The state doesn't get a cut of child support. They aren't "only interested in collecting the money". This myth needs to die. The state loses money on divorce cases. They spend horrific amounts on courts and judges, and are constantly trying to streamline the process because courts are completely clogged up by family law cases.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:42 PM
1

Because you were hijacking the conversation. It was supposed to be about her, and her issues with self-image. But you tried to make it about men. If you want to talk about male baldness, start a thread about male baldness. Don't hijack other threads.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:10 PM
4

You're absolutely correct - and I am frankly a little surprised someone here appreciates those kinds of nuances. I guess what I am getting at is that courts seem too willing to excuse poor behaviour of parents because of the "best interests of the child". Like in this case, the mother is clearly poisoning the child's relationship with the father. But because the damage is already done, the court is not prepared to go after the root of the problem - the mother. Instead the child will remain in th…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 07:09 PM
6

Great to see, but I do find one thing troubling. If the mother alienating the son from his father, shouldn't the court be taking steps to ensure that the father is not denied access - instead of financially penalizing the mother (and by extension, the child). I can't help but feel that the solution should be ensuring the father gets his access, not cutting him a break on child support.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:47 PM
3

Ok, but this subreddit does it's fair share of mudslinging too. Does that mean the MRM has no real arguments or evidence to support their arguments?
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:37 PM
2

The key is to talk to them without attacking their faith directly. Instead of saying "your faith is wrong", talk about how their own beliefs align with yours. Whenever I talk about men's issue, I always do it from a feminist / gender equality perspective. If the premise we all agree on is "genders should be equal" then it's very easy to convince them that the high male suicide rate is a problem that should be addressed.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:37 PM
5

And I should add - keep bashing them over the head with the facts, respectfully. Facts are hands down the best weapon the MRM has. But people are suspicious of facts when they are accompanied by an agenda. People don't believe facts coming from someone they see as an opponent. If you approach people screaming "feminzai's are ruining America" then you get ignored. If you approach people with an honest intention to educate instead of criticize, then they are more likely to listen to you.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:35 PM
0

I actually agree with a lot of what Farrell says, and I agree there is unquestionably a grain of truth in what you are saying. But it can't be the whole story. Women's sexual selection could impact the way men behave, but how does that explain men forcing other men to traditional notions of masculinity? Wouldn't men support their competition behaving in a way that women aren't attracted to? Sexual selection explains a man's behaviour towards women, but not necessarily towards other men.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 06:32 PM
2

These kinds of stories always make sad. They show how men can be victims of sexual harassment or abuse without sounding "exceptional". When people hear "male victim of sexual assault" they picture a "wussy" guy getting violently raped by a woman, and they snicker. This kind of story could happen to anyone. It's credible. And they also show how these men can be treated when they seek help. Again, people imagine a guy getting assaulted as almost comical. As something that would never really happen…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:56 PM
0

How is But the most telling aspect of the video is that it is not women, but men who are the most incensed at the sight of two other men holding hands Gynocentrism? Isn't it toxic masculinity that is to blame? Two men are acting "unmanly" or "womanly" and other men are abusing them. The women don't seem to care. Edit: You guys are ignoring my comment about Gynocentrism. That's my main point. I offered toxic masculinity as an alternative, but my main point is that there's nothing Gynocentric goin…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:52 PM
21

This is the comment OP should be paying attention to. The manager is wrong, and is causing a hostile work environment. The solution? Raising a stink with HR will make working there just as un-livable, so be prepared to leave.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:50 PM
3

I don't see anything controversial about this article, and calling the guy a Professional Magina is not only petty and boorish, but inaccurate. The guy is a professor at Princeton. He's no slouch. Gainfully employed. It just so happens that his wife's job is less flexible than his, so he naturally fell into the role of the primary parent. He is pointing at this is normal for any married couple, because kids need someone to take on the bulk of the day-to-day responsibilities, and true 'co-parenti…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:41 PM
-5

Fine. Call it a "pro" then. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 05:15 PM
2

Yeah, that's a fair point. A man saying this would be treated very harshly. It's partially justifiable because I think there's a much stronger case to be made about a woman president than a man president (because of the historical and symbolic significance of it) but I agree with you. The male perspective needs to stop being seen in a negative light.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 03:01 PM
0

I expected to find a comment like this way down at the bottom. The statement says "don't vote for me only because I am a woman, vote for me on merits. Being a woman can be meritorious, but it's not enough on it's own." It's not a logically incoherent statement. And there is some merit in having a woman president. For one, it would break centuries of only men holding that office - it would be an important symbolic event. Further, women do bring a different perspective to politics. One that is und…
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:39 PM
4

It's complicated. I think most people are sympathetic to MRA issues, they just can't get over the programming we were all raised on: that women have been horribly oppressed throughout history. Once you've committed to this idea that women are an oppressed class (heck, we still call women a "minority"), it is difficult to be sympathetic to their "oppressors". However, it is difficult to educate people out of this bias when the movement contains so much anger and hostility. There's a post on this …
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:33 PM
0

No, I am pointing out that difficult legal decisions require a person to be in possession of all the facts. We only have a short newspaper article. I will always defer the decisions of judges unless I am shown an convincing reason to believe they have erred. Looking at the legal test for bail in the UK, and the evidence provided, I see that there likely wasn't sufficient evidence to deny bail.
/r/MensRights11/09/15 02:26 PM
1

I don't see the men's right issue. Perhaps you are looking for /r/ tumblrinaction
/r/MensRights10/09/15 09:42 PM
-6

You can talk to women, just don't be condescending.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 08:58 PM
1

Hardly. After you've paid for this guide, then what? You're supposed to represent yourself? A legal education requires more than 6 modules and $250. This won't equip people to represent themselves. And not only that, but once you are a member of Dads Rights Academy, you can have Ms. Mitchell consult with your own attorney with a "two heads are better than one" consultation at a special, reduced Dads Rights Academy member rate! It's advertising for a divorce coach that you pay for. And divorce co…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 06:35 PM
1

Only $250!
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:18 PM
0

I'd take the same position - the courts are in a better position than me to determine whether and for how much bail is set.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 01:59 PM
3

Bravo
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:36 AM
0

You have a frightening narrow understanding of sexual assault. Drugged/unconscious Have sex with me or I'll say you raped me Some men are smaller, frail, or disabled, and can't "punch her".
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:31 AM
0

When these two women plead guilty to murdering two small boys and walk away with a suspended sentence and community service, or a year or two in jail, then we can complain. Damn right you could complain. I'll be complaining too if that happens.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:29 AM
0

I guess I'll just repeat what I said. unless the court is of the opinion that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person Unless they are likely to physically or mentally injure another person, then bail is supposed to be granted. Their crime was limited to a family member. They have no history of committing violent acts against the public at large. Once the children are out …
/r/MensRights10/09/15 04:28 AM
1

And yet it has not been plead.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:56 AM
2

You are correct (though I always heard that women's attempts are more frequent) but it's a fallacious argument. The women get treatment and keep living. The men are dead and forfeit their life insurance policies. The outcomes are very different.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:55 AM
5

I didn't circumcise my son. There was no compelling medical reason to do so, and absent such a reason I don't feel that I am justified to do something so significant without his consent.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:09 AM
1

There was no mention of a "syndrome" in the article.
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:06 AM
-1

Based on OPs own links: Section 114(2) provides that bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder unless the court is of the opinion that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person. Furthermore section 114(3)(a) states that the court in deciding whether there is no such significant risk, must have regard to any relevant considerations as stated in paragraph 9 of Pa…
/r/MensRights10/09/15 02:01 AM
2

MRA should be in full support of this article. It points out that many states require the physical application of force for sex to be rape. By that definition, most of the sexual assaults experienced by men are not a crime.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 07:16 PM
3

Pundits are missing the distinction. It's not appropriate to question a woman's sexual experiences if the question at issue is "did she consent to the sex she claimed was assault". Previous sexual history is irrelevant to issues of consent. However, if she is claiming that she should be entitled to more money because she was a virgin and now can't have sex, then her past and future sexual history are relevant to the issue of damages. The issue doesn't appear to be whether or not she was raped, b…
/r/MensRights09/09/15 05:22 PM
7

It's a pretty good summary of the potential benefits of circumcision, and some of the motivations behind people having it done. But I don't see the words "consent" or "ethics" anywhere in that article. Which for me, is the single most important issue in the circumcision debate.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:48 PM
-1

I wouldn't call it misogyny, but 57 year old lawyers should go trolling on LinkedIn complimenting other lawyers half his age on how good looking they are. LinkedIn is supposed to be about professional networking. It's not Facebook, and it's not a dating app. It's not misogyny, but it's unprofessional, and kind of creepy.
/r/MensRights09/09/15 02:44 PM
15

I've been calling for someone to do exactly this for a while. Thank you for compiling this information, and for providing a helpful contextual comparison (showing comparable ratios for African Americans). The fact that there is discrimination against Black Americans in the justice system is well established. The fact that the discrimination against men is even larger is very compelling. Now of course, someone could just say "men commit more violent crime, which is why the bias is there". If they…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:22 PM
-1

I see no point in speculating about a case with no specifics save for your word. Perhaps if you provided a link to a 3rd party publication? I also see no point speculating at all. Shouldn't we let the legal system run its course before jumping on the 'pussy-pass' bandwagon?
/r/MensRights08/09/15 08:01 PM
1

Yet no men's right's are impacted by where a supermarket puts New Science Magazine.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:16 PM
0

Yeah, this case isn't about rights, it's about by what procedure the father needs to go about getting those rights recognized. No one is saying that he shouldn't be the child's father, they are simply arguing about what mechanism to use to get there. As far as the law is concerned, the dad and the child are strangers. To give him parenting rights requires that he meet a criteria to be eligible. Unfortunately, the mechanism available to surrogate parents requires a couple to apply for parenting r…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:12 PM
1

No indication that the child is in foster care. More likely the issue is one of parental authority - the ability to select a school, consent to doctors appointments, etc. The father is applying to be legally recognized as the father of the child in his care. The court is incapable of granting him that authority because the law which allows the parents of a child born through surrogacy to apply for that power requires a couple. So in the meantime, the kid is likely still with dad, but the state h…
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:10 PM
1

You're half right. Because the facts don't quite fit the law, the law cannot be applied in this instance. However, the father is trying to get a remedy from the law that can't be applied. So your maxim is correct - the law can't be applied if the facts don't fit. However, the issue is that not applying the law is what results in the outcome you don't like.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:07 PM
1

In pretty much all jurisdictions the "birth mother" is the mother of the child. Even in cases of surrogacy. In my jurisdiction, legislators made it pretty clear that a surrogate mother cannot be forced to give up a child against her will. She can be sued for not complying with a surrogacy contract for money, but the government simply will not forcibly rip a baby from it's birth mother's arms.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 05:04 PM
4

You are missing the point. For every woman who has to fear the possibility of rape, there's a man who has to fear the possibility of an accusation made against him that he would struggle to disprove. For every woman who has to fear the agonizing decision about whether to abort a child (and to fear whether the state will even permit her to make that decision), there's a man who has to fear that he will be put in that situation and have no control over the outcome whatsoever. For every woman who h…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 10:12 PM
-1

Grow up.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 10:06 PM
1

Not you again. GO AWAY.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:56 PM
2

Whether the numbers of false accusations are 1-3% or 3-5% or maybe 8% at most or as high as %15 just imagine that it is you or your loved one that has been falsely accused, wrongfully convicted or maybe even killed for something they did not do. So we have no idea how many false allegations there are.... but they are definitely on the rise? Article's pretty good. Title is rotten.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:56 PM
1

It's definitely not satire. Some people here do legitimately believe that men have it worse than women, but most think it's either equal or while women have it harder, men's issues tend to get ignored. For me, I am in the latter camp. I think women have more issues than men, but I think legitimate men's issues do exists, and they are not taken seriously. I believe that gender politics isn't a zero sum game, and men being treated fairly does not require women to be treated unfairly - or vice vers…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:54 PM
0

What does gay marriage have to do with Men's Rights? Edit: Nevermind, I'll bite. Taking governments out of the marriage business doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, we could just throw up our hands and say "everyone just associate and dissociate with one another freely without oversight". It seems like an attractive idea - like most libertarian ideas. However, also like most libertarian ideas, the world isn't simply enough to just "let people figure things out for themselves". Historically, mar…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:40 PM
1

Right or wrong (I say wrong), the clinics probably don't want the hassle. We say this all the time in law, it's better to have a thing than the right to a thing. In this case, it's better to be left alone than be harassed by irate spouses who legally have no cause to be angry.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 09:30 PM
13

Talk to a lawyer, before talking to police. If she's diagnosed BPD you're probably pretty safe. You should also evaluate whether you want to stay in this relationship. Living with someone with serious mental health issues can be very difficult, but unless you are committed to helping her with her condition for the rest her life, you don't want to risk being sent to prison because she's having an episode. Tough spot to be in. Lawyer first, then decide whether to say involved with her.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:32 PM
-2

It's a joke. She's behaving the way that society believes men in similar positions of authority and power act. It's funny because she's both a woman and a pig. It defies our expectations, and we laugh. If this is cause for anger, then Kermit dating a younger thinner pig is cause of anger from feminists. And Kermit dating a younger thinner pig is also funny.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:03 PM
0

Charges require a victim to come forward, according to the article, and apparently nobody did.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:01 PM
0

I am an equity feminist, I guess. I am very sympathetic to men's issues (being a man helps) as well as women's issues. I've always felt the MRM is just a "feminist" movement that focuses on men's issues. It's just you can't use the label because the movements hate each other so much.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 08:00 PM
1

Hard to say. I don' see many posts from women on the subject, and because it's a clinic policy I can't verify it by checking myself (don't know the clinic). If I had to guess, I would wager that women would be treated similarly. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was different either. If clinics don't deal with fallout from husbands, then they might not need a policy that is gender neutral.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 07:59 PM
3

It does stand up to basic logical scrutiny. The attacks come from ideological differences, not honest attempts at discussion. I'm sympathetic to their plight, even though I disagree with it.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 07:58 PM
-1

No one denies that women don't engage in horrible behaviours. And in the linked article, the woman was held accountable for those behaviours.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 07:54 PM
-1

Hard to say because I don't know the law of that state very well, but I would put more focus on the word "person' than "he". If the law intended to apply only to men, the law would say "man".
/r/MensRights04/09/15 06:03 PM
-13

But does she espouse opinions that are this extreme in the Guardian? The Guardian wouldn't run this kind of drivel.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 06:01 PM
1

When it comes to gender issues, I'm afraid a lot of peoples' brains switch off and it's very easy to see depending on what's posted up what the reactions will be. Well, I think you've got the truth of it there. I have definitely met man feminists who are guilty of this problem. The one I hate the most is "women were victims for generations", as though women today have been personally victimized by "historical" treatment of women, and men have reciprocally benefited from the same injustices. Are …
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:16 PM
-17

No, but people are having a lot of fun with their Two Minutes Hate
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:06 PM
5

They are afraid of unnecessary grief or possible lawsuits. It's not like a lawsuit would be successful, but the hassle isn't worth it. They likely concluded that the hassle of dealing with angry spouses was worse than losing a few male clients.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:04 PM
4

Nope. They don't call the wife to tell her. They just won't contract with men who want the procedure unless the wife signs off too.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:02 PM
9

Not illegal because the clinics are private. It's a policy, not a law. They just don't want to deal with angry wives.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:02 PM
3

A fellow lawyer! So you know what I am talking about. If a wife makes a $5,000 claim for "emotional harm", what do you do? Summary judgement would cost you almost that much anyway. What if it is alleged that the clinic mislead him about the permanent effects of a vasectomy? That could require a lot more time and money!
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:01 PM
5

A wife wanting to sue a doctor's office for performing a vasectomy on her husband would not find a lawyer willing to take the case. Never underestimate liability in the United States. Also, the fear isn't that they'll get sued and lose. It's that they'll get sued in the first place. Getting sued is expensive, even if the suit never goes anywhere. They have to defend, possibly provide disclosure. The cost and hassle isn't worth it - and these clinics probably decided the cost of potentially losin…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:50 PM
-18

Queue up the circle jerk. She's a radical feminist. Self described. She is not mainstream. She is not the poster child of feminism. The article is run by a blog called "radfem collective". It's not run on the New York Times. This is not an opinion that many people agree on or share. It's a stupid opinion that doesn't deserve attention. Political lesbianism is also a stupid term. But for god's sakes - stop circle jerking over this crap. This is what /r/ againstmensrights does. They pick the worst…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:42 PM
0

I happen to be a feminist, and we've already established that I understand the satire. The issue is that not everyone gets the nuance of this joke. And I've definitely seen articles posted here that are clearly satire, yet MRAs have gotten angry about it. I agree that people getting upset over this are missing the point. But I disagree that this is "revealing" anything about feminism in particular.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:37 PM
2

It's a relationship. They need to want the same things if it's going to work. She wants to be with a partner who isn't like him. If he wants to be the man she wants, he is free to become that. If he wants to stay the same, then they should split up. Not complicated.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:35 PM
11

People are just missing the subtlety of the Miss Piggy/Kermit split. The whole joke of the muppets is that they are meant to be real people - notwithstanding that they are anthropomorphised animal puppets. They aren't replacing Ms. Piggy with a younger, slimmer pig because they believe audiences will like it more. They are doing it because thats what stars do after break ups. Male stars get younger, more attractive girlfriends. So Kermit is doing the same. That's the joke. Ms. Piggy is still a h…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:25 PM
-1

I have also heard stories like this before. I agree it's pretty offensive, but I do understand where it's coming from. The clinics are private businesses, and they are concerned about potential lawsuits or simply dealing with fallout from angry wives. By making sure that everything is transparent, it reduces the likelihood that they have to respond to frivolous suits, or try to appease someone. The reason they get away with this is they are private clinics. They aren't saying that your wife has …
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:22 PM
3

Ah - so maybe this is one of those cases where "rape" does not include made to penetrate.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 04:07 PM
2

Oh - you mean the FAQ on this sub??
/r/MensRights04/09/15 03:20 PM
2

Shafi and Spicha were fired from TSA after anonymous tip in November No victims - even those on video - have yet been confirmed by officials This means no criminal charges have been filed against former workers So they were fired, and criminal charges can't be pursued unless a victim comes forward to press them. It is interesting that no men have come forward, I suppose, but I fail to see the rights of men being violated here. In fact, it seems they were vindicated. Otherwise, it's just a woman …
/r/MensRights04/09/15 03:19 PM
2

Employing a strawman argument involves creating a fictional opponent and claiming it represents an actual opponent. The MRM actually claims to not engage in woman bashing, so that comment isn't a strawman. You, and a couple others here, are actually calling her a bitch. If she is a bitch, then the whole point of this post is to encourage people to call her out as such - making it woman bashing. I am overstating my point, but I am not engaging in a strawman fallacy.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 03:10 PM
2

Cool - what's the contradiction in numbers?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 03:08 PM
2

Sorry - I am not following where this discrepancy is. Can you point it out a little more clearly for us? I don't know which wikipedia entry is inconsistent with that report.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 02:56 PM
-2

You better not catch flack for it. This is decision motivated by a desire to protect baby boys, not harm them. Obviously banning the practice outright would be better, but that will necessarily require a freedom of religion battle.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 02:54 PM
1

It's not a meaningless term. It's a term with a very specifically defined meaning which applies appropriately to this situation. Just because feminists use the word doesn't mean it's "tainted". Micro aggression attempts to describe something that is for the most part harmless, but nonetheless contributes to an overall culture of prejudice. MRAs believe men are subject to a culture of prejudice. This particular 'meme' posted above is pretty harmless (no rights are affected), but it does have a sm…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 02:50 PM
1

No, bitch is a pejorative term. I thought this forum didn't engage in woman bashing?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 02:46 PM
2

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2011) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (June 2011)
/r/MensRights04/09/15 02:44 PM
7

It was my impression that DV initiation was roughly equal between men and women. Where does that 70% number come from?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:17 PM
3

Your link contains a link to nothing.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:17 PM
2

Sorry - maybe you didn't understand my criticisms. I am not asking you to spoon feed me. I'm suggesting that the article is making up it's facts. That it's not true. That it's complete and utter bullshit.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:14 PM
1

Yeah, banning in feminists forums is a serious problem. It's the result of those spaces being assaulted by people who don't want to be constructive - only to harass and demean. I have been mistaken for those people before, and banned from feminists forums. Though I am typically allowed back when I appeal. I have a lot of respect for the moderation of this sub, but to be fair it doesn't have to deal with the same volume of "attacks" women's spaces do. Reddit is overwhelmingly male, and overwhelmi…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:13 PM
1

Yeah, MRAs wouldn't say that stuff. You used quotation marks though. Was that in the article or from another source?
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:10 PM
0

I encourage you to point to a single posts in my entire history where I say that "DV is perpetrated against females in order to maintain patriarchy", or that women do not engage in DV. I don't support statements like that in the least. I'm only here in the first place because there are legitimate men's issues which deserve attention, like the one you just mentioned. But this thread isn't about the issues men face - it's about a spoiled brat on the internet bitching about the men in her life. Tha…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:09 PM
2

And the article linked doesn't make reference to a single point you just made. It only describes them as entitled pricks who want to get laid - which has nothing to do with gender politics on a larger scale. The article is one person, who identifies as a feminist, giving her opinion on male feminists in her life. It doesn't represent anything. It's a tiny sub sample of men being described through a biased 3rd party. Yet this sub jumps all over it and circlejerks furiously because it fits the nar…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:06 PM
1

Just because this is so often misstated here, Erin Pizzey's dog was allegedly shot by racist neighbors, not evil feminists (according to Pizzey). Now more importantly, you are repeating precisely what I was accusing you of doing. You are taking the most extreme examples of a movement and then painting the entire movement with the same brush. Sure, there have been countless people who identify as feminists who have done and continue to do some pretty bigoted stuff. But that doesn't change the fac…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:01 PM
2

Right, but it applies equally to both. And you didn't address the other 2 (serious) issues with the article.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 05:10 AM
1

So not this? Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership."[5] Sue describes microaggressions as generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture. Microaggressions, according to Sue, are different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets, because the people perpetrating microaggressions…
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:30 AM
3

Above all it would require a cultural shift, but that shift can come from subtle policy changes. Take a look at this link, and compare Canada to the US. In Canada the incidence if circumcision is about 30%. In the US it is over 50%. Why the big gap? The two countries are similar, and both require you to pay for the procedure if you want it. But look more closely at each province in Canada. Nova Scotia is 6.8%, New Brunswick is 18%, and PEI is 39%. These provinces are all culturally similar, and …
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:25 AM
-1

Good, good! THAT is what should be the OP. Not the linked case. The linked case is weak, it stands for no solid propositions. YOUR links are relevant. Your argument has merit. That's my criticism.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:15 AM
5

Oh, come on. This is a 6 part video series, 4 of which feature white males. You absolutely have access to a platform to express yourself publicly - the same one this woman has. You just need to get into Oxford.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:10 AM
-1

Nonsense! A microaggression is a minor slight of prejudice with little direct or harmful impact, but representative of an ingrained prejudice. It's the perfect term for this. No insult was intended by this little vignette, but it's still representative of a prejudice. This is exactly what "microaggression" exists to define!
/r/MensRights04/09/15 01:08 AM
-2

Ouch. That's kinda hurtful.
/r/MensRights04/09/15 12:45 AM
2

I assure you, I was not born yesterday. Here's a citation for Kennedy getting shot. Turns out that was very easy. Now, you have asserted that your claims are similarly obvious. Please provide your citations. Women engage in countless false accusations every day. False accusations are standard legal practice in court - not exceptions - standard legal practice. False accusations are women's very operating system - don't really know what this means, but I'll humor you. Took me 15 seconds to find a …
/r/MensRights04/09/15 12:43 AM
5

Above all, make sure you attend in good faith. This talk appears to be about improving feminism, not arguing against it. There's nothing wrong with being critical, but that criticism should be aimed at making the movement better. If you're just going "invade" the talk, then you're not better than these feminists at a men's talk.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 11:55 PM
2

Lots wrong with this post: As /u/davidrex points out, these cells are being used to test flavour additives. Where's the evidence for these claims? I've never heard of "awakeningpsyche", so I am not eager to accept their claims as truth without corroborating evidence. What does this have to do with men's rights?
/r/MensRights03/09/15 11:51 PM
1

... but she admitted to committing crimes. Are you saying that's not enough evidence to convict a woman? I'm saying that we've only heard one side of the story. This movement is a big proponent of letting courts adjudicate matters of sexual assault - and not the court of public opinion. That should apply equally to men *and * women.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 11:49 PM
3

Well, I think you struck that balance perfectly. Sometimes people just need to be reminded about these sorts of things, not have someone rub it in their face and engage in oppression olypmics.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 10:59 PM
-5

There's another explanation. It's possible that you have a warped perception of feminism, and that there are many completely reasonable people who adopt the label. Just saying.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 10:56 PM
2

Micro-Aggression is the right word here. She's not being a bitch, she's being insensitive.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 10:55 PM
-3

Do I ooze with slime?
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:55 PM
1

I can't tell if you're trolling, but I guess I have to assume you aren't. Oh, I wouldn't go that far.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:53 PM
2

See, you keep making these statements as if simply saying them makes them true. the infinite number of false accusations women make every day Citation Needed. False accusations of domestic abuse by women is now even standard legal practice in court Citation needed. False accusations are women's very operating system Citation needed.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:52 PM
15

This is a very good way to respond to 'micro-aggressions' like this. The bookmark is clearly not meant to imply that 'sons' are worth less by comparison to daughters. It is clearly meant to celebrate daughters. But even though the intentions are harmless, it doesn't change the fact that there's a corollary to this statement. If daughters are God's gift to mothers - what are sons? If they were also a gift, it would just say 'children'. OPs response is perfect. He's drawing attention to the micro-…
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:50 PM
1

What a wonderful post for your to start your reddit account with. I can't help but admire your argument. The solution to rape is to convince women that it's not a big deal, and to try and enjoy themselves. After all, so long as it isn't anal rape, it's not like there's any physical damage done. If you're unconscious for the whole event, it's not like you've suffered in any way right??? I especially enjoyed your comment about how "the anus isn't a perfect receptacle for a man's penis like a vagin…
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:38 PM
3

Or something more appropriate: http://www.nij.gov/funding/pages/welcome.aspx
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:06 PM
2

Your argument is mostly about semantics. 'Rape' and 'Sexual Assault' are used pretty much interchangeably. They both denote sexual assault perpetrated without the consent of one of the involved parties. Violence is not required - and there is actually a specific term for that in Canadian Law - "Aggravated Sexual Assault". The bigger issue, however, is not whether this case is a true 'rape' or not. Rather, the issue is that in similar cases involving male perpetrators the media is inclined to use…
/r/MensRights03/09/15 09:03 PM
5

You should go write a proposal. Because, yes, the government should fund a study about this.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 08:55 PM
4

I am on the side of reading comprehension.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 08:52 PM
5

Because men never file false police reports? 1 2 3 4 5 6.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 08:51 PM
1

k.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 08:14 PM
-2

Right - and the things you are describing resembles, in no way, the feminists (male and female) in my life. Not in the slightest.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 08:05 PM
10

Where to start? She's not a feminist, she's an MMA fighter. There's nothing in the article about her political leanings - just that she's can kick a guy's ass. Second - where's the rape? I mean, she put him in a leg lock, but that's not rape. It's not even sexual assault. There's no sex. Just assault. So why are you upset? A guy tries to rob a woman, and she immobilizes him until police arrive? Why shouldn't the internet applaud that?
/r/MensRights03/09/15 08:04 PM
-4

You realize that you're speaking to a male feminist right?
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:59 PM
-2

A little bit, because my hope for this subreddit's redemption felt a little bit smaller. I've met male feminist like she is describing, and I've met male feminists who are nothing like she's describing. I've also met female feminists who fit that description - and of course female feminists who don't. The point is, this is senseless generalizing without much basis in fact. And to top it off - what does the behaviour of male feminists have to do in the slightest with men's rights?
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:46 PM
1

No, actually, we're mostly talking about comics - not the issue behind it!
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:35 PM
0

Yay! Isn't generalizing fun!?
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:34 PM
1

Right. Good comics do that. This one?
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:23 PM
2

Cheeky article, but I don't see how it applies to men's rights.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:23 PM
-6

It's great that a women's center is prepared to discuss men's issues. “The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt And How All Men Can Help” An MRA could have written that title.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:21 PM
-1

It's great that a women's center is prepared to discuss men's issues. “The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt And How All Men Can Help” An MRA could have written that title.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:21 PM
1

Right. So why not post specifics like that? That generates discussion and debate. The comic itself contain pretty much no content.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 07:19 PM
4

That's kind of a shit post. A crudely drawn comic that attempts to say the government doesn't care about men and only cares about women? It isn't clever or witty.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 05:30 PM
5

Came to say exactly this. Comparing two cases only works if the two cases are the same. Sentencing involves looking at a myriad of factors that may not have been the same. I'm not saying this isn't example of sexism in sentencing (it might very well be!), but more examples are needed to start talking about trends. More specifics about the reasoning employed in sentencing would also help.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 05:09 PM
5

There isn't enough information here to pass judgement. We're hearing about something that happened over 30 years ago, and we're only hearing one side of the story. There may not have been enough evidence to convict the mother, and she may have been cut a deal to testify against the father. We should be focusing on current issues, not historic ones.
/r/MensRights03/09/15 05:03 PM
14

Pretty consistent with what we've been seeing for a while now. charged with having sex with a student. The warrant was issued after Eskridge was accused of having a sexual relationship with a student. But when describing it in legal terms, Police said Katherine Eskridge turned herself in Wednesday on a warrant for sexual assault. We ought to also be looking at similar articles about men to ensure that they are consistently using different language ("rape", "predatory"), but I am pretty confident…
/r/MensRights03/09/15 04:58 PM
2

Technically, the post doesn't say "because we believe in equality". It says "because we believe in empowerment".
/r/MensRights02/09/15 11:40 PM
-1

This speaks to entitlement abuse, not male privilege. He's basically describing how to maximize entitlements by defrauding the government. He's also overstating most of his points by a long shot. Single mothers don't get free college, cellphone, and utilities. Sure there are grants available, but they are designed to assist women who are legitimately placed in difficult circumstances. I do agree that there is an argument to be made in favour of making some of these tax breaks / grants gender neu…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 09:42 PM
2

I am not going to put much stock in that. First of all, cases do not fall neatly into two boxes of "True" and "false". There should be a much larger box of "we honestly have no idea". So my bullshit alarm is already at lvl 1. Second, the article gives no context for the statistics it provides. How were they gathered? Who gathered them? The department of justice? This is information that would be provided by serious journalists, which makes me doubt their credibility. Bullshit alarm now at lvl 2.…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 09:20 PM
10

Nice to see an article reminding us that things like revenge porn aren't exclusive a male on female crime. I also found it surprising that there's such a comparatively large number of incidents of women publishing photos of other women they don't even know. That's something I never knew existed.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:47 PM
3

Well, if the women's advantaged is unchallenged with overwhelming evidence, and the men's advantage has conflicting evidence, the statement is actually warranted. Though I agree that the bias you are describing exists in many other forms, just not 100% certain it is applicable in this case. In any event I always welcome discussions of actual research here. There are innate differences in biology between men and women, which can have meaningful effects on how men and women behave or think. If thi…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:42 PM
1

Totally - those people you describe exist. However, they are minority, and the majority of society doesn't share their views. Those people need to be educated, not treated with mockery. And they certainly do not need to have their unrelated crimes celebrated while being fat-shamed. It is petty, and inexcusable - and only confirms what many people think about the MRM: that it's is a hotbed of misogyny more interested in hating women than dealing with legitimate male grievances.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 08:38 PM
1

It's an interesting legal jurisdictional issue, but I don't see how it impacts men's rights.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:26 PM
-1

Woman works just fine.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:05 PM
-6

Thank you, I've now seen the light, and the error of my ways. You've made me feel bad about myself, and now I will cheer people on for ad hominem attacks. Thank you for educating me.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 07:05 PM
-6

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Mockery is not classy. Be classy.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 06:23 PM
4

There's really nothing you can do in the rare cases that someone vindictively attempts to falsely accuse you of sexual assault, but there are steps you can do to avoid engaging in activities which fall into the 'grey area' of sexual assaults - and there are steps you can take to avoid antagonizing women who might become vindictive. Don't have sex with women who are exceedingly drunk, even if they appear enthusiastic. Many people who are "black out drunk" (with no memory the next morning) appear …
/r/MensRights02/09/15 06:19 PM
44

Yes, it's very sad to read. The consequences of these types of accusations are not "inconvenience". They are 'devastation'.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:16 PM
-4

On one hand I see where Dunham is coming from, the belief that what women say and how they actually feel aren't the same can be used as a justification for sexual assault "she said no, but meant yes". However, there is also the issue that in reality women are very often guilty of being inconsistent when it comes to communicating - especially with regards to sex. I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again: women need to be permitted and encouraged to actively consent to sex when the co…
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:14 PM
-5

What does this have to do with Men's Rights? A woman who behaved badly was later brought up on an unrelated assault charge? I don't see any men affected by this story. And wildebeast, eh? Real classy.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 05:06 PM
1

I'd accept an article comparing sentences and charging rates between men and women for crimes committed on airlines. But this is one example of bad behaviour with no parallel to another case with a man being treated worse. Just a petty "if it was a man he would have got it worse" story. Not a men's rights issue, and if I had my druthers, women behaving badly posts would be banned.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 03:09 PM
3

Came to say the same thing. 15 months in prison, and deportation sounds pretty much within the norm for accidental deaths (caused by reckless driving). Also, who cares if she killed 2 men? Are male lives inherently more valuable than women's lives? That's what I keep hearing when this sub criticizes the media for highlight women killed in conflict zones.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 03:01 PM
3

Let's do away with pop songs where a girl nods yes when she means no and vice versa, k? Notice the absence of the word "rape culture" from this tweet. The article used that word, not Dunham. So she isn't being inconsistent at all. She's just pointing out that the idea that women say one thing and mean another is pervasive in our culture. (of course whether women actually do this is another issue entirely). Also, I don't really care what Dunham says.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 02:14 PM
0

This again? It's just as /r/ thathappened as it was the last time. Go away.
/r/MensRights02/09/15 02:03 PM
-1

You seem to be confusing this subreddit with "/r/ kotakuinaction"
/r/MensRights01/09/15 08:45 PM
2

I usually take the position of "who cares what these people think", because they don't speak on behalf of a larger group. This is even worse because it's hearsay about what two random people in the world were talking about. We don't know if this accurately represents what they said, and we don't know if these two people even exist. Too many reasons not to take those bullet points seriously. And it's too much of an invitation to an anti-feminist circle jerk.
/r/MensRights01/09/15 03:19 PM
1

If you look at the side bar... ------------------------------> "No posts about bannings by other moderators"
/r/MensRights01/09/15 02:29 PM
0

Jonathan Swift didn't make a career out of teaching people how to manipulate the Irish to have sex with them.
/r/MensRights30/08/15 05:40 AM
1

That's my point, yes. If I were in the US I would absolutely vote democrat, even though I don't agree about their wage gap rhetoric. I also am very concerned about how "in bed" clinton is with big business. But the republicans are far, far, worse. Their anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality positions are unpalatable to me. Also, the absurdly large pool of people running for president resembles more of a clown car than candidates. They are anti-intellectual, pro-war, anti-environment, and still cl…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:01 PM
2

But then you're conflating women with feminism. That article interviews a bunch of dating "experts", not self-proclaimed feminists. People take feminism even remotely seriously view would look at men paying for dates as a vestige of patriarchy - where the man cares for the woman because she lacks the means to support herself. Personally, I think whoever does the asking picks up the tab. And if the date goes well, the other person pays next. After that you split tabs, take turns, or stop counting…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:57 PM
2

I'm glad we have found some mutual understanding!
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:53 PM
2

Well, that's sort of what I was getting at. I would not go so far to say that these men perpetrate these crimes because of women, but I agree that they are victims in their own way - and little effort is made to understand what molded these men into the monsters they became.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:23 AM
0

And yet, here's 3 posts of mine from the past two days that are supportive of MRA issues: 1 2 3 I support legitimate grievances whole-heartedly. I criticize posts that deserve criticism. Without people like me you just have an echo chamber.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:06 AM
6

Yeah, I was really disappointed when they did that. I think it's important that the breakdown a relationship doesn't disproportionately disadvantage one of the partners, but there needs to be room for people to decide whether they want to opt in to the rules surrounding marriage. If people deliberately decide not to marry, then that decision ought to be respected by the courts. So long as the outcome isn't egregiously unfair, or children are adversely affected, I see no reason why common law cou…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 05:03 AM
1

Cohabitation Agreement
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:49 AM
2

Yes. It is very different. But here I have to defer to a jury who had the benefit of all of the evidence first hand. I need to see something more compelling before believing the jury was wrong on this one.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:19 AM
4

If the sexual acts were assault, then he deserves the felony record. But you're absolutely right about this particular charge. An 18 year old seducing a 15 year old from the same school using a computer shouldn't be criminal.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:18 AM
11

Except most feminists don't actually want men to pay for dates. That makes this a strawman argument.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:15 AM
6

Not this again. Feminism isn't a terrorist organization, and this petition accomplishes nothing. Do you honestly think that if 10,000 people sign this silly thing, that suddenly the world will wake up and think "wow - those 10,000 internet people are on to something. Feminism must be stopped!"
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:14 AM
2

Most of the western world has rules for "common law" couples who cohabitate and integrate their lives but do not marry. The specifics of those rules vary heavily depending on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions will treat common law couples identically to married couples. My jurisdiction, Alberta, treats them identically to married couples in all respects except property division. So support obligations exist, but there is no entitlement that assets be divided.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 03:11 AM
1

I had heard about that sub, but didn't realize that's what it was for. I'll definitely be posting there - it's about damn time.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:49 AM
2

Agreed. Attempts to characterize men solely as sex-craved monsters are refuted by things like this.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:02 AM
1

A lot of people here are coming to this guy's defense because the law is "criminalizing teen hookups". But this case wasn't about law, it was about facts. She said he forcefully performed sexual acts, including penetration, without her consent. He said they never had sex, and all was consensual. There was, however, some physical evidence to corroborate her story. Semen in her panties, and bruising on her nipples. We don't know what really happened, for all we know this guy absolutely raped her. …
/r/MensRights29/08/15 02:01 AM
4

Then I'll post my reply to this comment: But while those men were laying bricks, setting concrete, inventing, generating electricity, building transmission lines, laying pipe, building filtrating systems, programming computer, fighting wars, and working dirty and dangerous jobs - women weren't exactly idle. While those men were outside working on "important" things, women were back at the office answers phones, drafting correspondence, and processing their paychecks. Women were feeding those men…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:48 AM
0

There's a lot of variety here, and not everyone agrees what the movement is about. A lot of the main issues have summaries in the sidebar. For me, I view the movement as a "feminist" look at men's issues. Same analytical tools as feminism, but a different focus (men instead of women). For the most part, this movement does support all men, including homosexual men, and men of color. How do they do this? At the moment it is mostly awareness raising, there is not much in the way of organized activi…
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:47 AM
-2

Actually, if you read my comments I am never anti-male. Rather, I am critical of MRAs who are inconsistent in their reasoning, or take things out of context. But I can see the confusion. Being anti-MRA is being anti-man, right? Unlike how being anti-feminist isn't being anti-woman.
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:41 AM
0

There's hope!!!
/r/MensRights29/08/15 01:36 AM
-1

The point is men do more exceptional things both good and bad. If you want to get rid of one end of the spectrum, the other will disappear as well. That's just not true. Civilizing meat heads doesn't affect CEOs and inventors. The two of extremes of maleness aren't co-dependent.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 11:36 PM
-4

You're misunderstanding. Black men are a subset of the class "men". The class "men" are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of violent crime. A guy argued that the problem isn't men, it's black men specifically. I pointed out that my original statement holds true regardless of race. You can discount the "male" trend if it holds true regardless of race. My two statements aren't inconsistent.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 11:34 PM
3

You're assuming the Republicans will run someone more palatable?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 10:18 PM
2

Yup. Some reading comprehension troubles there. Could very well see some serious prison time.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:45 PM
-2

Right, but even among whites and hispanics men make a disproportionate number of perpetrators and victims of violent crime. You can't write this off a "blacks" problem.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 08:24 PM
1

You caught me on that one, my mistake. Sloppy reading of messy tables.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:41 PM
1

Were women between the ages of 18-21 allowed to vote prior to 1971?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:16 PM
-3

Actually, blacks are. Black males murder more people a year than the rest of the 94% of the country which is not black male put together. According to the FBI statistics I just linked, 2073 of the homicides committed in 2013 were committed by black men, out of a total of 5723 homicides - a total of 36%. Not exactly the 94% you seem to believe. I think a racist person may have lied to you.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:15 PM
5

I agree with you in most respects. Especially this: What I'm getting from this is that this is literally how women see us, as non-emotional beings who literally want to do nothing but have sex. We clearly don't want love or companionship. We aren't morally ascendant enough to want those things. Both men and women perpetuate this myth that men only want sex. That just isn't true. Men want companionship, love, and validation. It just so happens that they are socially conditions to believe that sex…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:07 PM
7

Your comparison is pretty much spot on.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:58 PM
1

Yes I would. I agree that selective service and conscription are also forms of oppression.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:57 PM
-3

Well, to be fair men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of murder in the US. And mass shootings are committed almost without exception by men. I won't defend the explanations offered in this article, because I think the reason behind these figures isn't just "because patriarchy". But either way, mass shootings do appear to be a uniquely male phenomenon, and the MRM should devote some of its attention to try to understand and hopefully solve the problem of male perpetrated violence.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:31 PM
3

You're right about that! But this chain is hardly the #1 comment, so they're not completely wrong to do so.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:29 PM
1

Well, nice to have fixed it, but it doesn't meaningfully impact the results in any event.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:21 PM
0

Quite the opposite. You said no one cares about this stuff until women are charged, implying that this happens to men all the time and no one cares. I performed a lit review, and it turns out that this happens to men all the time, but it gets written off as a misunderstanding. You were claiming that this is evidence of sexism against men, when the evidence seems to point to this woman being treated more harshly.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 06:07 PM
2

Here's one where a man accidentally brought a gun to an airport, but no charges were laid. Here's another And another! In fact, it's looking like men tend to escape without criminal charges when they accidentally pack guns on airplanes. What a sexist double-standard!
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:56 PM
-2

You guys should google him then :) (and add to the spike in searches!!)
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:52 PM
7

Yeah, he's a very bad man by most standards of decency. Edit: Apparently some people don't agree with me. If you're honestly ok with someone who advocates to legalize rape on private property you need your head examined.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:51 PM
11

I got 75% when I did the numbers, but that's likely a rounding error on my part. You're right on both counts. Adjusting for hours worked makes a lot of the wage gap disappear. And even that fails to account for a myriad of other facts that impact pay. Unless a specific instance can be shown where a man and woman are working identical jobs with identical experience and performance, and are paid differently, it is incredibly difficult to claim there is workplace sexism based on aggregate figures a…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:50 PM
6

Some newspapers ran articles this week claiming that "women are disproportionately murdered" at the work place. This, strictly speaking, is true. Women are murder at work at a higher rate than men. However, men die at work at a MUCH higher rate than women. So if you look at absolute numbers, about 3 times as many men are murdered at work than women. But because so many men die in workplace accidents, it waters down the %. It's intellectually dishonest, and this subreddit is right to criticize th…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:45 PM
1

Is it because of her intellectually disabled status? Yep. Rules pertaining to adult's with mental disabilities are often very similar to those pertaining to children. I am virtually certain that this is the reason.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:43 PM
4

I find that as a general rule, if you read something outrageous on the internet, it's because someone has taken something out of context. Goodness knows people do that to MRAs stuff all the time, too. This particular article is no exception. Edit: but I should add that some of the other commenters here are correct in pointing out that the experience of the son who was abused is not discussed in the article. This may be because the son did not testify, so there's nothing to say. It also may be th…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:39 PM
20

The court heard DW had had a happy childhood and no criminal record. She was, however, "significantly intellectually disabled". Her husband at the time of her offending had also abused the children. "Anyone attempting to find a clue as to why DW would abuse her children in the way she has would immediately suspect that it was her relationship with her second husband which caused these offences," Judge Berman said. I think what the judge is getting at is the mother is mentally handicapped, and le…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 03:07 PM
8

I have read countless articles over the years about how a criminal record impacts former convicts who have served their time, and how their inability to fully reintegrate into society results in their eventually being incarcerated again. I have been reading articles like that for several decades, and I have seen those articles on this very subreddit. To suggest that "no one cares" until it happens to a woman is blatantly false.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:53 PM
3

If you're going to hold up Benazir Bhutto as an example of a "corrupt feminist", then we're done.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:35 PM
3

That presumes that the popular opinion of feminism is equivalent to racists/sexists/KKK/rapists. But it's not. That particular opinion is unique the MRM.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:33 PM
-1

The guy is posting disparaging remarks about a former colleague. Those remarks included personal digs at her appearance, and political views. It makes the organization look bad. Men don't require the "right" to post disparaging things about their coworkers online without consequence. First, it's not a gendered issue. Neither women nor men require that "right". Second, no one needs that right. We live in a civil society that functions better when people aren't that petty.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:30 PM
0

Wow. I've never actually met an MRA who is actually as bad as people believe MRAs to be. I respect and admire your conviction, but I'm afraid the rift between our views is simply to wide to have a constructive discussion.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:27 PM
2

Yeah, absent a legitimate reason for the different treatment, It is. Minor children don't get the right to vote, but that's because they are not fully cognitively developed. And they will get the vote upon reaching the age of majority. That's a good reason. Denying the women the right to vote lacks a compelling reason. It disenfranchised them. Taxation without representation, right?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:22 PM
0

No, that's a pretty clear issue about promoting a specific religion. But if jewish kids are getting better grades than christian kids in public schools, I wouldn't see that as a religious issue. It'd be a schooling issue. Just this like is a military issues, not a gender one.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:20 PM
3

This is just so under-appreciated. You know what? Some young men probably do genuinely enjoy relationships with teachers and older women, and emerge none the worse for wear, if not empowered. But for every case where a high schooler bangs an older woman and high fives his friends about it, there's going to be at least one case like this. These boys suffer real, permanent harm, that is virtual indistinguishable from that suffered from girls who go through similar experiences. As OP says, these bo…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:23 AM
-2

I was wondering if any other moderates were going to show up today. Good to hear from you.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:18 AM
1

Actually, he said "When she and the rest of her blue-haired nose-pierced asshole feminist are gone, the tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief". Substitute pretty much any other identifier with feminism and it's pretty inappropriate.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:16 AM
2

Ok, that's accurate then. Againstmensrights is probably a bigger culprit. SRS focuses on reddit as a whole. AMR is focused pretty much exclusively on this sub.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:12 AM
9

Most people get the definition of irony wrong. But this is pretty much a textbook example of it.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:10 AM
4

The Mods here have long held the position that voting is the best way to moderate this subreddit. They do not like to ban people or remove comments unless they cross a line. Debate is the lifeblood of social movements. Without it you just have a circlejerk. Which do you want?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:07 AM
1

Everyone repeats this, and I don't think I have ever seen it. Pro-MRAs points are almost universally upvoted as top comments, and anti-MRAs points are almost universally downvoted to the bottom. Why do you think this?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:06 AM
3

Reading comprehension guys: Update 2/11/2015: According to Metro Sweden, (and many other sources), this essay is widely believed to be a hoax. Assuming the story is real and not hoax of some sort, you can imagine how poorly received (by friends or strangers) her position on the matter might be. It's bullshit, leave the story be.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 05:01 AM
1

And this is what should be talked about. If all we do is demonize these men we can never understand where they come from. The solution to mass killings cannot be "men need to shape up". These men can't fix their own problems - that's why they resort to these atrocious acts. They needed help, and never got it.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:59 AM
-2

As far as this article itself is concerned, ask the stupid bitch who wrote it if she is ok with men who are police officers shooting violent criminals, in order to make society one big gigantic safe space for her. This isn't constructive, and doesn't help anything. Attack the argument, not the person.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:56 AM
0

Well, to be fair men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of murder in the US. And mass shootings are committed almost without exception by men. This isn't to say that all men are evil, and violent crime is inherently masculine. Rather, I would argue that these trends show that men are more likely to suffer from social isolation than women, driving them to commit these crimes. When I look at those stats, I see the men who perpetrate these crimes as victims of their own sort. No one grows up think…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:54 AM
-7

My being a feminist is no secret. And I only disagree with the bad positions here. Heck, one of my posts was promoted by the mods a month or so ago. I'm very sympathetic to legitimate grievances of men - of which there are many. This? This isn't remotely legitimate.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 04:43 AM
-10

It's not a witch hunt to warn an employee about bad behavior. I don't see the issue either.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 03:55 AM
3

Yeah, I'm on the fence about rape jokes in and of themselves. But if its not funny when it's about women, it shouldn't be funny about men either - especially considering how prison rape is treated.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:59 AM
14

Sexist or not, it's a word. You'll find nigger and chink in the OED too. It's not an endorsement of the word, just that it has meaning in popular parlance.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:58 AM
0

Nowhere has anyone refuted my argument that women had deficiencies in their legal rights which prompted feminism. The argument that "men had problems too" is not a counter argument.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:50 AM
1

Yes. You'll notice it was the upper middle class women living in the lap of luxury who invented it, not the working class women. They were bored and had nothing better to do so they figured they'd bitch about their horrible "plight". But these were also the only women who had the time and the means to affect social change. And even if the women who started the movement were of means, how does that have any bearing on the legal rights those women (and all other women) enjoyed. Like I said they we…
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:49 AM
-3

I know what you were trying to say. I was merely pointing out how your argument was incoherent. You made reference to a defunct medical practice, and claimed we have moved beyond it "because men". I pointed out that the practice you held up as an example of defunct medical practice was also "because men". The only thing we mentioned about women was midwives, which in no way contradicts my original point: women were denied access to many positions in society that permit historical relevance. And …
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:23 AM
0

Excellent! Then we agree that the OP is silly.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:19 AM
0

Ok - so now you're arguing that women DID build all that stuff that OP was talking about? Women were laborers and blacksmiths and scientists after all? So what are we arguing about?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 02:01 AM
-2

Right. Feminism was invented because women were bored. Not because they couldn't own property, or vote, or because it was literally impossible for a wife to be raped by her husband. It was "invented" because women were bored. How does the reception of a female doctor have the slightest relevance? Harvard medical school didn't accept its first female student until 1945. Princeton didn't allow women until 1969. But you're right, the real reason there were no women in academia was because of other …
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:58 AM
-4

So the people who said "take this leech and let it dissolve under your tongue" were all women then?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:53 AM
-2

There are no "feminists in power". Just the ones MRAs look for to confirm their bias.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:50 AM
3

If you're boss propositions you for sex - are you going to comfortable with flat refusing them if it might mean your job? What if you're living paycheck to paycheck and you absolutely cannot risk dismissal? What if you need to get lots of playing time if you're going to get scouted? Do you risk rebuffing advances? The "position of power" thing makes a ton of sense.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:08 AM
4

Yup, it's garbage. There's better ways to draw attention to men working dangerous and under-appreciated jobs, without implying that women are never oppressed.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:28 PM
-3

You're just saying that because you're a "male neckbeard virgin" who "wants to be allowed to hit women to put them in their place". I know the things I put in quotes aren't true about you. But that's because I am not generalizing about you based on the worst elements of a movement you claim to belong too. Take me, I'm a feminist, and yet I don't drink male tears (except my own).
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:25 PM
-3

And when those women were no longer needs to mend clothing, they had spare time and entered the work force, becoming inventors and doctors themselves. We can't celebrate these "male achievements" to medicine or science from an era where women were literally unwelcome in Universities. If there were (more?) female doctors in the 1800s, they would likely have had a similar impact.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:23 PM
-1

But it doesn't seek to raise awareness of the man's contribution. It's seeks to mock the feminists position by saying "stop oppressing me". The implicit message is that the women in the picture aren't oppressed, and it the implicit reason for that lack of oppression is that the man is working construction. I stand by my point. This image's primary message is that "feminism sucks", and my counter argument remains: "just because men are under appreciated for working dangerous jobs does not invalid…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:20 PM
-6

Look, I'm not saying that women were wholly oppressed while men were happy patriarchal overlords. But there's no denying that many women were trapped in households because they were not allowed to work in most professions (either legally, or socially). Women being truly independent wage-earners is a very new phenomenon. What feminists say about the issues women faced in previous generations are true. And what MRAs say about the issues men faced are also true - they are not mutually exclusive. Th…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:17 PM
0

you're a dumbass. I bow to your superior wit.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:12 PM
1

I know what it's trying to do, but I think the approach is dishonest. Women have privileges just as men do, but they are not wholly privileged. A woman getting sexually assaulted by a man isn't made whole by the fact that the man works in a dangerous job. Just as a man getting arrested after calling the cops when his spouse is assaulting him isn't made whole by the fact that the president is a man.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:11 PM
1

I am assuming that youre being sarcastic with those suggestions?
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:09 PM
1

Well, at that age I would hope the court would have asked the girls for their input. They likely did, and given the outcome, they were probably ok with it. In that case, the court should only go against their wishes if they had a strongly compelling reason. And clearly the court took a long hard look at this case, and determined that there was no reason to force them to change their arrangement.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 11:08 PM
0

Did you miss the party where I said "there no point in gender wars". Obviously women need men. I merely pointed out that men also need women. Both statements are equally true. My point is that raising the "essential nature" of men is not relevant when discussion gender politics. Just because men are "essential" doesn't mean feminism shouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 09:02 PM
-6

Ok, let's get this straight then. The draft is a men's right issue, because it forces men to work in the military against their will. Solution: force women to be subject to the draft too. Now we have a military staffed entirely by volunteers. We try to get women into combat roles and now we're crying "they suck at this", get women out of the military. Can't have it both ways. Either women need to be expected to fight on the front lines with men in the name of equality, or women need to be banned…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 09:00 PM
-17

A feminist doesn't take issue with that guy. If he goes to the bar later that night, and sexually assault one of those women, then they would. If he were too dog whistle or cat call them once they walked passed, then they would take issue. Men working construction does not invalidate any and all feminist concerns.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:54 PM
-4

And top comments point out how stupid the comment is. When men were doing all that great stuff, women were hardly idle - and pretty much barred from having employment out of the household. Pretty much no feminists believe that men don't contribute meaningfully to society. They just want to highlight the under-appreciated contributions of women.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:45 PM
31

I came here expecting this to have been taken out of context, but nope! Not in the least. That's about as blatant an example of male disposability as you can get. Singling out women and children as something that would make this somehow "more terrifying" presumes that women and children's lives are worth more. I don't mind as much when newspapers do this when describing military conflict. It's presumed that men are the soldiers, and if women and children are killed it is an exception that could …
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:42 PM
1

And without them we'd die out in a generation, if not sooner. I see no point in gender wars, and the belief that all feminists hate men is a vast overstatement and a strawman. Some feminists do, but the vast majority don't.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:36 PM
-4

I see the issue, but I don't see the Men's Right issue. I don't take issue with women in the military, as a man. I take issue with women being shoehorned into tasks they aren't physically able to do in order to meet gender equality quotas. But that is an issue of military policy, not men's right. My rights aren't even remotely affected by women "over their head" in the military.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:26 PM
11

But while those men were laying bricks, setting concrete, inventing, generating electricity, building transmission lines, laying pipe, building filtrating systems, programming computer, fighting wars, and working dirty and dangerous jobs - women weren't exactly idle. While those men were outside working on "important" things, women were back at the office answers phones, drafting correspondence, and processing their paychecks. Women were feeding those men every night, and putting together lunche…
/r/MensRights27/08/15 08:12 PM
1

There was some discussion last week about a bizarre anomaly in the distribution of Ashley Madison users. While most of the world was 85%+ male, India was paradoxically 85% female. No good explanation for this dramatic rift was available at the time, but this may well be the reason.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 07:01 PM
-6

You can argue military efficacy all you like, and I certainly won't argue against you. But that doesn't have much to do with Male Rights.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 06:01 PM
0

I would have no objections to Elam disappearing into obscurity. He is a hateful person.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 05:22 PM
9

Whether its "consensual" or not, coaches shouldn't be hitting on students. The position of power makes it inappropriate, and as someone else has pointed out, his contract probably explicitly makes this a terminable offence. I don't see the MRA issue here.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 05:08 PM
13

So? Women and men are different. What's important is that both sexes are treated fairly. Women should be allowed to participate in the military, and men should not be uniquely obligated to serve. If women get hurt more in training, I don't really care.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 05:06 PM
3

You're right though. It is bizarre that the person is old enough to consent to sex, but too young take a photo of themselves naked.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 02:37 PM
2

You're confusing sex with production of naked images. She may have been old enough to consent to sex, but still a minor, so nude images of her would be child pornography. Him too for that matter.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 01:21 PM
27

It's encouraging to see common sense and discretion being used in cases like this, even if the initial approach taken was absolutely bat-shit insane. I am often critical of people here who make false double standards, but I remember this case well. There can be no mincing words in this case: it is a shameful sexist double standard. Both parties engaged in exactly the same conduct. Both took photos of themselves while they were minors. Both shared those photos with the other. And yet, despite ide…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:07 PM
6

This is what IMO is counter-productive about the sex offender registry. I think the minimum period of time someone is put on it is 15 years, the maximum is life. This is especially true is the offence is taking nude pictures of yourself as a minor, or something equally innocent like public urination. But even in the clear "predatory" cases like this one, there needs to be a way to rehabilitate these people. And if they do, genuinely, reform then it their previous crimes shouldn't hang over their…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 10:00 PM
7

But a tldr isn't fair in this case, because the court didn't make this decision on a "whim". The stepfather testified that he had successfully completed three stages of sex offender treatment along with inpatient treatment while in prison. He said he learned to identify red flags for child molesters, which include spending a lot of time with one child alone, granting special privileges to one child or asking a child to keep secrets. So the sex offender has been released from paying his debt to s…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 07:54 PM
2

“The global pay gap was about $4,000 on average between men and women, and the Canadian pay gap was just over $8,000,” she said, citing the long-term study by her firm. Why are we comparing salaries based on their absolute values instead of percentages? I'd rather hear "women earn X% of men working the same job". In any event, I'll read this report once it gets released because I find this topic interesting. But I am not convinced they have controlled for all variables. Everytime I hear this cla…
/r/MensRights26/08/15 06:53 PM
2

I can regret eating those spicy wings after they gave me heart burn but can i say they raped me? NO! While the rest of your comment shows that you have a good understanding of the issues in this debate, this particular opening makes you look like a caricature of how most people see MRAs. No, regretting sex is not rape. Everyone here agrees with that statement. The law also agrees with that statement. Heck, the vast majority of feminists believe it too. The issue is that it can be nearly impossib…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 09:07 PM
0

See, not all feminists are bad. It is unfair that men have no control over the reproduction decisions of a woman, but are still held financial responsible. If a woman wants an abortion, but the father does not, the woman's will prevails. If a woman wants to keep the baby, but the father does not, the woman's will prevails, and the father is obligated to financially support the decision. The only problem, is there aren't any compelling alternatives to this system. We can't force women to have abo…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 09:02 PM
-6

His situation was made possible by feminist custody and domestic violence laws. Don't you dare try to claim that a child being tortured to death is not a form of terrorism. Sorry - did feminism torture the baby boy? "creating the circumstances in which abuse is possible" is not terrorism. The US government imprisons black men at a very high rate, and in prison those same men are subject to very high rates of violences. Is the US government a terrorist group because it "terrorizes" black men with…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:39 PM
2

You're twisting the movement's meaning a bit. "Free the Nipple" is about de-sexualizing the nipple - and by extension a woman's upper body. Male upper bodies are not sexualized in the same way, so it's a double standard. Now obviously a woman's breasts are not the same as male breasts. So you are free to agree or disagree with the movement's aims if you wish. However, to say that each sex has "3 no-no parts", so it's equal, is dishonest. Male genitalia and Female genitalia are equally covered by…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:34 PM
3

I fear this mra movement will just become another victim philosophy that goes to the government to rectify said social issues. So a better approach would be to "storm the bastille" of feminism and replace their flag with your own?
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:24 PM
5

You are of course aware that all it takes to "start a petition" on change.org is to the press the button "start a petition". 8,000 people in the world signed that petition, an incredibly small number. This is probably because the notion that feminism being a terrorist group is stupid. Incredibly stupid.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:18 PM
2

A pair of bloody women's underwear was found in a nearby area. Police are working to determine if it is related to the child. Atlanta Police Capt. Terrell Griffin says their main focus is to find the mother to make sure she has received proper medical treatment. The unspoken assumption that the police are probably operating on here is that the baby was not born in a hospital, but rather by a woman on her own. They aren't looking for mom so that they can return the baby, they are looking for her …
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:15 PM
1

You're being too sensitive. Newspapers can run historical pieces if they want, and it doesn't affect Men's Rights in any appreciable way.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 07:03 PM
4

I'm very much onside with "free the nipple". It's just not a big deal, and we need to stop obsessing over it. Putting a sticker over the nipple does not transform a woman from "topless" to covered. As for your argument about "counting" the number of indecent body parts, I think you're being completely absurd.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 05:11 PM
3

I'd go with the usual hosts of men's issues, but call it a feminist conference examining men's issues. Just to see what happens.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 06:42 PM
0

Not denying that biological-based preferences exist, merely that preference for high income earning is not biological. There's nothing "primal" about seeing someone's paycheck.
/r/MensRights24/08/15 06:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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