TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

wredditcrew Archive

View 3 posts and 158 comments by wredditcrew on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

He probably wouldn't bang her either, he's (allegedly ahem) gay. Bit of a controversy a few years ago with an unproven allegation of sexually assaulting a dude in a pub loo.
/r/MensRights09/07/18 09:47 AM
3

It's not a fantastic article, but none of the supposition is a big leap. The facts are in there, and it discusses the possible links and implications, as we're also doing.
/r/MensRights25/06/18 10:26 AM
1

You know this is the Voices section, which is basically letters and think pieces, right? This isn't "reporting", and trying to paint it as such just suggests a lack of understanding. Damien Walter isn't even Indie staff, the only things he's written are two Voices pieces. (The other one is Archived here.) I disagree with what he says, but think it's important to give a platform to views that contradict and conflict. That's not to say The Independent (and Guardian, and Times) don't have problems.…
/r/MensRights19/05/18 12:16 PM
2

I think you're the one being dense. It's an undercut under a bob. Not a freehand double-helix with a straight razor. You secure the long hair out of the way, put on the correct length guard, and do what barbers do. Then clean up the edges. It's not rocket science.
/r/MensRights10/04/18 09:51 AM
-4

How is he possibly not good at using clippers? He most likely used them in exactly the same way for the majority of his other customers every day since he opened. If he's not good at using clippers, isn't the larger concern he'll have fucked up every client that's required clippers, which is probably most of them?
/r/MensRights09/04/18 06:25 PM
0

Does that make this less unacceptable to you? "Eh, we're just balancing the scales with more but opposite sexism, the more traditional kind." It's bullshit when either side does it.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 06:20 PM
-4

It's an undercut with clippers. If he's not skilled at that, he's not a skilled barber, he's the dipshit. It is, specifically, something you'd expect a barber to be better at than a hairdresser.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 06:18 PM
-14

He can do barber work for men only(!) It's COMPLETELY different from doing the exact same thing on a woman(!) If the dude can't manage a plain undercut with a pair of clippers, wtf is he doing cutting anyone's hair at all? The basis of the claim is that the barber shop refused to simply run the clippers through my daughter's undercut, because she was a girl. She wasn't asking for a colour and re-style. She wanted the thing that all barbers should be capable of doing. Short and uniform cut with a…
/r/MensRights09/04/18 06:17 PM
1

Didn't we already have this exact story this morning, just with a less stupid headline than this one?
/r/MensRights09/04/18 06:07 PM
0

It's where you have short hair that is underneath long hair. So if you have long hair on top that flows over the top of a number 3 or whatever, its an undercut.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:19 PM
1

The real bones of your comment are spot on. But the way you've written it: But that being said, before you get out the pitchforks and torches, there's something very important here You're being downvoted for the structure and style of your comment, not what you're actually saying, if you get me? You've got first-hand experience, insight, and relevant analysis. I upvoted you, but you'll get much better results if you reposted a more succinct and differently structured comment.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 12:02 PM
-14

It was an undercut underneath the bob. Didn't want the bob trimmed or restyled, just the uniform short hair cut. It's effectively a chuck of crew cut.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 11:48 AM
-1

The undercut section of a bob with such an undercut, like this, is exactly what a barber would excel in.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 11:45 AM
1

They should do, and the barbers I've used in the UK will do. Likewise when I had long hair, back when I had enough hair, hairdressers would do it.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 11:36 AM
-14

To discriminate based on gender or race or any other similar grounds?
/r/MensRights09/04/18 11:22 AM
-30

In TFA, you'll note that she only wanted him to trim the undercut, which is firmly in the skillset of any decent barber. The basis of the claim is that the barber shop refused to simply run the clippers through my daughter's undercut, because she was a girl. "I indicated to him that I did not need him to style, cut or trim the rest of her hair, which is styled in a 'bob'.
/r/MensRights09/04/18 11:21 AM
2

I like your perspective and I appreciate your insight. I'm not sure I'm sold on it, but I definitely see where you are coming from and there's definitely merit to what you are saying. Blokish banter in the UK, I think, is roughly the same in end result if I'm understanding you correctly. We say "offensive" stuff to each other all the time but it serves to strengthen, rather than weaken. I think there's a difference between making fun of oneself and making fun of others though. It's not as pronou…
/r/MensRights20/03/18 01:28 PM
1

I didn't call it a homophic anthem or anything, but I think homophobia-tinged is a fair call. I love it too, it's some catchy shit, but you don't think using gay in a derogatory fashion is unhelpful at least? The inference from the lyrics that only gay men should be camp or metrosexual, and it's a bad thing? I didn't say it flippantly.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 12:30 PM
-17

From her homophobia-tinged first release from the first Katy Perry album, with Ur So Gay, and the big follow-up proper single release, I Kissed A Girl, she's made really catchy shitty pop records that nail it for her target demographic. "I hope you hang yourself with your H&M scarf..." was a line from Ur So Gay. It's not like she's hidden it, it's just people don't give a shit. Which is probably worse.
/r/MensRights19/03/18 11:17 AM
1

Here
/r/MensRights19/03/18 11:05 AM
1

Only if it's not settled out of court, which is what I'd assume that the Met would do. Last thing they want is a big civil case about it, on top of the hopefully impending IPCC reaming.
/r/MensRights16/12/17 11:51 AM
0

If you think that implying someone is akin to a wannabe authoritarian dictator isn't rude, we have differing opinions on a number of topics. Good day, sir or madam.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:53 PM
0

And to continue on with your irrelevant nonsense, I didn't say that you said I can't express my opinion. Are you done?
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:47 PM
0

I have every right to state my opinion on what we should or shouldn't do, and by your logic, you have no authority to tell me otherwise, so...
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:40 PM
2

At least I got a controversial flag, you just got hammered. If you disagree with the circle-jerk, prepare for downvotes. Gone are the days of upvoting something that adds to the discussion regardless of if you agree with it. Fuck, I feel old.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 07:52 PM
3

We shouldn't be agreeing. We shouldn't be calling people "rape-sympathizing creeps" because it's counterproductive and stupid.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 05:48 PM
-6

Yeah, it's great she's completely changed some of her positions to jump bandwagons. But she's still, to use her words, problematic. Neither she nor the NYT are in the right here. Celebrating Green is short sighted. I know "the enemy of my enemy..." and all that, but she's just attacked a different group of men, using the same bullshit feminism language as before. This is a bad idea.
/r/MensRights28/11/17 11:21 AM
-8

Uh, is this a racist remark coz she's black? Or a sexist remark because she's a woman (of sorts)? Or am I misinterpreting your post?
/r/MensRights09/11/17 10:11 PM
3

Yeah mate, it's taking the piss.
/r/MensRights29/07/17 11:25 AM
1

I am aware of "the honourable member for the early 20th century". He recently celebrated the birth of his sixth child, named Sixtus. While I like and respect him in some regards, but he's like a bad self-caricature of a Tory. I don't think Moggmentum is going to get him the leadership, but stranger things have happened. I liked Farron, but his Liberal Democrat views combined with his Christianity worked against him. I am absolutely not a fan of what's effectively become a leadership coup to inst…
/r/MensRights12/07/17 09:25 AM
13

I'm most definitely not a Tory voter, and they could do with losing a few more MPs. But I was fucking glad they didn't lose Philip Davies MP. Not least because the feminist nutjob party that were effectively standing on a single issue platform in Shipley, "against men's rights", got appropriately wrecked. "Lost their deposit, and came below the Lib Dems" levels of wrecked. REKT. Made all the more beautiful by the false rumours that he'd lost the seat. Oh, how the feminists on Twitter rejoiced be…
/r/MensRights12/07/17 01:35 AM
1

I think the real problem here is women choosing less financially profitable careers. The solution is clearly to choose for the women instead of letting them choose for themselves. (/s obviously.)
/r/MensRights04/07/17 04:36 PM
1

You're absolutely right, I meant the Tory MP from Yorkshire Philip Davies, not the Tory MP from Yorkshire David Davis.
/r/MensRights29/05/17 09:02 PM
5

As much as I loathe David Philip Davis in a lot of regards, he's as close as we can get to a fucking champion of mens rights in Parliament. And I'd assume the answer to OP's question is "many people would assume child abuse to be sexual abuse of a child from someone outside of the immediate family. Which doesn't necessarily match up to the actual interpretation and statistics about child abuse."
/r/MensRights29/05/17 02:54 PM
18

Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 11:55 AM
7

Is it worth contacting our local MPs to ask to have the bill amended to be gender neutral? It's fairly early in the legislative process. Any suggestions as to the best wording to use?
/r/MensRights02/02/17 10:57 PM
131

It was radical for her, given her (lack of) employment history.
/r/MensRights31/12/16 11:52 AM
6

It's a weird story. It's difficult to talk about it without sounding like a concern troll. I'm conflicted about their stance on the issue that prompted all this as I'm pro-choice. But it's absolutely a complicated argument and Dads are being screwed over in both pro-life and pro-choice perspectives. There should be debate about it, and both parents should have equal rights for the benefit of the child. If the mother can opt out of parenthood, why shouldn't the father be able to? I generally fall…
/r/MensRights11/12/16 03:04 PM
8

The TL;DR: Garbage. Only good thing is Chris Hemsworth, and he's barely in it. It's "Men-bashing, The Movie." Lazy stereotypes, no chemistry in main cast, no suspension of disbelief. SFX-heavy scenes sucked. Avoid the movie.
/r/MensRights09/07/16 09:19 PM
2

isn't it a good thing for a PM to not be a 'feminist' In theory, yes. But in this case, those two fucking nutjobs are the ones up for the role. The Conservatives are going to pick between "The Devil" and "The Deep Blue C-Word". I hate Leadsom less, purely because she hasn't been a fucking awful Home Secretary like May has. Of course that's likely just because of a lack of opportunity. The only positive thing that can be said is that we might see an end to austerity, and the damage might be enoug…
/r/MensRights09/07/16 06:22 PM
2

Seems pretty legit, but without experience of using the service, I guess we can't be 100% sure. http://www.brotalk.ca/faqs
/r/MensRights28/05/16 01:00 PM
2

Many women get eating disorders simply from magazines. I don't disagree, men too.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 12:37 AM
1

You're absolutely right. It's a total cluster fuck. On the one hand, I hope she's making it up because those allegations are horrific and I wouldn't wish that on anyway. But equally, if she's making it up, I hope she rots in hell for what she's doing.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 09:54 PM
7

As the top-voted comments are biased in the opposite direction, I'll weigh in as a Kesha fan. TL;DR: Kesha is contracted to Sony and to work with Dr Luke. Kesha alleges Dr Luke verbally and sexually abused her for years. Kesha files a suit to get out of her contract. Dr Luke counter-sues. Luke's suit gets pushed behind Kesha's. Kesha's suit gets her nowhere. Kesha has a contract that shackle her to Sony for six albums. She can only record for Sony, and Sony can just refuse to release whatever sh…
/r/MensRights21/02/16 09:10 PM
2

They decimated the conversation of pretty much anything they thought was negative to Kesha and any comment caught in the crossfire. I'm actually pro-Kesha on this, having watched her career for a few years. I think on balance, the allegations are true, but that Dr Luke deserves due process and is innocent until proven guilty. Music mods are full of shite. Here's the Blackout thread on it.
/r/MensRights21/02/16 08:21 PM
8

Although to be fair, she says it like it's a slur. In that horrible nasal Aussie accent and her patronising tone.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:58 AM
1

Maybe, although you can't really refute someone's point using statistics that don't relate to what they actually said.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 12:11 PM
1

The original anti-MRA piece bitches about men not being allowed to bake, or whatever, because it's seen as non-masculine. Which is of course bullshit. The rebuttal says the majority of professional chefs are men. I'm pointing out that bakers (who bake) and chefs (who cook) are not necessarily the same thing. There's some overlap, but they're different specialities. http://www.careerigniter.com/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-a-baker-and-a-chef/ Incidentally, the two most famous British …
/r/MensRights04/02/16 07:05 PM
2

...Yes?
/r/MensRights04/02/16 06:42 PM
2

Who doesn't? I mean everyone who wants equality is a feminist! /s
/r/MensRights04/02/16 06:40 PM
6

As a minor point, I'd draw a distinction between a chef and a baker. While there is obviously some overlap, they're different specialities. I'd argue that cooking is an art, baking is a science. Thanks though, this would have been helpful.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:36 PM
22

I'm not OP, but it's just showed up on my News Feed: http://imgur.com/5NBFJiP Shared by "Dismantling Misogyny", who unsurprisingly, I don't follow.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:26 PM
2

Equality 4 Men 2. Equality for men too. It's a slightly cryptic pun, I guess? Might be a bit taxing for people who don't speak English natively, as it relies on homophones (words that sound the same but are different, like two and too, four and for.) It's clever, because it's not immediately obvious and thus requires thinking about. (For me and the other posters so far, as least.)
/r/MensRights19/11/15 11:04 AM
8

Probably couldn't find the coin they tossed for the verdict. I'm kidding, they didn't need a coin.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 04:08 AM
9

No, I think it was a grammar fail. They meant he got raped, metaphorically, by UC Berkeley.
/r/MensRights18/11/15 04:04 AM
2

Fry was fucking awful because he isn't nearly as smart as he makes out. I'll accept arrogance if someone actually knows what they're doing. Quote from El Reg: "You send a signal from your GPS device," he explained. "You've got to be at least three, usually four or five satellites – that receive your signal. And the difference in time it takes to get from one satellite to the other to the other, which is milliseconds, allows them to calculate your position to within 10 metres." That's amazing. Wa…
/r/MensRights15/10/15 02:45 AM
0

Are they franchised, and who are the franchise owners?
/r/MensRights02/09/15 12:01 PM
1

Oh, that's just one. The most memorable one was the unsuspecting guy with a chair leg in a bag. (Might have been a table leg, the details weren't that memorable.) There was that dude relatively recently that had just gone to get a gun, but didn't have it on him when he was shot...
/r/MensRights25/05/15 03:05 PM
1

I think in the UK we largely have a different attitude to it, but then the majority of our police aren't armed. With a few notable exceptions, you have to be trying to get shot.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 10:12 PM
0

Yeah, but it if someone is forced to kill someone else, like "suicide by cop", it's not generally named after the object used to kill. Assuming the cop shoots the suicidal person to death, it's still not "suicide by gunshot". It's the person in command of the object. Not that I'm saying the driver is responsible for the death, they were just doing their job and couldn't have avoided it. But one could argue the same about suicide by cop. If I'm threatening to shoot someone or whatever, that cop h…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 02:10 PM
5

Or mentally ill. Or that the site was one aimed at young adults and children, reporting on the inquest into a child that commited suicide. I've replied to TheCitizenAct directly, but the post they keep citing is a bad example.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 01:40 AM
6

They do question individual suicides when women throw themselves in-front of trains. See the post below. As you've referenced it here, I'll do likewise for my reply. The post /u/TheCitizenAct is referring to was a Newsbeat (the BBC R1/R1x news-site tailored to a younger demographic) article reporting on a inquest into a 15 year-old child that was posting self-harm selfies in the run-up to her suicide by train driver. The comparison is ridiculous.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 01:37 AM
5

There are plenty of quick and easy suicides that don't fuck up everyone's day. True, but suicidal people generally aren't thinking rationally. I think suicide by train (or I guess, more accurately, suicide by train driver) is an incredibly selfish act. But I don't think it's fair to condemn the suicidal person as a bad person for doing it. They were likely mentally ill at the time, and fuck, that can happen to anyone.
/r/MensRights24/05/15 01:03 AM
1

Take this case: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/25727743/girl-posted-self-harm-photos-online-before-train-jump There are several reasons why that is not a relevant case to take. One is that it was a child. She was fifteen. She wasn't a man or a woman, she was a child. To draw the comparison is ridiculous. You'll also note that the one about the girl posting the selfie is on Newsbeat, not the main BBC News website. Newsbeat is the R1 and R1X news site catering to a younger audience. For exa…
/r/MensRights24/05/15 12:59 AM
1

Can someone post a mirror that isn't geo-locked to the US please? Or just copy and paste the text? "Premium" content isn't available outside of the US of A.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 12:59 AM
1

Yeah, I saw that advert where he used a black hole to kill the GoCompare singer. Edit: I - > he.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 07:53 PM
2

It is truly pathetic that you put more time into trying to discredit and give deprecating titles to people's posts than you have ever done to actually moderate this shithole full of feminist trolls. I'm with Mr. Pokemon on this. Largely hands-off moderation of comments is the lesser of two evils.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 01:48 PM
5

It's a sub called ShitRedditSays (I won't link, it's against the rules.) No linking to SRS or affiliated subs, or Gawker Media websites. They seek to take offence at everything and troll those they don't agree with. They have their own terminology (like "shitlord"), and they hate straight white men. They're like a swarm of excrement-covered mosquitoes, they look to derail sensible debate of anything they don't agree with. They downvote brigade (where they all turn up to a thread to downvote stuf…
/r/MensRights09/06/14 02:00 PM
6

How he had the restraint not to bite her fucking finger off...
/r/MensRights08/06/14 08:23 PM
16

You probably did embarrass him, but that's his fault not yours. "Being rescued by a girl" is not the way around society has traditionally taught us it should be. Men shouldn't need rescuing from women, men should be doing the rescuing. We are men, we are the Knights, not the damsels. Of course, that's from a time before equal rights were even a fanciful notion. The idea that men shouldn't need rescuing is outdated and dangerous. We don't think like that on a professional level (I mean the last d…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 08:15 PM
0

In fairness, many would argue the politician mononymously known as Boris is a threat not only to his own children but everyone who lives in London. His buffoonery distracts from his agenda. Not really on topic, and probably not very relevant, but Boris is widely known over here.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 01:34 AM
2

I understand that gender segregation is a bad thing, but I think I'd make an exception for a "men's section" on a plane. Make it old-school-barber-shop-esque. We can read, watch "sports" and other manly pursuits, but also just chat with other blokes about what's up. Sample the mini-bar, make new friends and contacts. We can talk about anything or nothing. We're all strangers but only for as long as we choose to be. No kids or WAGS to disturb us. No crying babies to deal with. Flying and chillin'…
/r/MensRights21/05/14 01:28 AM
1

Whatever gender they want to be addressed as, if they want to have a gender. I'd start getting in their good graces as soon as possible. Either that or join the Society for the Ethical Treatment of AIs. (It's from the Google lab MMOPG called Ingress).
/r/MensRights19/05/14 09:26 PM
1

If we don't have a sense of humour, we're fucked. While it is indeed dangerous to treat stuff with an "oh, it's ok, you can say whatever you want so long as it gets a laugh" attitude, it's better than the alternative. We use humour to explore and reframe social issues (including taboo subjects), we always have done. Besides, sometimes you gotta laugh or you'll cry.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 11:12 AM
18

I love how they used Somerville as an example, when it was their JCR (presided over at the time by a woman from Australia). This year's team was selected by tests organised by its Junior Common Room, with men scoring the highest results. They considered allocating places to women after alumni wrote expressing their disappointment but decided against as it would "communicate the wrong message about women, and therefore chose to offer a level playing field". Marsha Sudar, JCR president during the …
/r/MensRights06/04/14 01:49 PM
8

Doesn't anyone read the FAQ? Isn't this in the FAQ? I just checked on the mobile client (.compact) and I can't even see there is a sidebar, let alone how to get to it to read it. If you click on the MR logo, it takes you back to the Reddit frontpage. You click on "MensRights" it just takes you back to the subreddit homepage. For anyone on a mobile client, there's a good possibility that they have no indication there even IS an FAQ.
/r/MensRights06/04/14 12:25 PM
8

There's a lot of commentary on this over in /r/unitedkingdom . Although obviously we know the Daily Mail pretty well, it's one of our biggest selling newspapers, so recognise that the DM is a hive of scum, villainy and outrage-goading click-baiting bullshit. We try not to give them the pageviews, so there's an imgur screencap of the page. Edit: Someone also pointed out that third down on the Sidebar of Shame is a story about Tom Cruise's 8 year old daughter. Couldn't make this shit up, although …
/r/MensRights24/03/14 07:09 PM
31

And this is in the Daily Mail, who described an 8-year old girl as a "leggy beauty". The irony.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 07:04 PM
11

Yeah, I mean I can absolutely answer "No" to all of those questions. I'm not a genius but I'm not a total fucking idiot. I can't see any situations in which those questions could be confusing, and I can't see anyone thinking that any those behaviours are acceptable. The only ambiguity would be the distinction between consent and "wanting to". "Wanna fuck?" "Fine, yeah, whatever, let's get this over with" would be consent but not necessarily "wanting to". If a person consents, legally what they "…
/r/MensRights22/03/14 03:06 PM
2

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Loren-Jane-Morris-13056-1.law To save anyone else the hassle of registering: Total Sentence: 2 Years Likely Release/ Eligibility Date: 18/3/2015 Distinguishing Features/Facts: She was found guilty of sexual activity (intercourse) with a child under 16 over a two year period between 2008 and 2010. The court heard that she hadstarted having sex with her victim when she was aged 16-years-old and her victim was aged 8-years-old. The judge said: "[Y]ou had full …
/r/MensRights21/03/14 11:43 PM
1

Kind of, "The i" is a relatively newly launched newspaper (2010), it's like a condensed version of the Independent and it's 30p on a weekday.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 11:20 PM
1

The Telegraph play second fiddle to The Daily Mail, but they're chasing as fast as they can. The BBC goes for balance above all, which can have the unfortunate side effect of giving voice to views that don't deserve necessarily deserve equal footing or even a fucking mention. The Guardian hits well above it's weight, but it's got the lowest circulation of any national newspaper.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 11:00 PM
1

If I know anything about British media, all the big players are left-leaning. Depends on what you mean by big players, and which right and left you're using. For newspapers, you've got: You've got the tabloid trash from the bottom, with The Sun as the biggest selling newspaper in the UK, I shit you not. It's a Murdoch paper. Think "British Fox News Newspaper with a teenage girl with her tits out on the third page". They use small words to deliver bullshit to small minds. Then you've got The Dail…
/r/MensRights21/03/14 09:47 PM
1

OP has posted a story from The Mirror reporting something sourced from The Daily Mail, and you've posted a link to The Daily Star. There's probably not a true word in any of those three, no-one in the UK takes any of those bullshit merchants seriously. The Independent, The Guardian, The BBC, to a large extent The Times, to a lesser extent Sky News and ITV. Yes. The Daily Mail, The Telegraph (nowadays), Daily Express, The Daily Star, The Mirror, The Sun. No. Regional stuff varies wildly.
/r/MensRights21/03/14 09:09 PM
1

In the UK at least, men generally have a sense of humour. We can laugh at ourselves when appropriate. We're not the demented feminist extremists that bitch to the Advertising Standards Authority at the drop of a hat. We can laugh at ourselves (see Yorkie adverts for an example.) And they are sexist, but they're funny. If it's funny, we'll give it a lot of leeway because that's how comedy works. When it's just lazy sexism, like the Co-Op's "Calling All Dads" or Asda's "Behind every Christmas", we…
/r/MensRights13/03/14 06:49 PM
4

Al Bundy was a wisecracking antidote to his horrible, unlovable wife and dumb-as-rocks daughter. He was the (anti)hero of the show. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who considered Peg to be attractive. Kelly on the other hand... Daaamn.
/r/MensRights13/03/14 06:17 PM
2

If she doesn't want an emotionally shared relationship, that's fine so long as you're both ok with that. But to be honest, from that short fragment of conversation she does seem like she might be a bit of a bitch, so I'd have my metaphorical bags packed. Is there more context to this? It looks like at the top line, where it's cropped off, she's talking about her period. What were you discussing?
/r/MensRights16/02/14 05:57 PM
2

Are we ok with "separate by equal" on this sort of fundraising? Women run for "women's" cancers (despite us also getting breast cancer) and men run for "men's" cancers? Shouldn't we all run for both?
/r/MensRights12/02/14 12:20 PM
6

That's awesome. Well, actually what she says is really depressing, but it's awesome that she's doing so well for equality at the helm. “Don’t do it. Don’t get married and don’t have children. As it stands you have no rights whatsoever and statistically being a father does not have a happy ending – you will be reduced to the status of a sperm bank and a cashpoint. While I've no interest in having kids, nor does my SO, that's chilling. Off-topic somewhat, but Any kind of ‘ism’ is generally bad new…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 11:48 PM
2

Seriously, we're reading Daily Mail coverage of cancer treatments now? This is the same shit rag that says everything prevents and causes cancer, primarily because they're full of shit and don't care about misleading or straight-up lying in order to provoke outrage. Can we wait until the actual story comes out, instead of jumping on this click-baiting garbage? Maybe it's accurate, but given the Daily Fail's extensive history of CANCER!! stories, it would be better to wait a bit before losing out…
/r/MensRights28/01/14 04:01 PM
1

He was a doctor who spoke to someone claiming to be a Daily Mail journalist, which is an oxymoron in itself.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 03:33 PM
2

The TL;DR of it is one of the biggest problems with our country is that people read The Daily Mail. It's a racist sexist shitrag without a shred of journalistic or moral integrity. Pandering the the readers of the Daily Fail is dangerous and corrosive.
/r/MensRights30/12/13 09:42 PM
13

The Telegraph unfortunately is becoming The Daily Mail, so take what's in it with the same pinch of salt as you would any of the other shitrakers (Daily Mail, Sun, Star, Mirror etc). Of course, the headline is utter bollocks because the last paragraph clearly states By the end of 2014 all existing customers will be presented with an unavoidable choice about installing content filters which users will not be able to skip. It might force a choice, but that's not the same as the "default on" for ne…
/r/MensRights30/12/13 08:14 PM
2

I'd not heard that argument against the bedroom tax before. Admittedly, it's one of many (there aren't enough homes with fewer bedrooms, hits disabled people hard etc) but holy shit, you're right.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:40 PM
9

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. What stage are we at?
/r/MensRights11/12/13 11:22 PM
14

Obviously, just as the twitter using posting as "us" is unrepresentative of us, so is the Lancashire PCC unrepresentative of "UK Police". Gwent Police (our local police force) have come forwards in leaps and bounds, as evidenced by the Claire's Law stuff they've put out. It's entirely gender (and orientation) neutral and lists general and men specific and LGBT specific stuff. I fear angry twitter man doesn't know what PCCs are. Edit: 're -> 've
/r/MensRights09/12/13 07:46 PM
2

BBC, Guardian (who non-natives will know from the Snowden leaks), Independent, and those are just the British ones I'm aware of. For local coverage it can be a bit spotty, but some of our local papers have surprisingly good coverage. As an example, this was the lead story for one of our local papers recently: http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/archive/2013/07/06/10531308.Cwmbran_woman_jailed_for_false_rape_claim/
/r/MensRights09/12/13 04:41 PM
0

Yet they post a lot of things that are actually on point, and often verified by other sources. As your parent poster posted: publish half-truths "The best place to hide a lie is between two truths" The problem is that you can't know what is, and what isn't, a lie. Or a massive distortion of the truth. Which makes it utterly useless. It's just some posters in here are more interested in being outraged than being informed, which is largely the case for Daily Mail readers in general.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:43 AM
9

Is it our fault that they're one of the only papers that actually covers things from a pro-male perspective from time to time? The problem is they distort stories to fit their profile, "outrage". They're utterly devoid of journalistic ethics, and blatantly can't be trusted. I mean they're pro-censorship, their lies range from blatant and offensive to insidious, they can't be trusted as a news source so it would be better to not link to them at all. There's no value in a news paper that can't be …
/r/MensRights09/12/13 10:40 AM
28

The Daily Mail is a poisonous rag, I really wish this sub would stop biting. It's as bad as /r/worldnews, you'd think we'd learn. It's for people with too much of a sense of shame to read The Sun, and too stupid to know better. Edit: this->think
/r/MensRights08/12/13 10:08 PM
7

They were quoting Theresa May, our deranged Home Secretary. We seem to keep getting really bad Home Secretaries, I don't really know why. But her and Wacky Jackie, they sure do hate some men.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 04:25 PM
2

No verification of the reason is done. Men are expressly denied access to the same information about women, by the law. It doesn't matter the article uses "people", that's not the law. What are you talking about? Based on what? Have you looked at the actual consultation paper that preceeded the pilot, or the documentation the forces piloting the scheme put out? Or any actual documentation? Being clearly advertised as being gender neutral was something explicitly flagged for further consideration…
/r/MensRights25/11/13 04:23 PM
1

The comment by Motorway points out the pure stupidity of this law No it doesn't, it shows the ignorance of Motorway apparently. and if someone who I don't realize is in a relationship with me checks my status, is there a law to protect my reputation if she then shares the result with friend(s)? Yes there is. In fact, there are several, but it starts with section 55 of the Data Protection Act. This is clearly laid out in the support materials the police forces in the pilot scheme have made availa…
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:10 PM
1

Not just the police, the deciding is done by a multi-agency panel. Edit: Sorry Bearmodule, I've just noticed that I've basically given you the same reply twice on two different replies.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:05 PM
1

Your they in this situation doesn't tell the whole story by the way, it's a multi-agency panel. The Police pull in other relevant safeguarding agencies, like social services, probation service or whoever, and they make the action plan together. It's not just the police deciding. I prefer our way too.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:03 PM
1

Any female can check on any male to find if there is any "history of violence". Wrong, RTFA. Worse, it's checking if there have ever been charges, not convictions. Wrong, RTFA. The reverse though wouldn't even be helpful, because very few female abusers are ever charged. They're using the information they have available to safeguard as many as possible in an entirely gender neutral way.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 03:00 PM
1

Well for starters, we don't know if there have been any permanent issues. It may cause them problems with walking in later life, it may cause them issues with childbirth. They would have gotten less if the MoD had just settled, which they should have done, because they were clearly at fault. If the MoD had just compensated them sensibly, none of this would have happened. But the women had to take the MoD to court, and this was the result. That's not the womens' fault, that's the MoD's fault. The…
/r/MensRights25/11/13 02:58 PM
8

Not sure I'd go that far, there are still issues with it and some concern is sensible. But for me, it's certainly an improvement and they've taken "the lesser of two evils" approach with everything as far as I can see.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 01:52 PM
2

While I do agree with you to some extent, I think they've taken every safeguard they can looking at the way they do it. I think it's the lesser of two evils.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 01:32 PM
4

false accusation of rape, probably not. Not sure on that, I'm in one of the pilot areas and our police force recently went after a women for making false rape claims. She was given a two year sentence, half to be served in jail. They take a rather dim view of it.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 01:11 PM
4

I'm not gay (always an odd qualifier to start with) but I could check on a partner of any gender and would receive tailored support regardless. I live in one of the pilot areas, and while I've been unimpressed with some of the support from Gwent Police for Men's Rights, this seems to have been done well. All the language in the booklet is gender neutral, and lists support organisations. The top of the list is "All Wales Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Helpline". They have sections for both me…
/r/MensRights25/11/13 01:09 PM
1

I should point out at those with a disability actually have employment law stacked heavily in their favour in the UK. For disabled people, as a bit of an oversimplificiation, the emphasis is on "why did you not hire this disabled person". And over here, most people view squadies, especially disabled ones, with love. Help for Heroes has a very high profile over here, as does the Royal British Legion. But while I did explain the OP has an utterly distorted view (and frankly one ignorant of the fac…
/r/MensRights25/11/13 12:23 PM
1

It's not just for the stress fractures, it's the negligence and incompetence that gave them to her, it's "pain and suffering, degree of injury, property losses, past and future financial losses and the level of care required." They had to battle for five years in a "bitter" lawsuit to get the compensation. It's that the AFCS that should be higher, not the compensation these women got should be lower.
/r/MensRights25/11/13 12:15 PM
-1

Do us short men not have different pelvic build to women? I assume as we don't give birth, we would do. But it's a question, rather than a statement. Edit: Google says yes. Example: http://www.livestrong.com/article/179009-the-male-female-pelvic-differences/
/r/MensRights24/11/13 10:11 PM
2

Also, this is just women bashing. It's not focusing on the disgusting failure of the MoD to look after our men and women in uniform, the majority of whom are indeed men. It's just ragging on some women who were fucked over by MoD incompetence that they've subsequently admitted.
/r/MensRights24/11/13 09:49 PM
1

I'm not a military person, but I'm of the opinion they were right to sue because they were injured by the MoD's incompetence and failure in duty of care and were medically discharged because of it. They joined the military, were fucked over through incompetence (and no fault of their own) and then faced an uphill five-year battle to get compensation. You can interpret the actual quote without the Daily Mail's spin on things as "Miss Davies' shot at her dream job was ripped away from her by the i…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 09:43 PM
9

Im not saying they arent, but there are soldiers with missing limbs, I dont see them receiving £100[,]000. That you "dont see them receiving" the money doesn't change the fact if a soldier were completely missing a limb, if they claimed on AFCS they'd have received over £100,000 in compensation: Level 3 (£230,000) Loss of both legs at or above the knee Loss of both arms at or above the elbow Loss of one leg above the knee Loss of one arm above the elbow Of course, the Daily Mail's "list" is some…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 09:32 PM
7

This got quite a bit of attention in /r/videos too: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1ptnmt/there_are_people_defending_this_woman_and_the_man/ Hopefully the CPS will laugh this right out, and the jolly green giant presses charges against the stupid girl that decided to try and kick him in the nuts.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 12:37 PM
-4

I just noticed your other post. Seems "concern troll" and "Social Media PR" are your phrases de jour. Nice for you to find somewhere else you can shoe-horn them in. However without passing judgement on your other post: Posted this, I doubt they publish it. I think it one big concern troll of a piece and she works for a Social Media PR operation. It is entirely plausible this article was paid for by NOW or LEAF. In relation to me, you're wrong. But feel free to try and slag me off anyway.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 10:15 PM
-5

piss of you bloody moron. (sic) A solid example of your posting.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 09:48 PM
-8

Oh no, my internet points! ddos the shit out of it. we really need to take the fight to these women. Thank goodness rational discussion has a counterbalance, huh?
/r/MensRights27/10/13 09:07 PM
-10

There's no Pavda in Izvestia, and no Izvestia in Pavda. But yes, The Daily Mail is no doubt keeping us safe from the creeping red invasion(!) Thank goodness.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 08:04 PM
-12

If truth be told the biggest distorters of truth are the so called "quality press", both left and right, they just use longer words and are more insidious. Yes, it's all one big conspiracy. And using big words, like "journalism". Insidious indeed. Go light your cigar with a copy of the Leveson report. Edit: (ps. Your username is fucking priceless, guessing you are working from an office down the docks by the Assembly Building.;) More likely the mention of Pontypool on my userpage, and my tag in …
/r/MensRights27/10/13 07:43 PM
-15

Thankfully what you think is stupid. You're having a turkish, and what I've said is absolutely is not "patently false". If you actually check either of the large-ish British subreddits, unitedkingdom and britishproblems (which is admittedly tongue-firmly-in-cheek), have a look for the general opinion of the Daily Fail. Oh, would you look at that... The Sun is the highest circulation. Think that's a shining bastion of journalistic integrity? Pull the other one, it's got TITS on it. It's adorable …
/r/MensRights27/10/13 06:58 PM
-14

In fairness, false rape cases must generally be bloody difficult to prosecute. The burden of proof is high, the stress on the accuser (ie, the innocent-of-rapist) must be really fucking high (having recently survived a false rape claim), and it'd be a publicity shitstorm which will make everything worse. While I agree that it should be made easier to prosecute false accusers, I'm not sure this is the rage-inducing obscenity it first appears to be. I'm all for CPS caution, generally. Edit: Becaus…
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:51 PM
-8

The fact it's The Daily Mail, something us Brits wouldn't wipe our arse with if we wanted actual journalism (as opposed to pics of hot celebs in a state of undress)... Ironic.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:45 PM
1

If it's any consolation, most British people have the good sense to be ashamed of the Daily Mail.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 11:48 AM
2

It's The Daily Mail. A quick stop to /r/unitedkingdom, the home of said newspaper (heh, I called it a newspaper) will quickly show why no-one with more than half a brain pays any attention to what the Daily Mail say. The DM is a sensationalist outrage-peddling link-baiting shitrag that specializes in generating uninformed anger. They called The Guardian "The paper that helps Britain's enemies", and called Labour leader Ed Milliband's dad "The man who hated Britain". I'm not making that up. Unlik…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 11:18 AM
1

So my original "in the UK" still stands then? While there are some bits of the UK that aren't England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, afaik the only three legal systems are the ones we've listed.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 08:13 PM
1

The law is different, but you'll note that both NI and Scotland make reference to using a "penis". Without factoring in the transgender, this rules out women. That's not to say that women cannot be charged with an offence, it's just that offence is not "rape." NI: (1) A person (A) commits an offence if— (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, (b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents. S…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 08:02 PM
1

No, it's from common usage. And presumably, the British English usage in the population would be somewhat influenced by British law, no? Hardly irrelevant.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 12:15 PM
39

That was pretty much my exact reaction when someone else on MR said it. Yup.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:26 PM
64

In the UK, legally rape can only be committed by a man.
/r/MensRights06/10/13 07:09 PM
2

I see that as "Being in a relationship is not consent". Thanks!
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:26 PM
3

Already did. Frog.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:46 PM
8

Uh, is anyone else with RES just seeing the image of a frog? This might sound odd, but I just see a frog. Or am I missing the joke?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 01:53 PM
-6

Touché.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 10:35 AM
-6

A stuck clock is right twice a day? I'm just pissed it's associating MLP with SRS. Harsh.
/r/MensRights14/09/13 09:57 AM
5

I began to comment thinking you were wrong with "definition for a woman to be charged or even arrested for rape.", and to ask for a source. Then I just fucking Googled it. Wow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law I think if you frame the issue as consent, and that doing something one is told not to do removes consent, a woman forcing the man as the parent post suggested would still be sexual assault. intentionally touches another person (B), the touching is sexual, B does not consen…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 08:15 AM
2

Yeah, I'm up the 'port, just a short hop along the M4. It's fuckin' roasting. Since this weather started, there have even been two major bus fires where they just "catch fire" and burn themselves out, one on the M4 (which showed up on my Facebook feed as one of my friends was on it, no injuries) and another one here in Newport today (again, thankfully no injuries). Soldiers on SAS selection died from heat exhaustion (allegedly) in the Beacons on the weekend. It's that bad. To be fair to Whitchur…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 09:31 PM
2

This was in the UK, you can do better than Daily Mail link. In fact, the local paper is the South Wales Argus, I posted this 3 days ago. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1hrvo7/woman_with_history_of_jailed_for_false_rape_claim/ Not that the Argus has the best reporting on Law and Order, but it's a damn sight better than the link-baiting outrage-addicted scum of the Daily Mail. The Beeb hasn't picked it up, and probably won't. The CPS report mentioned is this: http://www.cps.gov.uk/pub…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:18 PM
2

I wish I'd seen yours before I'd replied to someone else posting it in my friends list. Third party: It has some good points, but the angle is sort of ... awkward somehow. I don't know. Me: If I may, and I think I know exactly what you mean... It's written in a feminist perspective by someone who doesn't actually understand men, but believes some of the usual feminist myths. Generally, when they bust out "male privilege", it's a good indication you're being taken for a ride. This is an interesti…
/r/MensRights10/07/13 12:31 AM
1

If convicted they could have faced up to life imprisonment (because rape can, in the UK). As could she, for perverting the course of justice, as that can also carry a life sentence. I think the sentence was far too lenient.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 04:10 PM
1

And protect the identity of innocent people in sexual assault cases. And they're innocent until proven guilty, regardless of their gender. (Hell, sometimes they're innocent AND found guilty.)
/r/MensRights07/07/13 07:11 PM
1

While I agree with you, the problem I would imagine is the CPS would require the assistance of the men she falsely accused, and the burden for proving a rape claim false would in practice be higher that finding the man not guilty. I can imagine most blokes would not want to go through another case about the same rape allegation. And worse, what happens if that case collapses or she gets found not guilty? There's now public doubt upon whether he raped her or not, again. There's no anonymity for t…
/r/MensRights07/07/13 12:56 PM
1

I wonder if in practice, her word can be enough to convict the guy if they can cast doubt on his word and the defence can't cast doubt on hers?
/r/MensRights05/07/13 11:06 AM
1

I came to the comments primarily for a non-Daily Mail link. It's unfortunately that the linkbaiting outrage-obsessed scum at the Daily Fail seem to target MRAs specifically, and that non-Brits don't seem to get it.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 11:06 PM
1

You probably wish to make clear you're talking about US politics (such as it is.) I'm from the UK and I support the Liberal Democrats on most things. I was irritated that they brought up gay marriage as it wasn't really in anyone's manifesto, but I'm pro-gay marriage. I was against the Afghan and Iraq wars, but do support limited intervention and assistance in Syria. I think the UK should maintain a submarine-based nuclear deterrent but do not approve of the MoD's mismanagement of procurement. I…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 12:53 PM
1

16, 17 minutes ago?
/r/MensRights02/06/13 12:01 PM
2

I don't think this would be productive with Cracked. Normally, I'd agree with you. If this were HuffPo, or a news network, or Ars, or even El Reg, I'd agree. But this is Cracked. I fear our time would be best spent elsewhere.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 11:39 AM
5

I think step 3 is profit, so there's that to look forward to!
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:44 AM
1

Hasn't this been an ongoing thing? Same with Symantec/Norton etc?
/r/MensRights28/05/13 04:18 PM
-2

Any group perceived as being persecuted, be that those with a "minority" racial origin, or transgender, or bi/homosexual, could do exactly the same as the woman in the (possibly fake) OP. Are you also suggesting we not hold the doors for them too? Because there are some arseholes in the above groups, just as there are in EVERY group, ours included. I think not showing common courtesy just because a woman is a woman is rude, unhelpful and inherently sexist.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 12:06 PM
1

My bad, I didn't read the word "only" in that sentence. No worries. And see I agree, but both women and men don't show compassion to each other in the way they do with women. There is an imbalance in gendered relations that I don't believe thoughtful instant gender blindness will help solve. Men going out of their way to show other men compassion is a good thing. I see where you're coming from, and I agree with your conclusion. I don't think "we" (as males in general in society) show other men t…
/r/MensRights25/05/13 11:51 AM
40

I think fostering sexism is one of the worst things an MRM can do. We're working towards equality, if we let a few deranged feminist extremists derail that, well then we'd be fucked. Because there are lots of them. Hold the door open for other people, regardless of gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, job position, disability or whatever. I think showing courtesy and compassion to EVERYONE is the best thing an MRM can do.
/r/MensRights25/05/13 11:10 AM
5

How do you know if a woman is a feminist? It's the extremist ones that are usually the most vocal ones. One could argue that's something us MRAs have in common. The more moderate on both sides just blend in most of the time. I don't wander around with a "Down with feminist" baseball cap and a "Stop the feminist menace" tank top on. If you met me on the street, you wouldn't know if I were feminist, MRA or utterly apathetic.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 02:33 PM
3

Absolutely. I sub'd to /mensrights , not to /antifeministcirclejerktumblr.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 10:39 AM
6

it's about advocating for women at the expense of men, and I get that this is a Bad Thing I'm not a feminist, but I disagree with this. Feminism isn't always about women at the expense of men. Extremist feminism usually is, but the vast majority of feminists that I've met aren't extremists and aren't anti-men. They want equality for themselves, and for everyone, but they concentrate on the issues that effect women the most. Mens problems aren't a priority to them, but they aren't anti-men.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 10:14 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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