TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

xzxzzx Archive

View 2 posts and 417 comments by xzxzzx on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
16

xzxzzx/r/MensRights20/05/11 03:00 PM
9

xzxzzx/r/MensRights21/08/13 04:55 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

Reproduction does define your gender. Obviously not. Do infertile people lose their gender? If trans people are truly uncomfortable with how they were born, they wouldn't have sex prior to transition, yet alone carry a pregnancy. ... because trans people don't get horny? Because their discomfort is easy to define, articulate and address? Because it's impossible to both want a child and be trans? Honestly I want to know the reasoning here. The photo from the article shows a short haired woman. I …
/r/MensRights25/04/21 01:37 PM
5

Please help me understand the epidemic of women committing sexual assault against men. You're clearly a troll who doesn't want to understand and probably thinks they're a "good person" too.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 01:21 PM
8

It's not at all. It's just that other studies define rape in such a way that men being forced to have sex with a woman don't count as "rape victims". Take a look at the CDC's NISVS's categories; they explicitly define male victims of nonconsentual sex as being "made to penetrate" and not victims of rape.
/r/MensRights25/04/21 01:20 PM
5

It's universally accepted that crime statistics massively underreport sexual violence, as most people do not report such crimes. It's also not surprising that men are even less likely than women to report such violence--think of who you are, and how likely you'd accept a woman telling you she'd been raped. Now picture a man saying the same thing--are you as likely to believe him? Now, think about the average cop. The CDC's numbers have been in line with what's reported by the linked article for …
/r/MensRights25/04/21 01:17 PM
7

Something I also find very interesting is, while in the last 100 years there were many scientists (male more than woman), it took a woman to publish a study about a topic that should be so important to every man out there. Uh, yeah, obviously. Men would have to be fucking insane to try to academically study female sexual criminality if they expect to find something, it'd ruin their career. Even the woman reporting this had to start with "well male sexual violence is bad, and we're not suggesting…
/r/MensRights25/04/21 01:10 PM
8

As much as people here would like to think you're wrong, you're very right. Yeah, that may be plausible. Except we know for a fact that Mary P Koss (the feminist who's also the source of the nonsense "1 in 4 women are raped on campus" claim) explicitly supports not calling non-consensual intercourse rape (so long as it's the man not consenting, of course), and was consulted on the NISVS, which is the primary source for most claims about rape in the USA. So it may be also men in power, but it's d…
/r/MensRights25/04/21 01:04 PM
89

You know what's even worse? This is the standard response to male victims of rape. But it's not even true to begin with. The statistics have been biased in such a way that male victims of a woman forcing him to have sex with her are not counted as rape by either the FBI or CDC, which are the main sources of statistics on violent crime victimization in the US. Once you include the euphemistic "made to penetrate" category in the CDC's data, the number of male and female rapists go from something l…
/r/MensRights30/03/21 04:38 PM
10

This should also be a part of feminism because feminism initially wants to support equality. In principle, I basically agree. In practice, when feminists are the most likely to engage in the problematic behavior being discussed, and most likely to defend their bigotry toward men, it becomes a rather difficult practical problem to do so.
/r/MensRights30/03/21 04:31 PM
4

Should be a conversation to open a discussion not attack people. I agree and disagree. Ridicule is what we as humans use to indicate behavior that is so unacceptable or immoral that you need to stop. Saying "by other men" is the moral equivalent of being a flat-earther. If you had any shred of ability to think on the topic and were not just using circular arguments your tribe has taught you, you'd not be saying that. That said, "you're an asshole" would probably be better replaced with something…
/r/MensRights30/03/21 04:28 PM
22

You missed the best (most insane) part! My previous tweets were flagged not for inaccuracy or for political bias, but for publicly naming whiteness as a defining problem. Could she be any more explicitly an anti-white racist?
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/21 05:41 AM
1

Saying white men are usually the culprits of mass shootings That's the lie she's saying about what she said, but how is that relevant? ... wait, are you the woman in question? Honestly hard to believe you read the linked tweet and think that's an accurate description of what it said.
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/21 05:35 AM
3

They also have a strict anti-muslim immigration policy based on two decades worth of social and legal problems dealing with them. Googling this mostly led to articles saying that the idea that this is a myth. Have a credible source? :)
/r/PussyPassDenied30/03/21 05:30 AM
10

It could be interpreted either way, semantically, though I agree that does appear to be the intent; last time I checked most state rape laws include non-penetrated victims. Ody_ssey is correct in the sense that the main sources of statistics on rape in the USA will not count a male victim who was forced to penetrate as a rape victim, however (FBI's UCR and CDC's NISVS).
/r/MensRights29/03/21 02:12 PM
4

I always get downvoted in this sub when I try to explain that women are the same as men—we want someone we find attractive. This whole “seduction” game is silly. It's hard to know where to start here. First, even for men, who are absolutely more visually oriented than women are on average (do you really need me to link studies to prove this to you?), there are absolutely times when a woman's behavior brings them from "uninteresting" to "interesting" to a man. Is it likely to happen if they're re…
/r/seduction21/06/20 01:42 AM
3

Nonsense. Men and women are both logical and emotional. That doesn’t mean men and women are the same, but I assure you that everyone is almost entirely emotionally driven (save a few psychopaths), and whatever “logical” explanation you have for your behavior is, the majority of the time, a created explanation for your behavior that comes after. (And, by the way, if you were to ask her about her “emotional” decision, she would probably see it as just as logically driven as you see your behavior.)…
/r/seduction06/09/19 10:18 PM
-2

Not a single wave of feminism was for equality. 1-3 are all just as stupid, evil and hate as the other It's comments like this that really make me sad about this sub. Extremist, asshole feminists sound just like this. You realize that first-wave feminism ended sometime around when women got the right to vote, right?
/r/MensRights10/06/18 08:47 PM
3

Seriously, don't feed the troll.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 02:18 PM
1

Apologies; I misread your comment, I thought it said "mod" not "admin". Most users have no idea of the difference between a mod and an admin by the way. Incidentally, there's no need to assume I'm saying something malicious. Jesus. Calm the fuck down and try to give the benefit of the doubt. Clearly it doesn't make sense, so why would you assume I'm just being an asshole? Any chance you can message the admins and see what's up? I don't think any of my links are something the admins disapprove of…
/r/MensRights28/08/16 02:55 AM
1

Thanks for letting me know. That's really, really dumb. /r/MensRights used to avoid censorship much more than it apparently does now.
/r/MensRights28/08/16 12:30 AM
36

The government is restricting men's ability to talk about their sexual assault experiences? No, but the government is avoiding defining "rape" as including male victims of women, at least for FBI statistics, even after the recent redefinition.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 11:50 PM
2

Have you looked in a dictionary to find what "apologist" means? You seem to think it's derogatory, but it's not. We are all men's rights apologists, for example, or at least I hope we are.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 06:57 PM
4

I don't know where to start in explaining how non-analogous that is. I suggest you read all the comments above again, more carefully this time.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 06:54 PM
14

Honestly, you had my complete support until that dumb ass line. If a single word is enough to completely reverse your support of someone, you should really spend some time thinking about what bothers you so much about that word, and how to not let it affect your life so strongly.
/r/MensRights19/06/16 05:35 PM
2

I could have gone on about the differences in LCD quality, sound, touchpad, durability, etc. The "POWER JACK" comment shows you don't understand that power jack failures are the most common way laptops fail. "No one runs into driver issues" is total nonsense, and shows the incredible breadth of your ignorance, and confirms it's luck, and not knowledge, that let you install Linux without trouble. gigabit internet (something that practically no one has) First, you've confused Ethernet with Interne…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 07:43 PM
3

Macs are for idiots. As I said. Your inability to understand why someone would want an Apple laptop doesn't show that other people have a mental failing. You could have gotten a used 2010 MacBook Pro for about the same and you'd have gotten a faster CPU (the slowest 15" 2010 MBP is still a faster device, about twice as fast for single-threaded workloads, A8-6410 vs i5-520M), higher resolution, a power jack that isn't prone to breaking (like nearly every model of laptop's is), gigabit ethernet, e…
/r/MensRights22/05/16 06:43 AM
8

Yes, it does. Good luck making that argument, but you never know till you try!
/r/MensRights17/04/16 05:34 AM
0

The "1 in 4" resonates with women too. You haven't made a counter argument; you just don't like that you're being targeted by emotional manipulation.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 06:00 AM
0

So, I really don't see it. Elam is doing the equivalent of modern day feminism's treatment of many issues--take a problem or a few (false rape accusations, women who expect to be treated "like a princess" due soley to her gender), make assertions about these women that will inspire the most outrage in the memories of men watching the video, conflate all these problems together, explode the problem in scope with vague inclusions of generalities, and then demonize the other side, who are of course…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 03:46 PM
13

You spam ads. The word "censorship" doesn't apply to removing spam. Have points to make without advertising your organization? Then do so.
/r/MensRights30/05/15 05:08 PM
3

If that's not referencing rape for humor, I don't know what is. Well duh, men don't get raped, silly, so it's ok to use them as the target of a rape joke! /s
/r/MensRights23/04/14 05:47 PM
5

god forbid he joke about rape THATS JUST TOO FAR It makes sense from the feminist viewpoint. The "rape culture" is encouraged by comedians joking about rape, you see? And since women are oppressed, and also the victims of rape that matter, it's further insulting to have a man (the oppressor!) joking about something that "doesn't affect him". It's almost funny to see the stereotypical feminist say both "the culture normalizes rape" and "people are just using rape to be edgy" (if the culture norma…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 05:46 PM
8

I get the "intent" of the post. But it's only relevant for trannies. You contradict yourself. You're using circular logic, and you can't even see it. It's "only relevant for trannies" because you think only women should wear dresses, or that only a man who wants to act like Eddie Izzard will want to wear a dress. But you can't know that. It's not socially permissible for a man to wear a dress. If it were, maybe 30% of men would choose to wear them. I don't know. You don't either. You're saying "…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 04:45 PM
9

Yes I've heard of kilts in Scotland Why don't you check out, say, much of recorded history? I can't see it as ANYTHING other than encouraging men's rights' redditors to endorse transvestism. I'm sorry that you can't separate out the obvious intent of this post which has been explained to you repeatedly now from the things you don't like. How damn fucked do you have to be to see Eddie Izzard as a bloody role model? Eddie Izzard is a man. I think he should be able to wear whatever he wants. You ca…
/r/MensRights23/04/14 04:15 PM
10

it seems to imply that we should take pride in acting gay/metrosexual/womanly Nope, that's your confusion. There's no reason other than bullshit gender stereotypes that men shouldn't wear dresses, or that dresses should be considered "gay" or "womanly". It's no different than "men don't make good parents" or "women are virtuous and innocent".
/r/MensRights23/04/14 03:42 PM
4

Indeed. In a society where a large percentage of people die young, your society will be less likely to end if the people dying aren't fertile women, for what I would think are obvious reasons. It really doesn't help that women die so frequently in childbirth already. Further, men are naturally stronger and larger, making them more suited to manual labor, which has been a very large component of "breadwinning" for a very long time.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 03:37 PM
2

The problem with feminists is not that they universally think men are not hurt by sexism. That is rare. Assuming we're talking about feminists who think "feminism" means "gender equality" (and many who identify as feminists do think that), the problems are more subtle, and nearly impossible to see within a feminist worldview. It's the refusal to introspect, the lack of skepticism (but the pretense of skepticism), the failure to shun those who are pro-woman but anti-man, the pretense of actually …
/r/MensRights28/03/14 11:12 PM
13

This position makes sense in their worldview--any man who went to a police station would automatically get the benefit of the doubt, since the patriarchy automatically affords men so much more respect, trust, credibility, blah, blah, blah... Remember, misandry "don't real".
/r/MensRights28/03/14 10:26 PM
2

Hmm? Oh, no, I'm fine; you don't make enough sense to offend me. I'm just laughing at your ridiculous views. Sorry that it made you think I was offended.
/r/MensRights24/03/14 10:00 PM
6

I express myself respectfully LOL. Because when I think of "LOL", I automatically think "respectful".
/r/MensRights24/03/14 08:47 PM
1

Alright, let's assume ZimeaglaZ was being hostile, and was trying to be deliberately misleading with his comment. Would you prefer the people who read your comment to be persuaded that he's right, or that you're right? ZimeaglaZ's post was upvoted largely because he used rhetoric that's convincing to the people who read /r/MensRights. Yours was downvoted because you used rhetoric that's extremely unconvincing. Do what you will, but assuming malice where only ignorance exists is a great way to fa…
/r/MensRights14/02/14 09:08 PM
1

I pointed out that they are a shitty person for doing so. Or, more likely, an ignorant one. I agree with you that "ableism" (how is that supposed to be a valid spelling of a word?) is a valid concern. I just thought I should point out that effective persuasion and/or education usually doesn't start with "seriously? fuck off."
/r/MensRights14/02/14 08:36 PM
1

We have no way of knowing that women didn't create these stereotypes and attitudes by maintaining that women have no agency, just like the womens movement is today. Well, think about what you're suggesting. If women were acting that way, where did that behavior come from? If it's genetic, then in what way do they actually not have agency? Do you think women had some kind of underground network, despite having nearly no means of doing so? You think that men, having control of every form of mass d…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 08:21 PM
1

I don't think so. Take a look at the laws and public attitudes in, say, 1910 in America. Men had presumptive custody (children were essentially owned by their father, who was also responsible for their care), women were openly considered mentally and physically inferior, and indeed could not vote. Of course, attitudes were already shifting--several western states had passed women's suffrage laws, and it would be merely a decade before the 19th amendment was ratified. When the vast, vast majority…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 07:41 PM
10

feminism is perpetuating what it calls patriarchy That's what really gets me. If you think women should be treated as agents in the world, why do you support treating women as powerless in nearly every situation? I suppose the feminist response would be: Because their powerlessness stems from the way society treats them, which has nothing to do with my advocacy of special protection of women. Of course, I couldn't disagree more, and that view seems to fly in the face of everything we know about …
/r/MensRights31/01/14 07:18 PM
28

I agree with this. And I'd like to expand on it. If you define "feminist" as someone who supports equal rights for men and women, I'm certainly a feminist. And it's not as though I think there is nothing right about the feminist movement; I see discrimination against women every day and it disgusts me. But I also see discrimination against men, by society, and by those very organizations who should know better: feminist ones. Organizations which call themselves feminist, as well as mainstream so…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 07:04 PM
1

Hell I won't sit down in a men's resterroom in a bar or a restaurant because I know the seat will be covered with urine. Spoken like a person who's never had to clean a women's restroom.
/r/MensRights10/01/14 04:21 PM
1

You are absolutely wrong here. Express lanes fundamentally only help because the people using them go through them quicker, allowing those who aren't going to take as long to wait less time. Stores absolutely put in express lanes for the convenience of those with fewer items. because most of their customers have as many items. Think about what you're saying for a minute. What about regular lines is less efficient when there are many people with few items? (Hint: those with fewer items get stuck …
/r/MensRights10/01/14 04:19 PM
5

Pretty much. Or, it's a troll. Honestly, I'm not sure why this is getting so much attention here. Yes, it's a shitty thing, but shouldn't we talk about the legally-enforced expectation that men are supposed to "support their children" (a total misnomer, except that money is fungible). I'm just not sure feeding the trolls or pointing out the behavior of one asshole woman gets us anything but annoyance.
/r/MensRights05/01/14 08:04 PM
2

Who decides whether your victimization is "legit," then? Um... isn't it obvious? You do.
/r/MensRights16/11/13 06:20 PM
2

You're simply reading into this message much differently than most of the people here. "Stand and deal" means to take personal responsibility, as I understand it. It doesn't mean "accept the situation you're in", nor does it mean "never seek help". If you are victimized, you are not playing a victim, you are a victim.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 09:48 PM
1

Insurance does not work that way. Seriously. The cost of insuring men for female birth control to the insurance company is $0, which is amusingly higher than the cost to the insurer for women, because pregnancy and birth are both vastly more expensive.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:14 PM
1

While some people like to represent that statistic that way, that's not actually what was measured, unless perhaps you're referring to a very, very old statistic, or in countries outside the US. The measurement is "take the average of all full-time male employees, now compare that with the average of all full-time female employees". Note how this doesn't account for factors like number of hours worked on average (higher for men), average experience (higher for men), average dangerousness of the …
/r/MensRights29/10/13 10:51 PM
5

Hey now, if you won't make the claim that genders are identical in every way, how can you make the claim that genders should be treated identically under the law? /sarcasm
/r/MensRights14/10/13 02:54 PM
9

Given that the author says this in the article: there are heartbreaking numbers of male survivors of sexual abuse out there And also that the comment doesn't show up on the page for me, I'm gonna venture a guess and say "no".
/r/MensRights11/10/13 07:51 PM
2

I'm willing to wager that for every instance here on /MR that you can pull up of someone using biased data, there's at least one heavily upvoted (if not the top) comment explaining how and why the person is using the data incorrectly. Having done so many times, either I'm very bad at doing so without giving people other reasons to downvote me, or no, that's actually not typical (or, for completeness, I'm complaining about lots of unbiased data...) Typical here seems to be about 40-60% downvotes …
/r/MensRights07/10/13 07:05 PM
4

That matters not at all when someone finds one objectively untrue (or unsupported by the evidence) thing that fits their preconceived notions of the MRM, because that alone is enough for someone looking for a reason to dismiss you. And besides that, it's not that I think the key points of the MRM are invalid. It's that our points should be so god damned well-supported by evidence and reason--as well as balanced and fair--that someone that's biased against us can look at said evidence and reason …
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:43 PM
24

We're not immune to biased data. If you haven't seen any examples of biased data around here, you're not looking for it. Unfortunately, pointing out examples of where the data is less than stellar is frowned upon by a large portion of people around here. I really wish it were not so, because a hard, honest look at the data is so much better than an echo chamber, and even an incorrect criticism is better to upvote and respond well to than downvote into de facto censorship.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 01:57 PM
1

For one, that's a different subreddit which is very different in style and substance. For another, you shouldn't respect feminists who claim MRAs are violent men who make death threats and point to some radical idiot. I don't respect MRAs who do the same in reverse.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 08:10 PM
-2

"/r/feminisms advocates genocide." Yep, no strawmen here.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:57 PM
0

That's a fair point. I didn't mean to claim the two are similar. Just that they're becoming similar at an alarming rate.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:53 PM
-2

So there's some mystery article in Swedish that is being summarized accurately that we can't see to confirm? To clarify, yes, that's exactly what the original poster is saying. I have no idea if it's an accurate summarization. If I had to guess, I'd say it is heavily biased. I'm just not blinded by wanting to demonize the feminist, and have had enough of /r/MensRights turning into /r/feminisms complete with strawmen at every turn.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:40 PM
-3

Do you have any evidence that the english article linked above is "insufficient" What do you think the first line of their post is saying? Why did they use the word "so" in that context? since I saw no such summary That's the one you read. Where did getting "locked" in the room come from? Was that mentioned anywhere in the English article anywhere? Ah, of course, it was completely made up because they're an idiot feminist, right? I am making no assumptions. A straightforward reading of what they…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:33 PM
1

Just because they are accurately summarizing (which is just a supposition on your part, and the burden of proof lies with them, not us), You are the one assuming this. I am assuming I don't know, and neither do you.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:30 PM
-2

Augh. I have no idea if it's an accurate summarization. Neither do you. The poster is claiming that this English version is inaccurate. That is the point of the summary. The response "oh, but look how this English version that they posted doesn't correspond to their summary" is agreeing with them. Claiming that it's a sign they have a bias is insane unless you completely misinterpret what they said.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:25 PM
-9

I'll try to explain this another way. It'll be slightly hyperbolic to try to make the point. Poster X claims to have read articles A, B, and C in Swedish, and that article Z is the only one they could find in English, and since Z is insufficient, they will make a summary of A, B, and C. You come along and claim that their summary of A, B, and C doesn't accurately reflect Z... which should not surprise you, because that is their claim all along. Except you're claiming it's due to their incredible…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:23 PM
-2

It's a misleading summary of what article? The poster repeatedly lets you know that it's not the English article that he/she is talking about.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 05:16 PM
-9

How do you know the poster's summary is biased against the men? What sources are they drawing their facts about being locked in a room from, for example? You could easily make the argument that this article is the biased one, as it doesn't present the facts this poster is giving. I have no way of knowing which is more accurate, because I don't know what sources the poster is drawing from.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 04:09 PM
8

From the insurer's perspective, this makes sense. Almost any birth control for a woman is net profit for the insurer, as pregnancy is so expensive. Of course, given that these are mandated by the government on a population level, and how much cheaper vasectomies are than almost anything, this is just typical sexism.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 04:03 PM
-1

You do realize that the poster is Swedish and is repeating what he/she read in some Swedish articles, right? I mean, the point of saying "so I'm going to go ahead and write a short summary here" is them trying to relate what they've read elsewhere because the English version they're presenting does not have the "full story". There's no way to tell if what they wrote was an accurate summarization of their unnamed Swedish sources or not.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:57 PM
2

He's not presenting some kind of context that is relevant to her but he thinks isn't relevant. (Thus why it doesn't make sense to him.) Or she's just crazy. But probably the first one.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:35 PM
16

The thing is, if, say, the lineup is done improperly, the victim in question can actually rewrite their own memories (without knowing it), so that the face, in the victim's mind truly is the accused person. Human memory is unbelievably terrible. And it doesn't get better during traumatic experiences. It gets worse.
/r/MensRights17/09/13 05:44 PM
39

You have to prove the mens rea, the "guilty mind" of the person in order to charge them with filing a false report or perjury. And that's quite difficult, because human memory is actually so bad that it's totally believable for someone to falsely accuse without having a guilty mind. (That is, accuse falsely while believing that their memory is accurate, even though it isn't.)
/r/MensRights17/09/13 02:31 PM
1

Feminists who claim that 90% of rape victims are women also believe that there is a legitimate source, and that it's been posted "10,000,000 times before". And they treat calls for evidence the exact same way you do: Assert that it's true, and that plenty of evidence exists. "This isn't a college paper" They've already been cited here a million times It's not our job to educate you, shitlord It keeps the idea nice and safe. It doesn't matter that it's a load of crap, and what the real source say…
/r/MensRights15/09/13 12:56 AM
22

The answer he should give to that question--if he doesn't have a source--is "I don't". Just because you find a factoid believable (I find it believable, too) doesn't mean you should accept it without evidence. Without evidence, you're using "how do I feel about this?" to determine what's true. And I think you know where that leads. Feminists have failed in major ways to temper their outrage and "facts" with sufficient skepticism, empathy, and fact-checking. I really hope the MRM doesn't repeat t…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 05:42 PM
1

If that's really all you got out of that, I don't know why I bothered. And I don't know why you think you're open to evidence. You don't think the CDC treating the rape of men as a non-rape is evidence of rape culture? As for your question: likely to be victims of rape This is not a well-defined question from a scientific perspective. Assuming you mean "likely to be raped in the future", no. In other words, if men were very unlikely to be raped in 1950-1960, does that tell us whether someone tod…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:33 PM
1

I know this is long, but please read the whole thing. I've gone to a lot of effort writing it out. Alright. So, I don't know if I can defend the assertion that "women experience it less than men". Comparing such things seems to be highly subjective to me. However, there are some things which show a cultural and--once you see the evidence--obvious bias. I'll show you some examples and you can make your own judgement on the severity. First, I'll assume that you agree that "rape" means "sex without…
/r/MensRights12/09/13 04:54 PM
1

From your link: Had sexual intercourse with partner when you knew she didn’t want to but you believed she should agree because she was your wife/partner Ah, right you are. Thanks for the evidence! It seems the question is ambiguous at best.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 03:51 PM
1

No? Then you have a source I could not find when I looked. What was the question, then, and how did you find out?
/r/MensRights12/09/13 03:50 PM
1

To "coerce" is to use force or threats to compel someone. So, no, you were not coerced, to any extent, from your description, though perhaps you left something out. Think "a situation which would preclude the legal validity of a contract". Not "my girlfriend doesn't like getting rejected for sex". Your interpretation is based on an inaccurate representation of the question, so it doesn't really matter much anyway. The original question apparently included the word "forced".
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:33 PM
2

Have you ever had sex when you, /u/kinderdemon[2] . were more enthusiastic about the prospect of sex than your partner was at that particular moment in time? Because if you answered "yes" to that question, then according to the methodology of this "study" you Augh. No, no, no, no, no. For one, that's not what the question asked. Read it again. I'm serious. You're confusing which person is thinking that "they should". For another, that's not even an accurate description of the question.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:27 PM
1

Would you be open to evidence?
/r/MensRights11/09/13 06:26 PM
3

If you carefully read the text of the question (also see dontlookatmethatway's post), they're not talking about "agreeing out of a sense of duty", they're talking about "not agreeing and being forced to because they're a wife/girlfriend and the man thought they should"
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:57 PM
3

Then you and the authors and the media need to stop pretending this survey has the weight of a criminal investigation. You're literally the only one here doing that. Stop calling the participants rapists and stop claiming that a vast number of crimes have been discovered when no criminal investigation has taken place. If you answered "yes" to whether you've forced someone to have sex with you when you have no incentive to lie, then I figure you've probably committed rape. Is that really objectio…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:52 PM
1

The argument about jazz musicians is interesting, but hardly enough to "scoff" at the idea based on that alone. One example does not a trend make, and I doubt either of us knows enough about that era for a decent analysis, but let's take one example: suffrage. In 1920--the year wikipedia lists "jazz" as starting at--the woman's suffrage movement had won: The 19th amendment was passed, and finally, no woman would be denied the right to vote in the US. Suffrage for black people wouldn't come for a…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:42 PM
1

If this survey carried any actual weight and was honest, it would be evidence of genuine criminal acts and all the men surveyed would have been reported to the police, tried and imprisoned. ... what the hell are you talking about? Do you actually think that's a good, practical, or useful idea? Especially not based on third hand information from an untrustworthy source. Survey responses are first-hand information, or second-hand if you really want to stretch the truth. What are you talking about?…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:21 PM
3

It's not "technically" if you carefully consider the question, and assume that "want to" means "consented to" in this context. "Knew she didn't want to", and "thought she should agree because" seem to refer to the state of mind of the partner--it leaves the impression "she didn't feel like it, but agreed because..." However, if you think about it, it's asking "have you had sex with a girl who did not want to have sex with you, but you believed they should anyway?", or in other words, "she didn't…
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:14 PM
7

Most of history involves clearly male-dominated societies. Yet, amusingly for this example, the first known computer program was written by a woman. I'm not sure you can draw interesting conclusions about fields getting started "only" by men when for the vast majority of history and for much of the world today, women do not have anything resembling equal opportunity.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 06:00 PM
1

It doesn't look like thepigman is interested.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 06:44 PM
-3

Ah, so you're operating in bad faith. In that case, I assume your story is BS and I'm going to downvote this thread. Cheers.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 05:06 PM
2

I'm pointing out that your view is either too simplistic to deal with unusual cases, or not self-consistent. If being genetically male (XY) doesn't make you a man if your penis doesn't grow right, what exactly does determine gender?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 09:46 PM
1

They're not men, despite the XY chromosomes? What makes one a man, then? The penis?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 08:03 PM
1

Circumcision does not hinder either and like you said lubrication can be achieved via other means You seem to have some cognitive dissonance here. Isn't lubrication necessary for making babies? I mean, let's imagine if a vagina could not produce lubricant. Would you say that would be "100% functional"? so that's mainly operators error. That's certainly one contributor of problems, but it's not the only one. You will never be able to know if this is true, it's just physically and ethically imposs…
/r/MensRights29/08/13 04:39 PM
1

Well, the foreskin is very sensitive, for one. It's difficult to say what effect its removal has on "pleasure", since that's difficult to measure. The circumcised penis is certainly not "100% fully functional", at least if you think lubrication is useful to sex, as the foreskin provides mechanical lubrication--you ever play with one of these? Roughly the same mechanism. Of course, this doesn't always cause a problem--other sources of lubrication can be adequate by themselves--but it can. Hang ou…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:29 PM
1

Sure -- if you assume your child wants to have it done, which is a bad assumption. Isn't your child's right to bodily integrity--of their genetalia, no less--of a higher concern than the memory of a pain that can be managed with pain medication?
/r/MensRights28/08/13 03:39 PM
1

Race has always been a social construct That statement, depending on exactly what you meant, is either wrong, or so broad that nearly anything could fit in the place of "race". If race were (only) a social construct, and did not exist in biology at all, African populations ('black people') should be impossible to distinguish from European populations ('white people'), if you remove all cultural artifacts from them... right? If I randomly picked people with long lineages from Africa, and long lin…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:45 PM
2

like the 2 hours of pain from taking them off in a warm/hot bath. Indeed; unnecessary pain is one of the big reasons many people are against the routine circumcisions our culture allows.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:18 PM
1

There are a number of problems with that extrapolation from the CDC study, not the least of which is it doesn't include victims under 18. Women are at a much higher risk of rape as a minor than they are as an adult, which would explain some or all of the difference in lifetime rates. The "40%" figure is closer to "educated guess" than "estimate", but we don't have any better data. For some reason, sexual abuse researchers have done little research on male victims...
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:00 PM
2

How come I've never heard of this job before? Because you've apparently never thought about the fact that a human being wrote every bit of technical documentation you've ever read? Seriously, what are you asking here?
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:51 PM
2

You know, if you can't tell a troll from someone who disagrees with you, the censorship-heaviness of online feminist forums starts making perfect sense. And they would even view themselves as not censoring disagreement. It's just "banning trolls". Of course, they'll also then use the trolls favorite tactic (find the least acceptable view, and pretend to hold it--for most feminists, this is typically threats of sexual violence) to illustrate how common woman-hating attitudes must be.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:42 PM
1

I think having unfounded negative beliefs about people based on their culture is racist. This is silly, and it contributes to words like "racist" becoming non-concepts that are just thrown around because the word has emotional power, much like "misogynist" (and, sadly, "misandrist" is getting there too). I think it is immoral and unconscionable to throw battery acid in the face of a woman for the crime of learning to read. That is a cultural artifact, and the only reason you don't think it's "un…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:34 PM
2

The fact that you're posting here should probably give you some insight into why you weren't. You're claiming Northwestern administers an ideological test to its students? Or are you just slandering everyone who posts here?
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:19 PM
14

No, no, no, you see, SRS is just making fun of people who are actually like this, you see, it's a circlejerk, they don't actually mean those things; serious discussion is welcomed* elsewhere. ... *So long as you agree to accept us as experts and anything we say, even if it doesn't make sense to you, or you have strong counterevidence, as Truth.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 03:16 PM
-2

Yeah, /r/MensRights is becoming more and more like /r/feminism in the "downvote all things that don't suggest men are terrible victims and women are not" department. It's disgusting.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 03:08 PM
8

I wonder if female sexual predators think similar thoughts? According to one of the few people who's studied them, yep.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:27 PM
12

At the end, he says "you really shouldn't be in parks like this though, you'll give people the wrong idea. I'm going to ask you not to come back to this park and not to talk to any of the children who you were speaking to today." I hope that you filed a complaint. That kind of comment is totally unacceptable, and while a complaint alone would probably do nothing, it's a start.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:24 PM
2

Thanks for your reply. :) women begin and end relationships 80% of the time Do you remember your source for that?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:16 PM
5

Unless I misunderstand you, you're claiming 40% of children are borne out of wedlock, and nearly every child borne out of wedlock is supported by taxpayers? If I misunderstood, please accept my apologies, but that's my best attempt to understand what you're saying--could you clarify? If I understood correctly, do you have a source?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:13 PM
1

Thanks for the source!
/r/MensRights21/08/13 05:30 PM
1

Thanks for your reply. Since you seem to be the person most in agreement so far, could you speculate on what you think percentages are? And do you think there is an analogous tendency in males, or do you think this sort of thing is simply unique to females?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 05:29 PM
0

Hey, thanks! Doing that really does seem to be a primarily female thing Seems kind of obvious, given the difficulty in convincing a woman that a child she wasn't pregnant for is hers. :P Most reliable indicators indicate that 10% of all children are sired by man other than the one who believes himself to be their father. Do you happen to know your sources for this? Cuckoldry holds a similar position in the male psyche that rape holds in the female one: it is weighted much, much more severely tha…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 05:29 PM
6

[...] until some mod came along and decided that not only my post was unacceptable, but by extension that everyone who agreed was also unacceptable I really wish I wasn't surprised.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 04:15 PM
8

No reason she couldn't do both, under current law.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 09:00 PM
1

If you define rape as the insertion of something into the victim, which is how the CDC defines it for that report, and presumably most of its reports, then sure, it's absolutely true. I've already linked you to the report and gave page numbers, and told you exactly why, if you compared numbers for things they call rape, they would not be the same. Men being forced to have PIV sex with women are not considered rape victims by that report, and as far as I know, every CDC report. Some authors think…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 08:43 PM
1

The NISVS defines the term "rape" and "made to penetrate", as used in their surveys, on page 17. They're very similar in my opinion, but I would suggest reading them yourself. For both, coercion was not included unless it included threat of physical harm.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:18 PM
1

Yeah, you can juke the stats to make it seem that way The only "jukes" I'm doing is considering "forced penetration" to be "rape", and limiting myself to the adult population (the only population surveyed by the NISVS), both of which I pointed out originally. Did you see the link to the report I provided? If you think I'm doing something dishonest or incorrect, please point it out. Otherwise you're simply reasserting your view in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, and that is not a good ro…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:21 PM
1

I think it's likely there's a certain amount of the population which will abuse children if it's their responsibility to care for a child (most abuse is by parents or caretakers), and if women are more likely to have the responsibility to care for a child, then even if women and men were just as likely to abuse a child, you'd see more abuse by women. Or in other words, total numbers of abuse is not the same as the rate of abuse.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 09:51 PM
0

Do you have a source? I've only ever seen statistics saying that a majority of child abuse is by women, which seems to me to be very different than what you're saying, if you assume that women are more likely to be caregivers as well.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:51 PM
1

Those, I suspect, are places I wouldn't go either. I know you take it "for granted" that you're safe as a man, but you're statistically more likely to be a victim of violence as a man, and have a similar chance (about 1.1% / year, see pages 18 and 19) to be raped (assuming you're an adult and consider being forced to have "normal" sex with a woman ('made to penetrate' in the linked report) to be rape, which is shockingly controversial). I don't doubt that you feel safer than most women, but perc…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 04:55 PM
14

It's cute seeing the "feminism is trying to eradicate this" (referring to women being considered the primary caretakers) when, for example, NOW is against laws making custody decisions shared-by-default, because of how it will "enable abusers" (or in other words, because women are more suited to be caretakers).
/r/MensRights14/08/13 03:53 PM
5

That why he included the "western society" bit. Of course places like Afghanistan need to take their views toward women and put it somewhere they'd need their left hand for. MRAs don't take battery-acid-throwing assholes as having a seriously defensible intellectual position; we view them as the scum of the earth just as you do.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 08:17 PM
-2

why don't you tell me. That 18-28 year olds were the only ones studied is the most obvious confound. It's not about specific problems. It's about knowing the strength of your data. I don't have strong evidence, but I would expect that violence gets more gendered the older the people are. Considering that DV is a systemic issue, not gendered, I don't agree with this assessment either. I suspect we agree rather strongly, actually. Just because I think "primary victims of DV" is far too strong does…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 08:09 PM
-2

True, I made an assumption about your motivation, but you still aren't producing the data. I asked you what data you wanted to see. I said my data was ignored, or to put it another way, it was ineffective at communicating with or convincing anyone. I asked you what data you wanted to see. This is not the behavior of someone who refuses to produce data. It's incredible how much you want to believe I'm saying something ridiculous, even when I'm telling you specifically that I'm not saying that. Yo…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 08:01 PM
-3

Giving up on sharing empirical data because it isn't well-received shows that karma means more to you than truth. Not at all what I said, and if you think it is, you should seriously reread what I said. People don't spontaneously question their own beliefs, there needs to be a trigger. You can be that trigger. Exactly what I'm trying to do. You think putting links to studies will do this; I have years of empirical (though anecdotal) evidence that this doesn't work, but feel free to try yourself:…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 07:43 PM
-2

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 You've missed the point, but that's good, you have a source for someone else's claim. The point, however, was "do you know where your information is coming from?" and "do you know the limitations of your data?" I wonder: can you tell me the obvious limitations of that study? It doesn't necessarily tell us that women are more likely to be hurt, it tells us that if women are hurt, they are more likely to seek treatment. That sounds …
/r/MensRights12/08/13 07:36 PM
-1

If you had any idea how many times I've done that, with my sources getting apparently ignored, you'd see why I don't leap to do that anymore on either /r/feminism or /r/mensrights. Further, I want people to be more critical of their own sources, to seek out evidence against their beliefs, to realize the limitations and uncertainty of their data. Giving you a source so you can try and find some flaw in instead of encouraging you to examine how good your evidence really is, how biased your sources…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 06:44 PM
0

SRS doesn't link to /r/MensRights as far as I know; it's against their rules...
/r/MensRights12/08/13 06:16 PM
0

Which source are you pulling 70% from? How did they collect the data? Was it by survey? If it was by survey, was it by specific times, or "have you ever"? If it was "have you ever", have you considered different rates of how frequent violence is? When the violence is reciprocal, is there a difference in the degree of violence employed? Do we know about differences in how often medical attention is sought? What could that tell us? Have you ever seen these questions, or are you parroting what you'…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 06:12 PM
-1

See? Knew one of you would prove me right. I know the sources those "statistics" come from, and none of them could be considered sufficient evidence to counter the mountains of evidence that points to a more middle-of-the-road picture.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:44 PM
1

an introduction to STEM, regardless of the students' gender or the teachers' gender or the role models' gender, is important for all humans I couldn't agree more. I'm not really suggesting anything in particular, but if you focus on one thing, it's necessarily to the detriment of attention on other things, unless you expand the attention you put on STEM entirely (which I'd be for...)
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:41 PM
5

Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:30 PM
4

I think avantvernacular can think and speak for himself--and I doubt there's much pressure in here to avoid "seeming sexist" in the way you mean. If you want to make the distinction between types of role models in that way, that's fine. The evidence most feminists would point out is all around you--toys that involve engineering tasks are marketed almost exclusively to boys. Toys that involve stereotypically feminine things are marketed almost exclusively to girls. We, as humans, use this informa…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:30 PM
-2

I'm not smallpaul, but the one where men are the primary victims of DV, where 30%+ of rape accusations from women are false, where discrimination against women is a thing of the past and now the only significant discrimination is against men--I've talked with MRAs espousing all of these things.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:11 PM
2

Just thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that the MRM and feminism aren't always at cross purposes, despite the "us vs. them" attitude too many people have.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 05:06 PM
7

So... Would you agree that more should be done to highlight female engineers'/scientists' achievements, to give role models in STEM to young women?
/r/MensRights12/08/13 04:04 PM
7

I think both are valid readings, but there's a nuance there that's hard to capture. The her full sentence reads: Equality before the law means nothing when violence is endemic; when women are most likely to live in poverty; when no one bothers to actually enforce the existing equality legislation. She goes on... Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence. Then the "poverty" line. Yep, Woman are more likely in the UK to…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 04:00 PM
1

I agree, it's shameful that this comment is getting downvoted. /r/mensrights isn't what it used to be. The only rape that they count is someone being penetrated by something, and as you might imagine, that pretty much only counts male rapists (though not always, as women can certainly penetrate people in a sexual manner as well, using objects, fingers, etc). "Forced to penetrate" is a separate category that is usually glossed over.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 06:49 PM
1

It applies, but being a pretty girl is part of the requirement to work there, as that's what they're offering--attractive female waitresses and food and some kind of atmosphere.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 06:40 PM
1

Check the CDC report it's referring to, but remember, in that report, "rape" does not include men being forced to have sex with a woman. It's a different category.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:35 PM
2

Yes; the CDC report used for those numbers does not include those under 18, for one, and the lifetime figures (as opposed to "in the last year" figures) do not match that ratio. This is easily explained if you assume rape is much more prevalent among women <18. Also, the CDC report does not give enough information to calculate what percentage of rapists are women, though if you make a few relatively reasonable assumptions, you can give a rough estimate.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:32 PM
12

You can make whatever hiring decisions you like in the US, so long as it's not on the basis of a protected class. The only sort of ideology considered a protected class is religion.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:21 PM
1

Interesting thought, but won't the person in question go check mainstream sources that do wonderful things like claim that men who are forced to have sex are not being raped, or the famous "1 in 4 women" thing, or the Duluth model "all DV is from men even if it's a woman doing the abuse" thing?
/r/MensRights02/08/13 03:39 PM
2

I'm one of those men. I'm sorry to hear that. And I know it must be incredibly frustrating seeing other MRAs be so dismissive--they seem to be the enemy, doing exactly the same thing most people do about abuse of a man--some version of "it's not important for people to know that there are many men who are being abused". At least here nobody is explicitly denying the prevalence of male abuse victims. Nevertheless, your rhetoric is the only thing the other person knows about you, and if you want t…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 03:32 PM
2

I'm a mod of /r/equality, and I think it's something like what you're looking for, except that many of the people there don't really identify as MRA or feminists. I, and many of the people on /r/equality (but certainly not everyone), think the MRA/feminism dichotomy is a false choice, even if each "side" has very different views--ultimately there is truth to be found, and fighting each other won't help us find it; we'll just wind up burning fuel throwing the same arguments at each other rather t…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 07:43 PM
2

I know it seems that way, but it is actually possible to change many people's minds. It's not necessarily easy, and the worst part is that you'll likely never know unless you interact with that person repeatedly (people don't like to admit that they were wrong, and generally change their minds in private), but it can be done. Many of the people on this subreddit are here precisely because they had their minds changed.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 07:29 PM
2

That's very interesting. What's your source on that? I can't find anything on Google, wikipedia, or the NOW website that mentions the Hayden rider being supported by NOW.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 07:03 PM
3

Yeah, fair enough. But that's an even more perfect opportunity to educate, because it's even harder to defend than other ideas.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 07:01 PM
1

But feminism's vision of "equality" is one in which women gain all the privileges that men are thought to have while retaining (and denying the existence of) their own female privileges, and women divest themselves of as many female obligations as possible while accepting no male obligations. Always has been. No, I don't think that's an accurate description of feminism. For example, the feminist movement tried to get an amendment clarifying that the government could not discriminate based on gen…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 05:05 PM
4

If you want to make progress, ask her why, and ask for specifics, and refute them. Talk to her, as calmly as possible, but don't treat her sexism as acceptable. If you know her well, you can try and make an argument as to why you think her perception of anti-male bias is skewed. The CDC study that includes the number of men "forced to penetrate" makes for an excellent "trap" where she can't justify her way out (people's biases are strong; everyone engages in "reasoning to find their preconceived…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 04:32 PM
5

cutcoguru is bad at making his point (sorry cutcoguru, you are--your conversations have devolved into shouting matches, and it's largely due to your rhetoric), but he does have one. Here's something I wrote above that may give you the flavor of where cutcoguru is coming from. Can you imagine how many men are out there, feeling like there's something wrong with him, how he's the only man "weak enough" to be abused by a woman, how he assumes there's no help for him, how he assumes that even the po…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 04:16 PM
3

I don't think either of you are being fair to the other. Yes, one photo isn't enough to crucify the company in question, and it's very encouraging that their program doesn't just target women. On the other hand, the societal pressures to show only women as victims of DV/sexual violence/etc are very real, and the problems that they create, particularly for male victims, and particularly when men find themselves victimized by a woman, should not be dismissed. Can you imagine how many men are out t…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 04:06 PM
47

The only way I've been able to make sense of it is that some popular feminist thought seems to insist upon treating women as non-agents in the world, which makes them victims in any harmful interaction. In other words, almost everything in the kind of feminism that is universally reviled around here makes perfect sense, if you remember that women are non-agents who suffer the wrongs of the world which is entirely driven by men (the agents in the world). Think about it. Two people have sex, the w…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 08:35 PM
0

"Prose" normally refers to any ordinary usage of language that's distinguished from poetry. Every comment in this thread is written in prose, with the exception perhaps of this one.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 08:15 PM
4

The problem is that some people are going to read the post, feel an emotional reaction (since they don't immediately understand that it's satire) that clouds their judgement, and press "downvote". This could be avoided by adding a cue for a reader, like "/s", but CremasterGuy apparently considers those readers beneath catering to. So he's going to get censored by the community; partly those readers who he seems to disdain, and partly due to his unpleasant response.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 04:31 PM
3

Your writing is abrasive, arrogant, and if you don't write to be understood, then why are you bothering to write at all? Further, the votes will probably eventually hide your comment altogether. So you don't care if you get effectively censored by votes? Again, why write at all if you don't care at all?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 04:06 PM
1

If a sexual assault had occurred, which is a crime, the company would likely not make any statement at all (edit: well, maybe "I've sent this to legal"), because it is not generally permissible to discuss current court cases. It is not illegal to ask someone to leave a store, not illegal to accuse someone of a crime, nor is it comparable to sexual violence on a person, nor is following other people around a store until you've escalated it to harassment. At most, accusing someone of a crime is a …
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:22 PM
1

You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that if he wasn't being threatening (which, we are assuming he wasn't, right?) those policies do not apply. Even mentioning those policies would have resulted in a worse response from your sort: "Oh, now they say he's being THREATENING? AFTER FALSELY ACCUSING HIM OF ... blah blah blah" If you took "we take negative experiences very seriously, and here's a good way to contact us" as "aggressive", I can't imagine how badly you'd interpret them quoti…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 03:32 PM
0

this isn't neutral, it's a passive aggressive euphemism Yes, you've repeated that ad nauseum, but have yet to produce a bit of text showing how they could possibly meet your standards, given the societal and legal constraints they're under. So you're saying they got caught with their pants down and have no clue how their own company works? No, I'm saying that the people at corporate had no information 45 minutes after they first became aware of the situation and responding in a neutral manner as…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:42 PM
1

Are you saying that something has to be exceptionally rare in order to be passive aggressive? No, I'm saying that it is socially acceptable to respond in a neutral manner to any concern before any investigation has been done, and that to read aggression into that is ludicrous. Your argument here is special pleading; it is irrelevant. It's special pleading to assert that companies are not like people? Goodness, I don't know where to begin. Maybe let's just address your remark earlier, of "I'd be …
/r/MensRights29/07/13 09:15 PM
1

So, you even know it's the normal, socially-expected way for a company to react. Which you've somehow mangled into interpreting it as an act of indirect aggression? (How do you treat someone knocking on your door? "OMG THEY'RE ATTACKING MY DOOR"?) Companies are nothing like people, so I don't know why you bring that up. Ok, fine. Tell you what -- why don't you write how the response should have been written? Keep in mind, you're a social media worker who's checking their Facebook page. You have …
/r/MensRights29/07/13 08:28 PM
2

Thing is, if you took out the "/s" and posted it to a radfem group, or SRS, they'd actually agree and find nothing strange about the "so clearly"...
/r/MensRights29/07/13 07:47 PM
3

Unfortunately, that is actually what some feminists will say. Kind of a "poe's law /s".
/r/MensRights29/07/13 07:39 PM
1

Responding with a passive aggressive non-apology is not the way to go under any circumstance, even if the customer turns out to be full of crap. You're reading more into this than is there. There was nothing passive-aggressive, there was no blaming, there was nothing other than some social media worker reading something that sounds like it will get them bad PR, forwarding it onto his/her boss, and giving a canned response while they investigate and attempt to contact the actual person with the p…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 07:17 PM
0

I think people, and organizations, should admit when they do something wrong. I agree. I just don't think it's appropriate to do so before investigating the matter. You think steps 1 through 3 take more than a day? When exactly did World Market corporate become aware of this issue? How do you know? It's probable that response was written very close to when corporate first became aware of the issue, which would put steps 1-3 about 4 hours in now. And in fact, yes, I do think it will take more tha…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 06:57 PM
0

Apparently. This place seems to me to be becoming more and more "I believe what is emotionally satisfying", and it's sickening; it's exactly what is wrong with feminism.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 06:43 PM
1

You've got a lot of emotion-stirring rhetoric there, but have not responded to anything I said. Imagine, for example, that a woman had been acting in a legitimately offensive/disturbing way, and a male employee had asked her to leave. She claims she did nothing wrong, publically, in exactly the same way our hero Brian did. How do you tell the two apart? If the company has not yet figured out exactly what happened, how should they respond?
/r/MensRights29/07/13 06:42 PM
3

You're overreacting. They don't know what happened yet; they have to give a response of some kind without admitting wrongdoing; maybe Brian is full of crap, maybe people did in fact falsely accuse him of some kind of inappropriate behavior (as in following someone around to the point of harassment)--or maybe the district manager will find out that this isn't the first time "Summer" did something wildly inappropriate and will fire her on the spot. Wouldn't you prefer they looked at the evidence b…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 04:53 PM
1

I know this is an old thread, but FYI, there are a lot of treatment options for phimosis. The Beauge method (google it), gentle stretching, (prescription) steroidal cream combined with gentle stretching, or stretching done under anesthetic are all options. If those don't work (unlikely, but possible), there are surgical options which are far short of a full circumcision as well. Good luck. :)
/r/MensRights29/07/13 04:44 PM
1

Height and weight, as well as stuff like "capacity to cause harm".
/r/MensRights25/07/13 11:47 PM
10

There's a big difference between racist cops and official police force training including "you should consider how dark the skin of the person is", as does some DV "primary aggressor" training for height and weight.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:47 PM
6

They have a law that uses written guidelines for police that include how dark the person's skin is as a factor for determining who to arrest?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:29 PM
21

Actually, the Duluth model specifically says that men are abusers -- even when the abuser is a woman, she would only be abusing because a man made her do it. "Arrest the bigger one" is actually a substantial improvement from the Duluth model, because it at least sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) would treat a female abuser as an abuser instead of a victim.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:57 PM
2

... can you rephrase? Wouldn't most feminists start with the assumption that women and men are equal at debating?
/r/MensRights24/07/13 09:26 PM
3

I wish people wouldn't downvote you. To everyone else: Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't true; Eryemil is accurately describing the current state of our knowledge. It wouldn't be surprising if sexual abuse by women is severely underreported, given the "women are innocent non-agents" idea that feminism theoretically rejects, but practically embraces, and that most research in this realm tends to try to answer the question "how bad are men, really?" But we have minimal ev…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 07:42 PM
5

Yes, it's almost as though that wasn't all he had to say...
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:10 PM
3

Could have written that rape classifications shouldn't discriminate based on sex in one sentence. He sure could have. And if that's all he had to say, that's what he should've written.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:05 PM
3

I'd have to agree. Not that quote-mining will be a good thing, but it will at least let you know who is dishonest or stupid enough to be a reliable source of misinformation.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:58 PM
2

I know that a fairly significant contingent of rape victims are male, but I thought it was 10-20 percent, not well over 50 Partly it depends what you mean by "rape". The CDC definition, for example, does not count a man being forced to have vaginal intercourse with a woman as "rape". Further, if you ask those men "have you been raped", they'll say "no" in most surveys. The ones that get interesting results (like the CDC one) ask questions like "were you forced to penetrate" or something like tha…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 05:14 PM
2

Can I still be a feminist and an MRA? No one gets to tell you how you identify. I like to say that I'm no more a feminist than I am an MRA (and the other way 'round)--I care deeply about the fucked up ways in which our society treats everyone on the subject of gender.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 06:28 PM
3

If that were true, you'd expect to find a total of about 3,000 male rapists in the USA, there'd have to be an unbelievably huge number of women and men claiming they'd been raped by a man, etc, etc. While the studies which have been done have been flawed, it's unlikely they're ~4 orders of magnitude off.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:13 PM
1

The CDC report I think is the strongest evidence you cite (the second one actually has evidence both for and against your claim, and the third is a survey of college students), but it doesn't seem to me to suggest what you claim. Wasn't the 80% figure for "forced to penetrate", which accounts for most but not all of the rapes (I would presume the "rape of men" section of the NISVS would have largely male perpetrators, given the idiotic way "rape" is defined)? Further, the CDC report didn't inclu…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 10:52 PM
1

Apologies, I misunderstood you (thus why the comment about "some", etc). There is an etymological basis for preferring the singular Well, I guess you can make that argument if you want, but "none" has been used as a plural and singular for hundreds of years. It's in the KJV (circa 1610), for example, and unless I'm mistaken, even going back to the Old English word "nān", you'll find it was both a plural and a singular. Not quite following; "sofas" is not being modified. Sure it is. "Sofas" is th…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 08:44 PM
2

Treating it as a plural works only when it in fatc has a plurla refenece [example involving "some"] "Some" is always plural, unless used with a noncountable noun, as in "some milk". "that link" is three different links, actually, the first of which is a dictionary, which of course does (or at least should; I guess I can't prove they did) use statistics. If your only acceptible level of evidence is a scientific study of the use of "none" in singular vs. plural terms, then I'd ask you to present y…
/r/MensRights17/04/13 05:55 PM
2

I'm pretty sure that's not true, even though the popular "99% of rapists are men" thing is pure, weapons-grade balonium (hint: it's true, so long as you define rape as nonconsentual penetration of the victim, among other "tricks"). Recent evidence such as the recent CDC report seems to suggest adult men are raped very approximately as often as adult women, but that the majority of the perpetrators are still men, if I remember correctly.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 04:55 PM
3

"None" is not singular, per se. It can be either plural or singular, but treating it as a plural is more common. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/none http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/improve/english-as-it-is-broken/none-of-them-have-or-has http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/sv_agr.htm
/r/MensRights17/04/13 04:16 PM
1

Well, I did say "little point". But I don't think there's a rational argument that can be made that would significantly change CrossHook's mind, at least on any of the topics I've seen him discuss. I mean, his recent reply in the thread that starts out like this: I'd love to hear the hardest-hitting arguments you have got against statements and discourse that feminists constantly make. [...] is: Feminists are all histrionic socially awkward bitter leftovers who will end up with mountains of coll…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 04:23 PM
5

FYI, there's little point in arguing with CrossHook.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 08:50 PM
3

I disagree on your assumption that the statement implies feminist slant. You contradict yourself: be aware of the biases you may be helping to perpetuate Unless "feminist slant" isn't the bias you were speaking of? What was the bias you were suggesting? anyone who takes a single quote and [implies] that the statement itself is 'evidence' of something more sinister You mean as you did? they never once bothered to actually look up the full quote in context Yes, much as most of the people here (or …
/r/MensRights02/04/13 09:52 PM
2

That's nice, but it doesn't have anything do with what I said.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 09:18 PM
5

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I don't like you dissuading people from participating based on a misleading quote of part of a sentence. Context is very important for understanding English, and reading your original post on the matter, "these researchers" sounds like Bossio and her team, when in reality she's commenting on the general state of affairs in sexuality research and explaining that due to feminist/female bias, there has been a "dearth" of research on men. Almost the opposite of wh…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:24 PM
3

You did link to the whole article, but you pulled the middle of a paragraph that explains that due (at least in part) to female researchers focusing on feminist perspectives, there is "a dearth of studies on men’s sexual functioning." From my reading of the text, you turned a veiled, mild criticism of female/feminist researchers (or at least a neutral comment implying that female/feminist sexuality researchers don't tend to study things male sexuality) into making it look like the author is talk…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 07:02 PM
1

for something that is not necessary except in certain rare cases (phimosis). Note that phimosis can usually be resolved non-surgically, and even when surgery is warranted, "full" circumcisions are almost never necessary.
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:20 PM
3

Let's not use selective quotation: Now, Bossio is researching circumcision. “Sexuality research has been male dominated for a long time and many of these researchers have pathologized women’s sexuality. In recent years, however, the balance has shifted and now we are seeing more women researching sexuality than ever before.” These female researchers are using critical feminist perspectives to deconstruct the misogynistic assumptions that have informed many theories of sexuality, Bossio elaborate…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 06:01 PM
3

It's hard to believe an inch of skin causes such a big issue. Well, it's quite a lot more than than that; about 15 square inches (as measured on the adult man). The foreskin is responsible for mechanical lubrication, protects the glans, keeping them moist, soft, and sensitive, and on top of all that, has lots of nerves. A much bigger problem is that no person other than you should have a say in what happens to your genetalia, unless there's a very compelling reason to override that (gross deform…
/r/MensRights02/04/13 05:43 PM
8

Even if Adria Richards didn't directly fire them, she certainly stands behind that decision. That's factually inaccurate. She said: I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively. Of course, she didn't pull down the photo, apologize for anything, made a penis joke herself on her public twitter feed the next day during PyCon, etc. But she didn't support the firing. Edit: Really? Downvotes fo…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 04:00 PM
3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
/r/MensRights18/03/13 04:23 PM
3

Ridicule is more effective when it's hard to distinguish from the actual source material: This man, while he supposedly didn't rape anyone, could have, and he can use this as a learning experience; he suffered some pain, but it's not pain I'd necessarily spare him. Another example of how hard it is for women to report rapes; these women should be ashamed of themselves for what they do to rape victims, those women who find it so hard to come forward knowing they may be suspected of lying. Why do …
/r/MensRights01/03/13 06:49 PM
2

This sub-reddit has become just as bad as /r/srs. Haha. That you can even make that comment without getting banned entirely from the subreddit proves otherwise.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 08:25 PM
13

My theory is that most MRAs started off as feminists but changed when they realized how anti-intellectual feminism is. That's what got me reading /r/MensRights. Most people don't know what's going on in the world, and I understand. Life can be hard, and if you don't have the time and resources, being uninformed on most subjects will happen, particularly if the "MSM" doesn't cover it. But when you start calling yourself a feminist and representing yourself as knowledgeable in gender issues, I can…
/r/MensRights06/12/12 07:19 PM
2

Keep in mind that those are "per year" figures; the "lifetime" figures are starkly different. Which could be due to male victims being revictimized more frequently than the female victims are, due to women being raped more frequently before they're 18 (the NVSIS study was adults only), or less concrete factors: perhaps men are less likely to see something as being "forced to" in retrospect, given the ubiquitous ignorance or even denial of male victims.
/r/MensRights12/11/12 05:45 PM
1

Because it offends you to think of your ideology as espousing bad data/statistics? By the definition you use, I'm certainly a feminist. I care deeply about the issues that affect women, including the pay gap. Most feminist sources I have seen uses the "average full time male worker / average full time female worker" statistic for the pay gap. Do you deny this? Or argue that it isn't flawed? Because I would absolutely love to find out that there's a whole array of feminists out there that I didn'…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:49 PM
1

Because I had no idea anyone would dispute that figure; it's the standard way the pay gap is calculated, updated for 2010.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:47 PM
0

So they could give a good argument? If so, why not give one yourself?
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:07 PM
-1

I didn't claim comprehensive knowledge of feminists. And I use the word for people who describe themselves as feminists, because else you're just using the "no true Scot" fallacy. If you can find a single feminist website with a good number of accurate, non-misleading statistics, I'd love to see it.
/r/MensRights17/10/12 07:02 PM
13

Women work (44/56)x100=78% as much time as men. Kind of explains the gap by itself doesn't it? You're conflating "total hours worked by all workers" and "hours worked on average (per worker)", which makes no statistical sense. I'm not suggesting the 72 cent figure is accurate (it's not, as even by the flawed methodology most feminists use to cite the figure, it's ~81 cents these days, and that doesn't account for the difference in hours worked or a number of other factors), but hours alone do no…
/r/MensRights17/10/12 02:09 PM
1

Well, no. Rape can be an accident. You do have to establish consent. It's usually done by engaging in sexual things--someone who's unzipping your pants in a sexual context is pretty clearly establishing consent (which of course can be withdrawn at any time). If you go in a room, find a person, and have sex with them without them showing any bit of interest or resistance, you've raped them, assuming no mitigating circumstances--you must have consent. Absence of objection is not consent. The reaso…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:36 PM
1

The law does not correspond to your first paragraph, nor does any feminist position I've ever heard. Never is the question raised, is not "she withdrew consent without telling me" a valid reason and circumstance for the male to feel raped? Because it's a stupid question. The answer is no. Following that line of logic from your other post: Would you have ever have sex with your girlfriend knowing that inside of her head, she secretly believed that you were raping her? This is such a bad line of a…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 02:26 PM
0

who did not consent to having sex with someone who did not consent I've seen this idea a couple times from MRAs that if knowing something about another person would cause you to not consent, then you aren't truly giving consent. It's pretty strange, and the only example I can come up with where it'd actually be some form of false consent is the "identical twin tricks you" scenario. It seems so silly otherwise. "Oh, you like peanuts? Then you raped me." What? how come we don't have airport campai…
/r/MensRights26/09/12 01:47 AM
0

It seems I've failed to communicate effectively enough. I don't know if ay_ch was raped; I don't mean to claim one way or another. I'm guessing you're assuming that because you think that because you reacted one way the first time, that means you'll react that way again. It doesn't. I was using the term similarly to "if you were to go to the store" -- which doesn't imply someone's never been to the store, does it? What I said was purely to try and communicate the idea effectively; I didn't inten…
/r/MensRights25/09/12 03:37 PM
1

ay_ch's assumptions aren't valid, he's arguing against a strawman, and his rhetoric is bad and filled with bad logic, if you want to get into an analysis of what he said. And I know it's not popular around here to say so, but most feminists are reasonable, so long as you are talking about things where they have direct experience (the vast majority of people know one drink will not really intoxicate you; most feminists do not know that rates of rape of adult men & women are comparable).
/r/MensRights21/09/12 07:56 PM
3

every bit of research uses its supposed ubiquitousness with rape victims The first article I found was this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2489204/ Here's another: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21693167 Research is admittedly sparse, but it's by no means entirely based on sexual assault reports, and even if it were, why would so many women report the same thing, independently, often with the idea that there must be something wrong with them? Also, "ubiquitousness"? I've never …
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:25 PM
36

You're arguing against an amalgamation of the worst positions you've heard. No reasonable person thinks a glass of wine is enough to intoxicate you to the point of being unable to consent. This: such a person would benefit from a t-shirt and We can't expect women to show a tiny level of self-preservation or even act like adults. Makes it sound like you simply don't understand that traumatic events such as rape cause unpredictable responses. If you were raped, you might very well have the same re…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 02:40 PM
63

Some people in such a situation get essentially psychologically paralyzed. When presented with a sufficiently stressful and frightening situation, you too might find that your mind doesn't respond the way you think it ought to (or maybe it would; the point is that you don't actually know). At least in raped women, this is not a rare response. http://www.denversaic.org/reactions
/r/MensRights21/09/12 12:56 PM
1

It actually has to do with the country. The BSA (Boy Scouts of America) has all-boy youth, except for Venture crews (14-21, co-ed), which are relatively rare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting#Co-educational
/r/MensRights13/09/12 02:39 PM
12

She said what Kuonji said she did, then, after being called out, said that.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 05:17 PM
1

She asks repeatedly for his evidence...
/r/MensRights07/09/12 12:37 PM
2

You should provide your evidence. Rhetoric is one thing; peer-reviewed studies are another.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 07:17 PM
4

You can't assume a 20 year old woman has the same chances of getting raped as someone who's 60. I'm not. At all. Have you ever taken a statistics class? You can't add up percentages. You can if you assume they're non-intersecting sets, as I specified I was doing (and as the article does, and as you amusingly do in part of your example). If a woman has a 1.16% chance of being raped every year, and lives for 80 years, she has a 1 - (1-0.0116) ^ 80, or a 60% chance. No, that only works if the event…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:13 PM
1

You can't assume a 20 year old woman has the same chances of getting raped as someone who's 60. I'm not. At all. Have you ever taken a statistics class? You can't add up percentages. You can if you assume they're non-overlapping sets, as I specified I was doing (and as the article does, and as you amusingly do in part of your example). If a woman has a 1.16% chance of being raped every year, and lives for 80 years, she has a 1 - (1-0.0116) ^ 80, or a 60% chance. No, that only works if the events…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 08:12 PM
4

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yp4b9/lies_damned_lies_and_rape_statistics/c5xn9od
/r/MensRights23/08/12 07:09 PM
11

Seriously? It's full of bad math and logical errors.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 06:40 PM
15

Ok, so the claim is that "1 out of every 4 women will be raped in her lifetime" doesn't make sense mathematically, and you'll show me how that's true. Ok, cool. In other words, one-fiftieth of what feminists claim it is. What? No, you're confusing the lifetime rate and the yearly rate. Okay, since empirical data shows that rates of rape drastically decrease after the victim turns 45, whether they are male or female, in prison or out, I’ll just be accounting for a 30-year window. I'm having a har…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 05:52 PM
2

Well, lifetime figures seem to suggest that there are a lot more female victims. This suggests one or more of the following: <18 women are raped at a rate far higher than <18 men. (All evidence I've seen seems to suggest this is true.) The same men who get raped during a year are raped far, far, far more often than other men, compared with how often women who are raped are raped again. (Not seen any evidence on this.) Men are more likely to "forget" experiences, or classify them as non-rape. (Ma…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 11:15 PM
9

The newest FBI definition of rape ("The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.") isn't exactly clear on whether forced penetration by the victim is covered by the definition (it's incredibly awkward grammar). If you've found some concrete evidence that this is being interpreted as including men being forced to have intercourse, I'd love to see it. [The NISVS re…
/r/MensRights22/08/12 03:52 PM
1

It isn't "hundreds of signals". It sure is. That would mean the changes would be gradual over time. That doesn't follow. At all. It's akin to saying "because there are hundreds of parts in an automobile, sudden deceleration (such as by hitting a wall) is impossible". If a search result goes from Number One to total disappearance overnight, it's due to deliberate human intervention. That doesn't follow either. There are numerous well documented instances of Google censorship. Not of the sort you …
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:02 PM
3

Oh, you saw my comment before its edit. Evidence for: for most of the people who take welfare it's not functioning in any way like insurance. It's not a one time deal to help them recover from a low-risk, high-cost event (like a wealthy person losing everything), it's a way for them to live as parasites.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:23 AM
1

for most of the people who take welfare it's not functioning in any way like insurance. It's not a one time deal That's a very interesting little factoid. Not trying to be rude, but what's your evidence for that?
/r/MensRights01/08/12 12:58 AM
7

Sure: Lowered risk of UTI Unimportant. UTIs are easily treatable and not dangerous. Slightly lowered risk of STIs. Unimportant. You need to use a condom either way, and once you're using a condom, the circumcision isn't providing benefit. Infants aren't having sex anyway. No risk of phimosis. Phimosis is rare and in the vast majority of cases, easily treatable without surgery. Other incredibly small benefits (penile cancer goes from 0.00003 to 0.00001 or something) Not worth the risk of amputati…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 05:53 PM
9

Can you please tell me why it's "horrible". Non-consensual alteration of another human being's genetalia, in a usually painful and definitely permanent way, involving a low but nonzero risk of permanent damage (other than the loss of the foreskin). It does seem to have positives. And its negatives. Not to mention that babies are more or less unconscience. So if you had a baby, it'd be OK with you if I just wanted to poke it with a pin for a while?
/r/MensRights25/07/12 05:35 PM
1

So if the media caters to women's tastes then this is somehow anti-woman? So if judges cater to society's views on raising children this is somehow anti-male? (Hint: Doing something that's popular doesn't make it right.) It is hard to have a female antagonist when any violence against women will be condemned by society. You're right, that is also sexist. Like almost all issues of sexism, it hurts men and women.
/r/MensRights26/04/12 04:58 PM
1

Obviously you would need a different test for men. You say this only because you (and most people, yes, including women) think it's totally normal for movies to be about men and what men do. The test you mention is stupid. There are many movies without even any "disagreement or fight in a romantic situation". The Bechdel test is a low standard. How about you count the movies that have a female protagonist vs. a male one? The discriminatory-against-men laws and judges that exist are largely male-…
/r/MensRights26/04/12 03:39 PM
2

Many, many things in society are bent toward male interests. As an example, try applying the Bechdel test to the next five movies you see. Have you ever seen a movie which would fail the "reverse Bechdel test"?
/r/MensRights26/04/12 02:11 PM
1

I called her ugly, so what? She called me stupid. She really didn't. The article's conclusion was "[...] in the final analysis, if it has to do with sex, some men really are stupid." You did mean to call her, directly her, ugly, though. And not only is it a low-blow, it's going to make just about everyone that reads those tweets ignore you as not worth listening to. Instead of drawing attention to the things she should feel bad for, and why, you've done nothing but steel her resolve and make peo…
/r/MensRights24/04/12 05:01 PM
1

*shrug* It seems clear to me that the example being used was meant to be as a hypothetical; i.e.: "It is unfair of me to say X" (thus, since presumably the speaker isn't doing the thing he's protesting, 'X' is meant as a hypothetical of a bad thing to say). But the "premises in an analogy are assertions" thing is just completely silly. "Just as it's unfair for President Obama to call all women unattractive just because he finds you so, it's unfair to [...]" That analogy means I assert that the P…
/r/MensRights24/04/12 04:42 PM
0

The premises in an analogy are, according to the most basic rules of logic, assertions. That's as silly as a radioactive goose eating lead. It was an incredibly poor choice to use attractiveness as an example, though, hypothetical or not.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 02:43 PM
5

"woman's dream cure for breast cancer: infant mastectomies!" "the feminist dream world: a world without men!" Even if you assume MRAs don't want to be around women and that there are no female MRAs (both untrue), there are lots of issues that have little to do with women directly -- MGM, lack of health care research funding, few to zero shelters that accept men, etc.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 03:44 PM
5

An MRA's dream city? Because MRAs hate women and don't want them around?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 03:21 PM
9

Don't feed the trolls.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:57 PM
6

Don't feed the trolls.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 02:53 PM
7

So a man should never talk to a woman anywhere that it's inconvenient to leave? I guess all those conversations on airplanes I've had with women were socially inappropriate. (Obviously, that's silly.) The correct thing to do is to carefully pay attention, and if she doesn't want to converse/interact with you, go back to whatever you were doing before.
/r/seduction13/03/12 07:13 PM
10

Well, you apparently want reddit to be a place where any legal content is defended to the utmost limit of its staff's ability. I'd rather they put reasonable limits that prevent them from spending large amounts of time dealing with possibly illegal content and becoming the de facto place where assholes go to post information that has no other use than being an asshole (like someone's home address).
/r/MensRights13/02/12 03:47 PM
5

Reddit will delete personal information that is utterly legal to post too. Why aren't you up in arms about that?
/r/MensRights13/02/12 03:27 PM
6

You really think reddit employees should spend substantial amounts of time dealing with the nuanced and ill-defined laws about "child porn", rather than improving the site in other ways, just so subreddits like /r/jailbait could continue to operate? If these images are "anywhere on the Internet", then what's the big loss here?
/r/MensRights13/02/12 03:11 PM
4

Can you provide an example of such an ad?
/r/MensRights09/02/12 10:23 PM
4

The problem, in part, is it buys into the whole "men are the perpetrators, not the victims, of domestic violence" bullshit. This is reflected in arrest rates, funding, and social views of violence committed against men by women. I don't see the comedic angle, but even if I accept that, the entire basis of the satire is a false and very damaging idea.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 10:14 PM
9

Honestly only because I think it looks better. You might not feel that way if your penis was intact.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 06:51 PM
4

Also, I doubt anyone anywhere prefers crooked teeth. Lots of men prefer having their foreskin.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 06:50 PM
1

What has health risks?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 06:49 PM
1

I kind of want to know if there is anyone who is glad they waited until they were older to be circumcised? Why do you think they'd go get circumcised later?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 06:48 PM
5

But you didn't have to go through it. And as an adult you could have effective pain relief, whereas as an infant you were probably just strapped down for the excruciating pain (though that is becoming less common).
/r/MensRights27/01/12 06:48 PM
9

You do know that was satire, right?
/r/MensRights18/01/12 12:05 AM
2

Since when is it 'enforced'? Ok, you're a troll, or have no idea what the real world is like for women. Bye.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 03:18 PM
6

You think wearing makeup, a societally enforced practice for women in many cases, makes someone a liar. Even though everyone involved knows. I suppose you think painting a house is lying too?
/r/MensRights11/01/12 06:20 PM
3

Then you need to go read the thread, because I'm not playing that game. My post was specifically rejecting the idea of her being a pathological liar based on her being promiscuous. Something I didn't bring up.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 03:35 PM
4

That's not even close to what I asked. Would you assume a man who hooked up with six girls in one night is a pathological liar, or prone to making false rape claims?
/r/MensRights11/01/12 03:04 PM
4

That's stupid. Clothes do exactly the same thing. It isn't about a fake appearance; it's about an altered appearance. If you can't tell that a woman has makeup on, I suggest you see an eye doctor.
/r/MensRights11/01/12 02:58 PM
3

Even if I would assume some degree of deception (which I wouldn't), I wouldn't assume the man to be a pathological liar (do you know what "pathological liar" means?) or prone to making false rape claims. Would you?
/r/MensRights11/01/12 02:55 PM
0

Oh, I understand the argument: "sluts are liars" (for some reason or another). It's just a bit surprising someone is actually using it. At least cuteman was a bit coy about it ("some would say").
/r/MensRights10/01/12 10:56 PM
4

Except there's no reason to bring it up unless you're trying to use this girl's promiscuity as a reason she'd be likely to lie.
/r/MensRights10/01/12 10:26 PM
17

Some would say a girl who hooks up with a half dozen guys in one night is morally equivalent to a pathological liar. You're seriously morally equating being promiscuous with pathological lying and/or falsely claiming you've been raped?
/r/MensRights10/01/12 09:01 PM
1

That's silly. Only 1 in 4 troops deployed to Iraq are combat troops. So your sister isn't fit for combat due to her size? Ok, there are men who are just as small as her. Not very many, but that doesn't keep them from being drafted. And even if it did, there's no reason to make the distinction along gender lines. Make it by weight or height or whatever.
/r/MensRights10/10/11 02:16 PM
1

Every girl that dies - that's 1 person + 0-5 kids that don't exist. Well, unless you assume a family unit is a good idea. In which case, since there are fewer men than women, it actually makes more sense to send women off to war instead of men. In other words, your math only works if you assume men with multiple wives. (There are other problems with that position, like population growth isn't really something we need, and if it were, couples could have many more than 0-5 children.)
/r/MensRights10/10/11 02:09 PM
12

Well, it'd start off as nothing, move into "creepy", and then, yeah, they'd use stronger terms like "crazy". But really, you're just arguing semantics now. Women have socially inappropriate behaviors just as men do.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:22 PM
1

People judge books by their cover most of the time. We have to; no one has the time to look into all possible subjects. I doubt anyone would stop at this comic alone, but it certainly doesn't help.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:20 PM
2

I'm sorry, but "the" in that context will be interpreted as "only" by a very large portion of English speakers.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:17 PM
2

That's completely silly. You're basically saying it's impossible to ever change someone's mind by persuasion. People respond differently to different presentations of an idea, and more importantly, different people respond differently to the same presentation of an idea. Indeed, I can't count how many times I've seen an MRA and feminist basically agree but not be able to communicate it to each other, because they simply interpreted language so differently.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 08:16 PM
13

Let's imagine a girl who's interested in you, but you're utterly uninterested in her for whatever reason (she doesn't attract you, you don't like her, you're in a relationship; whatever). At first she just shows up at your favorite spots, and awkwardly tries to jump into conversations -- a little annoying, but whatever. Then she's there at that bar you like -- every night. Even weekdays when you don't normally go. She starts coming up to you and whispering in your ear how she wants to come home …
/r/MensRights09/09/11 06:42 PM
3

And if /r/feminisms wanted to spread awareness, they'd be stupid for posting/upvoting that. I don't think they do; they want to talk about feminism with other feminists. I'm advocating downvoting posts that damage the public perception of MRAs. I'm advocating changing the massively negative opinion most of reddit has about /r/mensrights (of those who know of it).
/r/MensRights09/09/11 06:23 PM
3

25,000 or 25,000,000 hardly matters; there's a downvote button too. You don't need to explain to me why this got upvotes. I know why it got upvotes. I'm simply trying to convince people that it does more harm than good to the men's rights movement to have posts like this.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:31 PM
2

Ok, then people most in need of exchange of ideas. This kind of post simply makes many people go "oh jeez, they really are crazy/misogynistic", and now, even if they do listen, they assume you're just full of it.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:23 PM
2

... and then people vote on it. Upvotes are tacit approval.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:17 PM
2

Goodness, did you read what I said? No, don't ignore the issue. Just don't present it in a way that harms your own movement by convincing those who most need to be informed that you have nothing of value to say. Furthermore, misandrist is not the same as misinformed, which is what most people are on MRA issues.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:13 PM
5

"The" already specifies a singular reason. If there is one apple on the table, you say "get me the apple from the table". If there are two apples, you say "get me an apple from the table". If you said "the difference between humans and apes is that humans walk on two legs", and I knew you well enough to warrant correcting you, I'd say "no, that is one difference, but there are many others."
/r/MensRights09/09/11 05:12 PM
2

It's not at all that I'm saying don't bring up this issue. I'm saying bringing it up in this way does nothing to convince people who aren't already convinced, because it won't be interpreted in the right way. All that will happen is the person reading will think "mens rights people don't realize that there are men who behave in grossly inappropriate ways, they must be so crazy/misogynist". And then they'll probably simply ignore MRA issues after that, because if it's only those crazy people that…
/r/MensRights09/09/11 02:51 PM
2

I'm only pointing out how it will already be interpreted, dude. I doubt most people would even get as far as the comments.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 02:36 PM
2

So what are the necessary conclusions? If you can say one thing about /mensrights, it certainly seems to be that you can say what's on your mind in here.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 02:28 PM
4

Oh, brunt2, you're so adorable. You're like the poster child for why uninformed people are driven away from this subreddit and assume MRA issues are bullshit.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 02:24 PM
1

Oh, hey brunt2. Funny how you go from asking me if I'm a feminist one minute to using it as a slur the very next minute. I understand how you interpret this comic. But it isn't the same way anyone who isn't already familiar with MRA issues will, and those are the people who most need to be made aware.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 02:02 PM
12

The problem is that "creepy" does encompass a huge range of unacceptable behaviors.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 01:30 PM
2

It's the gestalt. The name of the link is "The difference between cute and creepy". "The" difference, as in, it's the only reason women call someone creepy. The woman in the comic is a caricature -- the vast, vast, vast majority of women would be "creeped out" by anyone sitting outside their house with binoculars.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 01:29 PM
1

I understand the point of the comic. My point is that most of the type of people most in need of convincing won't understand that point; they'll interpret it as something like bitter men saying women overreact to things.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 01:26 PM
7

What does nasty vs. nice people have to do with it?
/r/MensRights08/09/11 07:46 PM
16

Most women don't call unattractive men that say "hi" a creep or stalker either.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 07:24 PM
6

I think it's far more valuable to be more convincing and thus effect more social change. I understand if you don't agree; freedom of speech is dear to my heart and can understand your resistance to change anything you wish to say. One thing I might point out, however, is that your interpretation and understanding of such a comic will be very different than another's. I don't think there's something against free speech to take into account how such a comic will be interpreted by others.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 07:23 PM
8

That's another reason that I hadn't considered: It gives ammunition to MRA naysayers.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 06:17 PM
6

Primarily, it communicates a dismissal of the many times nearly all women have had to deal with a "creepy" man that had nothing to do with how attractive he was.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 06:06 PM
58

This kind of thing really drives away curious, moderate people who aren't informed on MRA issues. Yes, women treat men who they find attractive differently. Men treat women they find attractive differently too.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 05:14 PM
2

Actually, victims of robberies classified as a "violent crime" (at least in the United States) are more frequently men. Relevant quote: Males experienced higher victimization rates than females for all types of violent crime except rape/sexual assault.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 02:01 PM
1

Did they have an explanation why?
/r/MensRights01/08/11 06:26 PM
3

Every pay gap analysis I've ever seen controls for "hours worked" in their analysis. Of course, that's when it is an analysis, not "all women everywhere make x% of what all men make per capita, thus there's discrimination".
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:40 PM
3

Depends on the sampling technique, confidence interval you're looking for, and what type of statistic you're calculating. :P
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:37 PM
2

The plural of anecdote isn't data. :P
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:25 PM
7

From the article: Britain's Office for National Statistics reports that men spend an average of 38.4 hours in paid employment compared to 33.3 hours for women. Among employed couples, men spend an average of two hours and 28 minutes on household chores, while women spend four hours and 40 minutes cooking and cleaning. Let's see... men do 38.4 hours work + 2.5 hours chores = 40.9 hours work+chores / week women do 33.3 hours work + 4.7 hours chores = 38 hours work+chores / week So I guess the poin…
/r/MensRights01/08/11 03:09 PM
2

I'm not sure why pointing out that some girl crashing doesn't mean girls are more likely to crash on average makes you think I'm in favor of discriminatory policies. Personally, I can see the argument either for making it illegal to discriminate insurance rates based on gender, or not doing so, but certainly not legal in some cases and illegal in others. By the way, you'd be more convincing if you were less... aggressive, shall we say. You've managed to annoy me, and I actually agree with you.
/r/MensRights27/07/11 05:46 PM
7

Do you not understand the word "risk"?
/r/MensRights27/07/11 02:22 PM
1

You might want to read the top couple comments before posting next time; it's already shown to be back up (it was probably a temporary glitch).
/r/MensRights20/07/11 09:57 PM
0

On the Internet, sure, simply because it'd be controversial, i.e., troll bait. But on Facebook, where the people involved presumably know each other?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 06:44 PM
29

Yeah, but no, they're having a hard time sympathizing because he's a man and a robber. You seriously think anyone would be posting such comments about a female robber in the exact same scenario?
/r/MensRights13/07/11 02:14 PM
9

I've been kicked/slapped in the nuts many times (by my guy friends), and in no instance have I been afraid about my fertility in the future. Your ignorance of consequences doesn't make a very good argument.
/r/MensRights05/07/11 11:00 PM
1

I apologize for the rudeness of my earlier comment. It's a touchy subject. The main point I was trying to make is that unlike with vaccinations you could give the patient or parent the choice of circumcision. Well, vaccinations are optional, in the United States, if the objection is on religious grounds, which is why I was confused, but I see what you mean. I am saying that it should be a choice that is respected and not attacked. I can't agree here. I see little difference between cutting off a…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 08:56 PM
2

You claimed that you've had no detrimental side effects from your circumcision. I argued that you wouldn't know if you had or not, and used a purposefully fictitious potential negative, to avoid getting caught up in arguing the evidence, and now you tell me I'm speaking in "what ifs". Sigh. Would you have a substantially different life with your foreskin? No idea. I'd guess not. But claiming with certainty that you've had no negative effects when you'd have no way to tell if you did is pretty ab…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 07:27 PM
3

All I can do is speak from a lifetime of personal experience with no detrimental side effects. How is it you think you would know? If circumcision lowered pain tolerance permanently by 20% on average (I'm not saying it does, but let's say for a moment it did), how could you know that had happened to you? Also, I have never heard anyone mention how much a circumcision ruined their life. ... and? Who would mention such a thing? "How's the weather, Bob?" "Well, my glans is really feeling this dry w…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 06:35 PM
2

You certainly don't retain conscious memories of the experience, no. I don't accept that as a reason infant pain doesn't matter (I wouldn't poke an infant with a needle for no reason; would you?) -- but regardless, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect the child either. This study shows a significant difference in pain tolerance months after the procedure, for example. There haven't been extensive studies that I know of dealing with very long term effects, but there certainly is evidence that ther…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 06:10 PM
2

(with all the associated pain and risk) You're basically saying that very few man would choose to have his own penis circumcised due to pain and risks that are much lower than for infants (can you imagine how painful it is for an infant, given the common practice of no pain relief?) Most men who talk about not doing routine infant circumcisions wouldn't get a circumcision either; the option to get circumcised later is really only in response to pro-circ arguments.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:24 PM
1

Not at all. There are men who chose to have a circumcision, but are glad their parents gave them the choice.
/r/MensRights24/06/11 03:17 PM
4

If they waited until you were older to remove your foreskin, you could've: Had the choice. Been given adequate pain relief. Had sex with a functional foreskin, and decided you liked how it works, and kept it on that basis. (Or kept it for some other reason.)
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:29 PM
9

unlike with vaccination Why are you talking about vaccination? What point are you making here? (and he would have to make the decision to undergo circumcision) Are you familiar with the research on how effective simple manual stretching is as a non-surgical alternative? (Not to mention the surgical alternatives.) If he ends up developing Balanitis because of lack of hygiene it would only affect him. Same with tonsillitis. Why is circumcision a valid prophylaxis when, say, routine tonsillectomies…
/r/MensRights24/06/11 02:15 PM
2

A lot of us don't give a fuck about how we look to you, or what you think of us. I could not care less, except that I think it genuinely harms the MRA movement to have such a negative public image. The main tool feminists use against MRAs, as far as I can tell, is bad PR. Activism is all about convincing people to agree with you. Sometimes that means marching on Washington (and if that happens, I'll be there), but I disagree that calmly convincing people of an injustice is any less valid. There …
/r/MensRights20/05/11 10:04 PM
6

Yep, there are people that don't follow reddiquette. Kinda shitty, isn't it?
/r/MensRights20/05/11 09:00 PM
2

So you do downvote people when they disagree with you in specific ways, then? Look, I'm not the vote police. But I can tell you that coming into a thread and seeing every post that doesn't agree with the general posters in /r/MensRights downvoted to hell doesn't help with the MensRights image, and thus it makes it that much harder to convince people that MRAs have legitimate problems with feminism.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 08:41 PM
3

/r/feminisms has only about 1/3rd the readers as /r/MensRights. I don't remember seeing very many /r/Equality posts getting posted there, but I have noticed a similar (but much smaller) effect the few times I've noticed a link to /r/Equality in /r/feminisms (I read all three).
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:52 PM
2

A fascinating read; thank you!
/r/MensRights20/05/11 07:48 PM
4

... How dare I defend myself with a short message when I could be spending hours reading every link so I'd have an appropriate response to a message that shouldn't have been directed at me in the first place? (I posted a link to a question; I didn't pose the question.)
/r/MensRights20/05/11 06:16 PM
0

When did I say anything about intellectual honesty? I'm trying very hard to not be insulting, but it's the truth--I'm a mod in /r/Equality; I can often tell when something's been posted in here by the massive number of downvotes given to anyone with a slightly feminist bent to their comment, and whenever I see a link to /r/Equality on here, I have a very good idea of what I'll find when I click that link.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 05:50 PM
2

I, for one, would not care to try to read 1500+ comment threads if they weren't ranked in some way. Votes are a way to crowd-source moderation; no small group could moderate even a mildly popular subreddit if they had to ban everything that didn't contribute. Of course, votes really work best when people don't downvote because they disagree.
/r/MensRights20/05/11 04:07 PM
3

Absolutely. I just checked; it shows up on /r/equality, and it doesn't show as banned if I pull the link up directly.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 02:38 PM
2

Understood; I would ban the submission for that subreddit if I could; as I understand it, the original submitter deleted his own post in an attempt to do as much. It's simply way over the line to post RL information about someone online, even if it's "incidental". I would immediately ban any submission that had your real name too (presuming you weren't the one who posted your name originally), particularly if it was unique enough to allow someone to easily track you down.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 03:25 AM
0

I've unbanned it, since some of the people in [equality] are going to care about this, and the equality mod staff goes to great lengths to support transparency in our actions. I've left the submission of yours which includes Saydrah's RL name banned as it was by the spam filters. Whatever you think of someone, RL information getting posted online is over the line.
/r/MensRights01/03/10 02:18 AM
3

I really think the mods are doing a good job over there. Really? You seem to be the only one. :P We try. We try really hard, actually, and it's really hard sometimes, because we want to guide [Equality] to a place where productive discussion can be had, avoiding using the banhammer as much as possible. Bar Aerik not being banned, I haven't seen any instances of bias. As much as I disagree with Aerik, as much as he's an example of everything that I dislike about some strains of "feminists" (invar…
/r/MensRights02/02/10 06:25 PM
1

It was on a scale of how good of a trolling it was. The amusement scale is completely different. :)
/r/MensRights25/09/09 07:31 PM
2

Your trolling would be so much more effective if you learned to use insults that actually might apply. You are lazy, gutless, incompetent and a spineless coward. You yourself admit this with your craven actions. This is kind of rooted in reality, at least. I mean, it takes a fucked-up view of reality combined with a total disregard for others and a series of twisted logic to get there, but I can at least understand each step. 4/10. You are a misandrist hypocrite because everyone realizes Aerik i…
/r/MensRights24/09/09 09:28 PM
4

Not doing what was right but doing what you and the other cuntards would find easiest and most convenient. You don't seem to understand. Preventing you from causing grief on [equality] is the point of having you banned from there. What was preventing me before from "lobbying" the other mods on your behalf was a desire to avoid grief for me, and your repeated stated desire never to post there again. The cost/benefit ratio made it just not worth it. That's not what it's about anymore, at least not…
/r/MensRights24/09/09 04:26 PM
2

Perhaps you'd like to explain why I'm banned? Then explain why Aerik isn't? Conversations with Aerik aren't totally devoid of a possibility of resolution, or a change of mind. Aerik also makes interesting posts. He's sometimes inflammatory, but generally just a little rough around the edges. Aerik ain't got shit on you, buddy. You have proven, time and again, that you behave as a troll. Even when I felt I was having productive conversations with you, you'd constantly "change your mind" and go ar…
/r/MensRights24/09/09 03:21 PM
2

Just want you to understand I'm not going away. Oh, I'm sure.
/r/MensRights24/09/09 03:10 PM
2

Both Saydrah and Xzxzzx personally told me that they feel that as long as Aerik complains that /Equality is too pro-male, they have struck the perfect balance. Don't know if you're lying or just didn't understand what I said, but that's not true.
/r/MensRights23/09/09 03:34 PM
2

What has happened since then to make you dislike xzxzzx so much? I randomly found this thread, and thought I'd offer a little explanation -- BSC and I got in a argument (I don't even remember what it was about), I didn't back down, and it seems BSC gets mad at anyone he can't shout at until they capitulate.
/r/MensRights23/09/09 03:21 PM
1

Oohh, ok, so you're mad about something you can't even show, and the evidence doesn't really support (getting downvoted for being a dick isn't evidence of sockpuppets).
/r/MensRights26/06/09 05:30 PM
1

You really like trying to bait me, huh? I didn't ban you, which you should know, I talked with you at length about it (answering more than "one fucking question in the history of my useless life", and you, at the time, said you could not see returning to [equality], and more recently post: I'd like to go to /Equality... but I've been banned... That's one position change, and I could find many more, but that doesn't even matter.
/r/MensRights26/06/09 05:29 PM
1

You're deflecting. You can't tolerate someone disagreeing with you so you browbeat them until they do, just as you've been doing here. If you had a good point, you wouldn't resort to emotional tactics like "you owe me".
/r/MensRights26/06/09 05:25 PM
1

Well, yes. I guess. He really changes positions a lot, but the current one seems to be that since he's no worse than Aerik, it must be the feminist reptilian alien overlords at [equality] that are in the wrong. Or ... something like that. ;)
/r/MensRights26/06/09 05:04 PM
1

You're not waiting to hear an argument. You want someone to yell at for your perceived slight. If you were actually willing to argue, I'd argue with you, but you're down to the verbal equivalent of flinging poo, and there's no reasoning with that. I don't have to invent ways the other side is bad. I don't have to invent the issues. Yet you do, constantly.
/r/MensRights26/06/09 04:58 PM
1

Ooh. Your sacasm. It burns! Dude, if you want to actually talk about something, then, yeah, sure, let's talk. You aren't doing that. Oh, and I thought you were against the whole "downvote because you disagree" thing? Or will you now claim you're "using the enemy's weapons against them" or some such nonsense justification?
/r/MensRights26/06/09 04:58 PM
1

I'm not "making" BSC do anything. He doesn't want to post, his ban was fair given his behavior at the time, and he doesn't want to post in [equality]. I'm not going to go through the drama for something which will have no practical effect. As it stands, the only real effect of this ban at this point is that BSC subtly complains about it a lot (he said he didn't care a while back, but seems to have reversed his opinion). I was contemplating (weeks ago) just silently reversing the ban and taking f…
/r/MensRights26/06/09 05:09 AM
1

You have no idea what it is to try and moderate extremists like yourself. How could you? You think your position is the natural one, and couldn't possibly see the world from any other point of view. You argue by browbeating and strawmen and when it doesn't work, accuse the other side of having "no argument". Arguing isn't calling names and inventing ways the other side is bad.
/r/MensRights26/06/09 04:59 AM
2

I'm not a feminist, you idiot. You're back in dick mode, and you think that's justifiable because that's "who you are". Even though "who" you are in that sense is entirely your choice. Civilized behavior isn't exclusive to any group, and you don't just get rude, you start inventing slights and positions of the other person. There's no reason to argue with that. You'll just invent something else and accuse me of some other thing I haven't done.
/r/MensRights26/06/09 04:55 AM
1

I read the first paragraph of your reply -- you've degraded all the way to invented ideas (whoever said I expected you to apologize for anything?), and stupid name-calling and cursing. I'll talk to you again once you've gotten over yourself.
/r/MensRights26/06/09 01:22 AM
1

"Yelling" isn't going to make your point any more effectively with me. You can't shout over me, and I won't be baited into it anyway. Your tone is obnoxious, and simply makes me less willing to converse with you. I'm sorry that we disagree on the value of my time vs. the value of unbanning someone who's said he doesn't care if he's unbanned and won't post there anyway. Really I am, but since it's my time, and I don't see the practical value of spending it in the way you suggest, we'll probably j…
/r/MensRights25/06/09 11:56 PM
2

You did. But you're missing the point. I have to come to you guys and ASK to be unbanned. No, there's a difference. You need to be interested in posting in [equality] before I care enough that I'm going to go through all of the drama involved in doing any major moderation activity. I don't have enough time that I'm willing to spend hours and hours answering people's concerns, talking to other mods, etc, just "on the principle". It needs to make a real-world difference for me to feel like it's wo…
/r/MensRights25/06/09 10:08 PM
3

Their terms are that I have to ask to be unbanned. All you have to do is be interested in posting in [equality], and I thought I'd made that clear.
/r/MensRights25/06/09 09:38 PM
2

Those are not "the terms". It's just that I don't want to go through the drama since BestServedCold has repeatedly stated that he doesn't want to post anymore at [equality], and I, and the rest of the mods, have basically dropped the issue. If you want to talk about passive/aggressive, you can talk to BSC about how he semi-complains about being banned while simultaneously, repeatedly, stating that he doesn't care.
/r/MensRights25/06/09 09:31 PM
3

pn6 has proven that MBB posts make it to the front page including ones that Saydrah posts and WBB posts get banned. He's cherry-picked a few, yes, but what you're missing is that "GBB" posts are basically fine as long as you're using them for the purpose of talking about a gender subject, not just saying "oh look at this evil man/woman". Do you think I want to see Aerik or his ilk posting rape stories over and over? There is no fairness and no equality at /Equality. And you know as well as I do,…
/r/MensRights04/05/09 09:20 PM
2

If Saydrah had taken 30 seconds to read my posts, she would have had to come to the conclusion that I was NOT a troll. She did, as did myself and all of the other mods on [equality]. At the time, about 50 posts back (as far as I read; it took a couple minutes), they were almost all argumentative, aggressive, and looked to be generally the sort of thing someone trying to stir up drama would post. A troll is always a troll. Not true. Indeed, the best trolls are typically subtle, and try very hard …
/r/MensRights04/05/09 07:41 PM
2

They're all for freedom of expression and evenhandedness but they'll ban me at some cunt's request. Uh, no. There was a request to ban you that precipitated the banning (that it, it brought your posts to the attention of a mod), but didn't "cause" it. And then they delete articles showing the misandrist society we live in. Yes, that's exactly how pn6 presents it. It's not that simple, and pn6 knows -- or should know -- it. Specifically, if you want to talk about some issue and have an example ar…
/r/MensRights04/05/09 07:12 AM
2

Oh, ok, I get it now. I find /Equality quite refreshing although I rarely comment I'm glad to hear that. Let me invite you to comment more; only about 10% of us bite... hard... ;)
/r/MensRights30/04/09 04:01 AM
2

BestServedCold could not have responded there. It seemed a somewhat appropriate venue to me.
/r/MensRights30/04/09 03:43 AM
2

I guess I might even swallow my pride and ask to come back. You change your mind, you know where to find me. But I was already treated very badly. And this was before I deserved it. Frankly, I don't see that, though I imagine a couple of users were rather annoying. It's kind of the price you pay for trying to bring "enemies" together, I'm afraid. How do you think they'd like me now? Probably still more than they like pn6 or AnnArchist! :) Being on the one extreme of an issue in a space is going …
/r/MensRights30/04/09 03:29 AM
9

Well, yes, generally if you're using insults, particularly personal ones, you'll get downmodded pretty hardcore in [equality]. As with most (all?) of reddit. And I think that's just the way it should be. Politeness is important. The only purpose of being polite -- the only reason it exists at all -- is to enable people who don't know each other to interact respectfully. That's all it is. It isn't a "style", it's simply showing respect for the people who are going to be on the reading end of what…
/r/MensRights30/04/09 03:11 AM
6

Every negative-scoring post had either a personal insult or a direct insult of the female gender in it. Every other one was positive, with the exception of the one marked with a 0 score, which got one downvote (presumably from the user who responded to that post). Oh, and I forgot to mention -- every single post with a negative score had at least once response. Edit: So, no, what you "went through" in [equality] with the oldest posts of yours I could find was not exactly the same as 6 downvotes …
/r/MensRights30/04/09 02:38 AM
3

There needs to be disagreement in any position to develop counter arguments and fully think a position out. This is what lacks in M R. And you think you will or won't find this in [equality]? I'm confused.
/r/MensRights30/04/09 02:25 AM
6

You mean this: How about we crimininalize alimony too which is kind of retroactive prostitution? I don't think it's asking to much to expect women to go get a real job. (voted to +5) or this: I believe car insurance companies charge men under 26 (it used to be 25) more for car insurance than women the same age. Their reason? Young men DO get in more accidents than young women. However, men get no corresponding discount when THEY become statistically safer drivers which IIRC is around 35-40. (vot…
/r/MensRights30/04/09 02:23 AM
2

Well, let me clarify: I didn't ban him. There are six mods on [equality]. One of us banned him as a temporary measure, and the rest of us the agreed to make it permanent. We in [equality] have a rather simple democratic system for mod decisions. Mods have power only in their particular subreddits, and are equal in their functional power. There are a few users (kn0thing, for example), who are "admins", and have much, much more power than mods. They can do everything a mod can in every subreddit, …
/r/MensRights30/04/09 02:08 AM
5

Personally, I get the impression that this was a mistake, and unbanning him would be the right thing to do. On the other hand, there are 5 other mods. It's not up to me, and even if it were, he really was acting like a troll by his own admission. Further, he's said he doesn't want to come back to [equality], and has no problem with being banned, so am I really willing to go through the mod discussion to unban someone who doesn't give a crap, and then answer the 10,000 words of comments that will…
/r/MensRights30/04/09 12:35 AM
7

trolls (real ones) Three things: we can't remove anyone from the entirety of reddit. Second, if you think the one person that's been banned from [equality] is bad, ask pn6 how many people he's banned from [mensrights]. Hint: It's a lot more than one. Third, I believed in good faith that BSC was a troll. He's even stated here that he acted like a troll, and from my eyes, at the time, the last 50 posts of his that I'd read gave little indication otherwise.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 11:30 PM
6

Downmods for this with no actual response? Really? Seems like it's gotten worse in here since the last time I was active. That's a shame.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 11:24 PM
8

Ok, ok. I didn't ban anything. Look, the evidence isn't gone, it's just removed, in order to avoid pointless point-by-point arguments about posts. You've been sending mixed messages about posting on [equality] ("I can't defend myself because I can't post there ... I can't see posting there ever again"). You want to defend yourself? You want to get the ban removed? Fine. Make up your mind, and tell me what you want, and I'll do my best to accommodate that.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 09:33 PM
4

Respectfully, I think you've put a lot of thought into your position, but I find myself utterly disagreeing with much of what you said. Specifically: We men have not articulated our position enough to participate as equals in /equality. "feminist" isn't a cohesive philosophy either, but there are a lot of issues, for each, which are worth discussing as they're so obviously not right. What's wrong with having female input on this? Do you think you shouldn't have a say on, say, abortion rights? Ho…
/r/MensRights29/04/09 09:02 PM
1

They were specifically removed by mods. Don't know why they were showing up earlier today.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 08:53 PM
4

I seriously doubt it was /MR. I've posted here. I was rather active here for a short time, but I became, well, disgusted with some of the things carried out in the name of "men's rights". The same kinds of things I dislike about "feminism". Up until [equality] was formed, I mostly lurked around here and in [women], [egalitarian], and [feminisms]. [equality] has taken up most of my "reddit time", so I haven't been posting around here.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 08:27 PM
8

And there are many more who feel the opposite. "Listen" doesn't mean "agree". That said, it's beginning to look like BSC is a lot more reasonable than the 50 posts of his I last looked at made him out to be.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 08:23 PM
5

They ask for feedback but they also don't have any interest in listening to it. Which is why I've spent hours talking to you about it, right? Fuck, get off your victim horse.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 08:15 PM
7

BSC, I'm one of the male mods in [equality]. From a brief perusal of your post, it looks like you're a lot more reasonable than I thought. I'll respond more fully to this later. I've been talking in [equality] for far too many hours today, and my eyes are a bit crossed from reading so much text.
/r/MensRights29/04/09 08:12 PM
4

What "shit"? I responded to you genuinely interested -- thinking you had something useful to say. Either you don't, or you're just being an ass.
/r/MensRights02/03/09 08:47 PM
3

pn6's specifics are full of crap for reasons I've listed ad nauseum. I'm "trolling" now? By responding in kind to your crap? Oh boy.
/r/MensRights02/03/09 08:19 PM
5

Nothing specific, eh? That's what I thought. Sure you don't want to have a dick size contest before I go? :)
/r/MensRights02/03/09 08:10 PM
3

Thanks, but I have no use for your definition of "equality". You don't know what you're talking about. And I've seen how you define "contribute" and "disrupt". ... having a few male drones on board for the sake of appearance may get you karma votes, but I'm pretty sure there won't be any men in there, just males. If you're going to insult me, do it directly. But I get the impression you don't really have anything to insult me for; you'd rather just make vague accusations as assumptions. If you'v…
/r/MensRights02/03/09 08:00 PM
4

pn6 was never censored until after he went nuclear. What would've been the point? He could've simply undone anything. The closest Saydrah came to censorship was politely commenting on one of pn6's posts. Further, his actions have been far further reaching than Saydrah's -- he banned Saydrah entirely from [mensrights], he completely closed [equality]. Saydrah has only removed a couple of inflammatory remarks.
/r/MensRights02/03/09 06:08 PM
5

I'm sorry you feel that way. Both pn6 and you are welcome to contribute to [equality], as long as the purpose of the post is to contribute rather than disrupt. If there are any specific ways that you feel men will be more fairly represented in [equality], please let me know. I'm a male mod there, and there is an equal number of male and female mods.
/r/MensRights02/03/09 05:59 PM
4

He doesn't have an explanation, as you can tell. His public story is he disagreed with Saydrah in a polite conversation, and then did what he did. He even keeps using the dentist post to "make his point" when Saydrah had already responded to with this: That may be the perception of that post, but I assure you if so it was an accident and I'm glad you brought it to my attention. Funnily, he accuses Saydrah of "censorship" after he censored an entire subreddit instead of "arguing the points".
/r/MensRights02/03/09 04:07 PM
1

She pointed out something about a post that she thought was contrary to the agreed "rules" or agreements of the subreddit. She probably thought you'd look at it and agree, with no mod action necessary. Further, Hey, I think this is a little out of place in Equality: is a hardly a decision.
/r/MensRights02/03/09 06:03 AM
0

That is a distortion. Her position has changed little, if at all. Further, even if that were true, you could have brought the matter to the rest of the mods' attention; Saydrah herself explicitly said this in the first equality moderator's thread: I think unilateral decisions are not in the spirit of r/Equality, and have no place there.
/r/MensRights02/03/09 02:21 AM
10

It's a forum for a community. Just because the walls are virtual doesn't mean it isn't disheartening to see them torn down.
/r/MensRights27/02/09 05:27 PM
5

To allow, much less promote that shit under the name equality is deceitful. And all you did was ensure that you will never have a say in it in the future.
/r/MensRights27/02/09 03:58 PM
1

... I didn't say or imply it wasn't.
/r/MensRights29/01/09 04:25 PM
16

Just as an alternative suggestion, an IUD may be an option you have not considered - IUDs are effective, safe, and carry a low risk of side-effects. And almost all women can use them (deformity of the uterous and certain other rare issues would disqualify you from an IUD). And of course, IUDs are 100% reversible.
/r/MensRights29/01/09 03:16 PM
3

Yeah, that's fucked up. It just didn't seem relevant to the decision making process.
/r/MensRights29/01/09 03:04 PM
6

That's another feminist lie.. "Oh, it's SO EASY for men. Just snip snip!" It is, for most men, particularly with modern techniques. All surgery carries some risk. You cannot extrapolate from a sample size of one. He makes a personal, but worthy-of-reading argument for letting the female go through it. While I value the post you linked for pointing out that there is a risk to a vasectomy, his argument is rather invalid. Vasectomies, statistically, are very low-risk compared with tubal ligation. J…
/r/MensRights29/01/09 02:50 PM
5

It's a troll. Don't waste your breath.
/r/MensRights22/12/08 02:41 PM
3

My dad doesn't even make $400 a month and he paid roughly $50 more per child then he does and was able to make it work. hmm... What?
/r/MensRights15/12/08 06:31 PM
1

I find it funny that this is the behavior of the "men's rights" movement here seems more anti-feminism than equal rights. Well, many Men's Rights advocates identify as "feminists", and see "feminism" as a movement for equality. The problem is one of terms and vagueness. There is no one "feminism". Those who call themselves feminists range from "feminazis" who are female-supremisists (and claim stupid things like "if women were in charge, there would be no war", to true egalitarians who wish that…
/r/MensRights15/12/08 12:22 AM
1

Troll, troll, go away, troll again some other day.
/r/MensRights14/12/08 10:18 PM
2

So what about a wife who couldn't have sex with her husband? Would she be necessarily "neglectful"? And what of men who are no longer attracted to their wives who have "let themselves go"?
/r/MensRights12/12/08 05:48 AM
3

Within the context of a marriage, is it not abusive for the wife to "allow" a man to have sex with her exactly once for the creation of each of exactly two children? It's fucked up, but it's not abuse. Look, you are not guaranteed sex any more than you're guaranteed affection of any kind in a marriage. Imagine a wife (or husband) who would not kiss you. Would that be abuse? Or one who responded to "I love you" with "I know", or what have you. It should probably be grounds for divorce, but it's t…
/r/MensRights11/12/08 08:33 PM
10

The answer: Just do what you would do if she were a man. Don't worry about scaring her. Seriously. All you do by trying to avoid scaring her is perpetuate the idea that men are scary. The human mind needs lots of instances of "nothing happens" to get over the idea "omfg what if".
/r/MensRights27/11/08 06:22 PM
3

The actual statistic, backed up by DOJ, is that 1 in 4 women (and 1 in 12 men) are assaulted in their lifetime. Did you mean sexually assaulted? If so, do you have a DOJ link? I'd like to see how that's calculated.
/r/MensRights27/11/08 06:18 PM
5

An incorrect complaint, but nonetheless, they really were not out of line. Wrong. You can't simply detain people for no reason in the United States. A "complaint" is not sufficient. You need reasonable, and articulable suspicion that criminal activity has or is about to occur.
/r/MensRights25/11/08 11:02 PM
1

That has not changed. over 90% of workplace deaths are men. I would guess this was almost certainly more than 99% pre-industrially. Over 75% of suicides are men. This is an interesting statistic, but it's somewhat misleading. Women attempt suicide more, but men succeed more. I believe men are genetically high-risk specimens. Men account for more geniuses, but also more dunces than women, for example. I'm not surprised that this bears out similarly in suicides.
/r/MensRights07/10/08 08:24 PM
8

That's not completely fair, but your point is valid. Men are, in fact, more easily lost from a pre-industrial society (men, as a group, are about equally valuable, but each man is really unimportant), because women are the basic limiting factor in a society with a high death rate sustaining itself. Of course, this is also why women were kept in check. Literally, their status as "baby-factory" was a really useful thing, and thus they needed to be protected. You can make a baby every 1.5 years or …
/r/MensRights07/10/08 02:03 PM
-1

Could be. On the other hand, McCain's so dishonest that he's disqualified automatically for me -- leaving Obama or a third party.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 09:47 PM
4

Actually, adjusting for profession, experience, age, hours worked, marital status, etc, women make roughly 100% of what men make.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 02:23 PM
1

That was 15 years ago, and it's suspiciously absent from the Obama website (last I checked).
/r/MensRights17/09/08 04:08 PM
1

... oh boy. And here I was hoping that Biden's misandry would stay fairly tucked away. Ugh.
/r/MensRights17/09/08 02:30 PM
2

Erm. But you said "Huh?"...
/r/MensRights03/09/08 05:16 PM
2

Japanese have a hard time making "l" sounds that don't sound like "r" sounds to the typical western ear. "Ronery" = "Lonely"
/r/MensRights03/09/08 04:19 PM
1

How could you possibly have read my post as offended? I have no basis in my personal life for that particular generalization, and I don't see how it's true in a general sense either, that's all.
/r/MensRights26/08/08 10:32 PM
2

Go away, troll.
/r/MensRights26/08/08 02:08 PM
2

Hmm. I enjoyed Wheel of Time, and I know more than a few men who also did. I'm not really sure how it's a "chick-novel", even if you somehow consider male-female relationships a "female" thing. The number of characters is staggering, though. It seems like you need a companion guide just to figure out what's going on sometimes (20+ major characters and 100+ minor ones is a lot for anybody...) It's true that the Lord of the Rings series did not delve too far into "relationship territory", but I su…
/r/MensRights26/08/08 02:07 PM
1

Yeah, I don't think it makes sense either. It was probably a troll.
/r/MensRights25/08/08 08:52 PM
3

A more readable version is here: http://www.dadsamerica.org/farights.htm
/r/MensRights25/08/08 05:05 PM
15

Thank you, Rachel Lucas. Thanks for standing up for true equality, and recognizing the hypocrisy of some of those of your own gender. Thanks for seeing past the shackles of "feminism" and recognizing that all humans deserve to be treated fairly. Thanks for pointing out that "equality" and "fairness" shouldn't mean "now we can oppress you". <3
/r/MensRights20/08/08 05:27 PM
1

Ok, how about: The screwed up courts or Bastard mother alienates child or Another family court fuckup or how about no "summary" at all? I'm sorry, but "Women are so compassionate" cannot be easily interpreted as anything but an attack on women.
/r/MensRights18/08/08 05:11 PM
3

Joe Biden is an idiot. You don't have to be an idiot to be nice. I see what you're saying, but I cannot fully agree. I respect that. And I really do appreciate your efforts to help the Men's Rights cause, in part because there really are too few who do. I think that the woman's rights movement was a natural consequence of improved morality due to economic growth and social freedoms. Really the movements were just seizing upon a time when they were practical. I don't they had some "winning strate…
/r/MensRights17/08/08 07:06 PM
2

Here's an example of what I've been mentioning, pn6. LilatheCetacean made a post that, in concept, most of the people on [MensRights] would probably agree with. But it got downmodded into oblivion because it was an argumentative, antagonistic post. More flies with honey, and all that...
/r/MensRights17/08/08 05:20 PM
1

Presumably you did start it to (in part, at least) spread your message. You're going to have a hard time if you find people pay more attention to you being an asshole than your generally positive message.
/r/MensRights17/08/08 04:34 PM
1

What? I never hid my "motives". I'd like [MensRights] to be a place where women feel welcome, just like [women] is mostly a place where men are welcome. You can critize feminism and give stories of men's rights abuses without making sweeping critical remarks about women. Many redditors only read the headline of a link. Indeed, I didn't open the article until just now -- and it turns out you're the one being dishonest -- the headline of the article is not the same as pn6's headline (as BinaryShad…
/r/MensRights17/08/08 04:31 PM
1

I dunno you know, a lot of other submitters reuse the headlines and never take any flack for it. The don't usually use misogynistic headlines...
/r/MensRights17/08/08 04:01 PM
3

Difficulty/complexity of math probably cannot be directly quantified. However, I'd like to see you try and teach, say, lambda calculus to a first-grader.
/r/MensRights16/08/08 10:49 PM
1

If you post it as your own, you take responsibility for it, yes. Of course you don't get credit for creating it, because you didn't. You just repeated it.
/r/MensRights15/08/08 05:48 PM
1

Arguments are why they troll. I suggest ignoring them and downmodding them.
/r/MensRights14/08/08 05:33 PM
1

Dude. Don't feed the trolls. :)
/r/MensRights14/08/08 01:19 PM
2

Listen up all those who think this is PN6's headline This IS pn6's headline. You can add articles with whatever headline you want, regardless of the article's.
/r/MensRights14/08/08 01:19 PM
5

You don't need to be "careful". Just don't extrapolate one person's behavior to a whole gender (or race, or creed, or ...) Or in other words, be polite. (And pn6: I really appreciate all the effort you must put into posing things on this subreddit, but posting things titled like this headline will simply diminish the reach of your message, and I think it's generally a message I'd like heard. So please, just be polite. More flies with honey, and all that.)
/r/MensRights14/08/08 05:31 AM
-1

(although it's still mainly the stuff of legend - i.e., books and films). I don't think that sexual violence is particularly commonplace in prisons except in fiction. I could be wrong, but I really have seen no evidence of it outside of fiction, and the accounts from actual prisoners I've read suggest that the fiction about prisons is exactly that -- fiction. I think that makes a prison sentence potentially "cruel and unusual", hence unconstitutional. If you're right, I'd have to agree fully. No…
/r/MensRights11/08/08 04:54 AM
9

Guys, you're all failing to do your math. You know, it's not all men here. If, instead of 1 in 4 women are raped / date-raped / attempted rape, only 25% of those are actually getting raped, that's still 6%. Far too high. Also useful to note that those numbers are from 2006, when nearly every college / uni has safe phones, volunteers who walk women to their cars, etc. No; those numbers you mention are from the 1980s, using data from a radical feminist's study -- interpreted differently. And clear…
/r/MensRights11/08/08 04:46 AM
2

If 1 in 16 men were raped during uni, you think you guys would be silent about it? Absolutely. But I don't think that changes your point.
/r/MensRights11/08/08 04:21 AM
2

But isn't it illegal for an employer to discriminate on that basis? I don't think so. Very few people protest discrimination against criminals...
/r/MensRights07/08/08 09:52 PM
1

Well, that's what's meant by the insult.
/r/MensRights07/08/08 02:11 PM
2

A very interesting article, but the title doesn't really seem appropriate.
/r/MensRights07/08/08 03:10 AM
6

Did you read TFA?
/r/MensRights24/07/08 02:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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