TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

zahlman Archive

View 2 posts and 408 comments by zahlman on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

I liked the part where you didn't actually deny the allegation of having never seen a vagina, and then proceeded to use a slur on homosexuals to insult everyone else.
/r/MGTOW20/01/14 06:15 AM
13

Wait, he isn't?
/r/MGTOW20/01/14 03:32 AM
11

So... bring up the issues on the appropriate Wikipedia talk pages? :/
/r/MensRights09/08/12 02:41 AM
4

The feminism I've witnessed is definitely not opposed to prostitution.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 08:41 AM
1

Um, whatever. That unsubscription was a while ago, and the topic was specifically asking.
/r/MensRights10/02/10 05:20 PM
3

I originally came here because I wanted to see a variety of perspectives on gender studies. Then I got sick of it all and -frontpaged them all. I'm only posting this because a friend linked an article from the subreddit and I decided to browse for a little. And now I'm off again. Ta!
/r/MensRights09/02/10 02:35 AM
2

Because the original version is dark humour that highlights what MRAs see as the bullshit they have to deal with when they are simply trying to be reasonable. And because many people here recognize that they've been labelled misogynists on objectively dubious evidence, and that they refrain from labelling feminists as misandrists unless they can provide pretty solid proof.
/r/MensRights09/02/10 02:07 AM
2

Gender matters for the simple reason that sexual intercourse is what it is: an act necessary (in some forms) to the continuation of the species which also happens to be (potentially) pleasurable, yet which is a violation of personal rights when non-consensual. There is always going to be drama surrounding something like this. Always.
/r/MensRights06/02/10 04:25 PM
1

The term "battered" normally connotes physical abuse.
/r/MensRights06/01/10 10:25 AM
2

Citation?
/r/MensRights06/01/10 08:41 AM
-3

It's not as if women in India have the same amount of motivation to make false accusations that women in the US do, or as much protection from consequences of false accusation (which was the point of the article). I would hazard a guess that they're more at risk of being raped, too. The implications are horrible, though. Do they not have access to DNA testing over there? Do they really need to rely on an assumption like this?
/r/MensRights06/01/10 07:04 AM
1

Sounds pretty WBB-ish to me. Psychopathy of this sort is not limited to women.
/r/MensRights06/01/10 01:23 AM
2

The word "always" is clearly being used in a colloquial manner here.
/r/MensRights05/01/10 11:18 PM
0

Star Chamber Referring to this? TIL.
/r/MensRights05/01/10 08:43 AM
0

"Just a college disciplinary proceeding" shouldn't even be imagined to have the authority to address a rape charge. That's where the problem is. I was just pointing out something about how law works.
/r/MensRights05/01/10 08:42 AM
-1

Breach of contract, tort etc. would generally be considered "crimes" by the layperson, and the burden of proof for those is indeed "less than 'beyond reasonable doubt'". That was the point.
/r/MensRights05/01/10 01:38 AM
1

Anything more than mere speculation that this would affect boys more than girls?
/r/MensRights05/01/10 01:26 AM
0

"Reasonable doubt" only applies to criminal legal proceedings. It's not relevant to civil cases, for example.
/r/MensRights05/01/10 01:25 AM
1

And, last but not least, if the feminist slogan is "every issue is a women's issue", then WHY THE FUCK DOES IN EVERY SUBMISSION SOMEONE FUCKING NEEDS TO COME OUT AND WHINE ABOUT HOW IT IS NOT A MEN'S ISSUE. I do this "whining" in the feminist subreddits too. Requiring people to justify their submissions contributes to the discussion IMO.
/r/MensRights05/01/10 01:16 AM
0

... OK, so what are the implications of this for MR?
/r/MensRights04/01/10 09:12 PM
1

Hebephilia isn't pedophilia either, but yes, there is an argument to be made there.
/r/MensRights04/01/10 06:15 PM
1

Your username is especially fitting here.
/r/MensRights04/01/10 06:49 AM
4

Another site, designed with cartoons to make it look harmless and appealing, reads: "The website is for women who are attracted to pre-teen and adolescent girls." Ephebophilia is not pedophilia.
/r/MensRights04/01/10 06:47 AM
-1

I thought the music selection was excellent: conducive to light reading and appropriately thematic. The actual video has pretty crappy production values, though.
/r/MensRights02/01/10 09:21 PM
-2

actual quote: This phrase has more impact when you're quoting someone you disagree with. I'm kind of impressed that random criminal punks who got a bit of training had a roughly even shot against an elephant. :)
/r/MensRights02/01/10 09:19 PM
0

13-yr olds should be exploring sex with other 13 yr olds, not with their teachers. No, they shouldn't be exploring sex with anyone. Putting them in jail is the wrong way to deal with it, but they really ought to learn some goddamn self-control.
/r/MensRights02/01/10 01:07 PM
1

Not always - some are actually quite abstract and utilitarian, and have very little resemblance to the male member. Would the fembot be less "objectifying" if it were less physically realistic? I think the debate here would be whether creating robots that cater to anti-social fantasies would provide a safe outlet for those fantasies, or encourage them to be played out in the real world. There's something to be said for that line of argument, but I don't think "it encourages criminal behaviour" i…
/r/MensRights02/01/10 01:03 PM
5

If our society had a healthier relationship with sex Our society's "unhealthy relationship with sex" does not go very far towards explaining why some people are socially awkward. I can imagine that some people are never going to want to pay for a prostitute because of the awkwardness of communicating with someone who is effectively a stranger. The sexbot-dildo comparison is a little specious, because we are talking about machines intended to be interacted with as if they were live human persons.…
/r/MensRights02/01/10 10:10 AM
1

But then you have to chase it around... hey, whatever turns you on, man...
/r/MensRights02/01/10 10:02 AM
5

flout his court order
/r/MensRights01/01/10 08:42 PM
1

Why would it?
/r/MensRights01/01/10 08:23 PM
2

I'm saying that isn't a legitimate reason for "possession of stolen property" to be a crime either. Edit: to clarify, it makes absolutely zero sense to me that someone who buys stolen property can be argued to have done something Wrong(TM) because the seller might know who stole it. However, it does make sense that the buyer can be argued to have done something Wrong(TM) by propping up an illegal trade, at least if it was done knowingly. After all, those who steal typically are doing it for the …
/r/MensRights31/12/09 08:28 PM
3

It could also imply that the possessor knows the perpetrator. Oh, please. And if I buy stolen property on the black market, does that imply I know the thief?
/r/MensRights31/12/09 08:18 PM
1

Why should the possession be illegal, but for the presumption that its possession implies that the possessor is sick in the head? Don't give me bullshit "CP economy" rationale. Demand for CP isn't going to increase supply because (a) it's not like most of it's being paid for (how could you set up a system for paying for it without attracting ridiculous amounts of suspicion, and without expecting a near-100% payment default rate?); (b) people don't do horrible things like abuse children because s…
/r/MensRights31/12/09 08:01 PM
2

I'm curious as to what you find unappealing. My question being that if men accept the premise that women are such a pain in the ass to deal with, why don't men take advantage of their higher earnings and modern technology to reduce the influence of women on their lives? First off, that's not the premise: the premise is that society is extending unfair advantages to women that allow them to be such a pain in the ass. Second, the idea is immoral and just plain squicky, since it relies on seeing wo…
/r/MensRights31/12/09 07:21 PM
2

Because letting boys make a mess would make writing "relevant" for them. Yeah, promoting equality through stereotyping. GG guys.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 07:16 PM
1

Wow. The whole fucking point is that we're not savages looking for eye-for-an-eye style revenge. And you missed that completely. Fuck you.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 07:12 PM
1

So is criminalizing the mere possession of actual child pornography, if you think about it.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 07:10 PM
1

Way to miss the point completely.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 06:37 PM
1

It still wouldn't be relevant. It pisses me off when feminists try to claim everything is a feminist issue against all logic, so you can be damn sure I'll hold MRAs to the same standard.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 06:36 PM
2

Why the quotation marks?
/r/MensRights31/12/09 05:47 AM
1

Yet I've lost count of the people who honestly think they're not "radical" and yet are still fairly easily caught in some form of hypocrisy.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 05:45 AM
1

OMG MEN CAN DIE IF THEY ARE CAUGHT IN A FIRE, ARSON IS A MENS' RIGHTS ISSUE.
/r/MensRights31/12/09 05:40 AM
6

No. I don't accept that a term that specifically refers to women is acceptable for use to describe "Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes". Not when this view is pushed by the same activists who go on at length about the ugly history of certain words and insist that they can't be used (except for co-option) without recalling that history.
/r/MensRights22/12/09 04:01 AM
2

Um, what about them? I mostly see stuff to do with "socialism" as it relates to existing US government.
/r/MensRights22/12/09 01:25 AM
-1

Feel free to attempt to share the bathroom on a first date then and see how well that works out for you.
/r/MensRights21/12/09 01:58 AM
5

This is about perceived bias in the university admissions process, and/or refuting claims about bias in the university system itself.
/r/MensRights20/12/09 07:57 PM
1

Why shouldn't psychology and social science be counted as science degrees?
/r/MensRights20/12/09 07:55 PM
7

... How are co-ed bathrooms any more or less "equal" than separate ones? This is a question of privacy, not equality.
/r/MensRights20/12/09 07:52 PM
4

is something more afoot? People who don't identify as MRAs started posting more.
/r/MensRights20/12/09 05:47 AM
1

This is also being discussed in /r/Equality. I hope I gave a good summary there.
/r/MensRights19/12/09 10:06 PM
-1

I've had strangers run up and lick me, hide in the bank till I come out of the store and lick me again. That is not all guys. However, it sucks not being able to know when it will happen or not. It happens often enough for me to worry about it. Not only when I'm dolled up or wearing a low cut blouse etc... like in my sweats with my hair messy. When I'm in the city its horrible. The suburbs are not as bad. Men (especially in the gay areas) can get cat called too. And men have other problems. It m…
/r/MensRights19/12/09 06:46 AM
1

Way to miss the point. If they can determine the guilt of the remaining 94%, why can't the courts? 60% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police It is impossible to know what percentage of rapes or sexual assaults are not reported to the police. If there is a felony conviction, there is a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail. This is bullshit. A felony is a felony. There is barely any conceivable way to avoid jail time for something that, by definition, merits jail time. …
/r/MensRights19/12/09 06:42 AM
1

in the military can girls grow out their hair? They can?!
/r/MensRights19/12/09 06:34 AM
2

To be fair, "Die later" and "Less likely to acquire a disease" are almost certainly not society's fault, and "Less likely to commit suicide" might well not be either.
/r/MensRights19/12/09 06:34 AM
1

Hold on. You're saying that absent any bias on the part of university admissions staff, significantly more women than men would qualify for entrance? Or simply that more would apply? Or just what?
/r/MensRights18/12/09 06:47 AM
4

you're presuming it's her fault. Why? Because I have first-hand experience with at least one common model of "safety device" and am confident that no normal 4-year old would be able to brute-force one. Besides, the point is not that the woman was allowed to keep the child (which is probably fair); the point is that the person submitting this to MR believes that this outcome reflects a gender bias in the legal system. Why? Just because she's female and we're on /r/MensRights? No; this is not /r/m…
/r/MensRights18/12/09 01:39 AM
5

Not remotely the same thing. Don't troll. GTFO.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 04:21 PM
4

The kid broke a safety device on the door That's her belief of what must have happened. I call bullshit.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 04:20 PM
2

Perhaps "can't afford to disregard" is more accurate.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 05:38 AM
6

I fully endorse this terminology.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 05:35 AM
2

It's normal in some fields for employers to basically expect employees to name their price. I've always lowballed myself and I kind of regret it - although frankly I can't believe that my work should really be worth as much as the industry surveys suggest. Especially not when I see the work my coworkers do. Even at the good places.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 05:33 AM
1

I thought they were generally sorted by type of job (e.g. secretary) than "field" for these statistics, and that the difference then came about due to experience/specialization/etc. - basically a result of the job categories being too wide.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 05:30 AM
4

They're not "valuing women less" because they're statistically more likely to do certain things. They're valuing people who do certain things less, which in turn means women are statistically worse off. The causality is important.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 05:29 AM
1

go out together on the piss. I'm going to need this idiom explained.
/r/MensRights17/12/09 05:24 AM
1

When I was working at a software company recently, we had a seminar on this sort of thing... the woman brought in to conduct the seminar asserted that if a female courier came into the office to deliver a package and there were something she found objectionable in line-of-sight of the door, she would have a plausible case against the courier company for sexual harassment. She also talked about the legal fiction of a "reasonable woman". Which was amusing in that the few women who did work there w…
/r/MensRights17/12/09 05:09 AM
5

I don't think I've ever felt a need to actively, consciously attempt to befriend anyone. Being popular just isn't that important. If it makes sense for someone to be your friend, it will happen.
/r/MensRights16/12/09 03:06 AM
12

He means that the premise of the article reflects bitterness.
/r/MensRights16/12/09 02:59 AM
1

That seems like a bit of an overgeneralization don't you think?
/r/MensRights14/12/09 10:40 PM
1

Fair enough. Consider it directed at the original submitter then.
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:33 PM
3

There is an assumption that men's groups are reactionary rather than progressive. MRA opposition to feminism reinforces that image. Which, in a climate where feminists often are reactionary rather than progressive, puts MRAs in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:32 PM
2

Feminists have been criticized for the same sort of thinking. As brutal as this sounds, it's kind of hypocritical for an activist movement to have a self-preservation instinct. Don't complain about an injustice when you can end it.
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:28 PM
1

You're kidding, right? He was sent to prison for burglary. You're effectively equating snitches to kiddie fiddlers. I understand you're trying to be practical; but really, there's a risk he'll go back to gen-pop himself (it's not always clear who starts a fight; shit happens) and be identified falsely as a "chomo". None of this is addressing the real problem of prison rape.
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:20 PM
2

You contradict yourself.
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:11 PM
2

Um, it actually carries very real health risks to do such things. Ejaculation is generally pretty damn safe for men, whether it is into a condom, a vagina or the air (etc. etc.)
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:09 PM
0

Apparently some would rather have a hormone-altering pill than have a bit of latex in the way "killing the sensation".
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:04 PM
0

"men" and "women" rather than "males" and "females", please. No need to sound creepy and biological about it.
/r/MensRights14/12/09 09:02 PM
3

Something being perceived as being hot should not negate it being creepy.
/r/MensRights13/12/09 10:29 PM
3

They were killed because of a mentally unstable man's paranoia about such policies. Feminists exploit the massacre to further their interests; because they are activists (just like MRAs), they are by definition not acting to "keep the status quo".
/r/MensRights13/12/09 10:27 PM
2

Because they are given common human names, most of which are recognized as unambiguously male (certainly, at least in the culture where the show originated), and when female names are assigned they are generally assigned to characters that the viewer is expected to look upon negatively. Or so goes the argument, anyway. RTFA.
/r/MensRights13/12/09 07:13 AM
2

I still shudder to think of my university humanitites elective paper, in which I compared the two. (BTW, Cosmo has more female nudity. A lot more.)
/r/MensRights13/12/09 07:11 AM
3

Modern male circumcision doesn't generally involve anything that could reasonably be called infibulation.
/r/MensRights13/12/09 07:10 AM
-1

I downvoted you for your ridiculous snarky attitude, even though I would have upvoted you for your original point. Take that.
/r/MensRights13/12/09 07:05 AM
2

Fully agreed. Sadly, very, very many people out there are disappointingly, depressingly stupid.
/r/MensRights13/12/09 07:02 AM
2

Are any mens' magazines sold in such a manner? If not, why do you suppose not?
/r/MensRights13/12/09 07:01 AM
0

The customers do? How does that have any effect on the workers' salary?
/r/MensRights12/12/09 08:49 PM
4

Oh, that one.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 10:21 PM
2

So, it's clear now what this has to do with Men's Rights? :)
/r/MensRights11/12/09 10:00 PM
2

And please don't say "having a dick" or "loving boobs", nothing anatomical or anything. I want your real opinion of what the difference between a boy and a man is.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:59 PM
2

And please don't say "having a dick" or "loving boobs", nothing anatomical or anything. I want your real opinion of what the difference between a boy and a man is.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:58 PM
3

And please don't say "having a dick" or "loving boobs", nothing anatomical or anything. I want your real opinion of what the difference between a boy and a man is.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:58 PM
2

And please don't say "having a dick" or "loving boobs", nothing anatomical or anything. I want your real opinion of what the difference between a boy and a man is.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:57 PM
1

DAE immediately think of Slashdot and Natalie Portman? x.x
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:52 PM
0

you mean employer bias, right? And how do customers have that much control over what individual workers earn? Is there really that high a percentage of the work force on commission?
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:50 PM
2

Not to mention, asking for studies to make these distinctions.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:48 PM
1

That links to the subreddit. Could you link to the actual article (or perhaps even specific comments) in question?
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:42 PM
2

Next time make a self.post instead. Your commentary is more interesting than the video IMO. (Also the video is sexist in a variety of ways and furthermore just plain silly.)
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:39 PM
3

Men (and women) have a right not to grow up indoctrinated with beliefs that they are somehow "bad" because of their gender (or sex, depending on which you think is relevant).
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:35 PM
1

Link please?
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:33 PM
5

Original source. Give The Stranger some love.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 09:32 PM
1

I think the OP means pressure on the PTB to allow it to happen naturally.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 10:49 PM
1

Sorry, to whom are you referring? I don't quite follow.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 10:49 PM
1

I think you're imagining things. MRA is about empowering men to be who they want to be, just as feminism is (or at least was) about the same for women. Clearly some men want to be nurses, so MRA supports that.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 10:48 PM
2

A common thread in the responses is "YDI for calling them dingleberries". Which is bizarre considering that he wouldn't have used that term in the actual situation (wouldn't have referred to his genitals at all), but only in the act of relating the story. Logic fail!
/r/MensRights10/12/09 10:46 PM
2

Not only that, there are still annual candlelight vigils (attended almost exclusively by women) in Toronto where they sing, present the usual statistics and engage in other such "healing" activity. This is 20 years later. In Toronto. For something that happened in Montreal. With 15 victims (including Lepine himself). To put that in perspective, there were 33 victims at Virginia Tech (including Cho himself).
/r/MensRights10/12/09 10:43 PM
1

Avoidance. Noone ever taught me avoidance. I learned it for myself. I haven't found women to be as prone to it. Although it's possible they're socialised not to avoid things, I don't really know how such socialization would work.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 10:39 PM
3

Your argument would be stronger with some examples and a proper rebuttal.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 10:31 PM
1

I have been given artificial estrogen and progesterone though You're talking about birth control, right?
/r/MensRights10/12/09 04:40 AM
3

/r/equality (aka /r/women #2). As someone who used to follow /r/women pretty closely before getting banned: you are imagining things if you think /r/equality is anything like the same.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 04:37 AM
1

I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I'm capable of finding something simultaneously hilarious and in exceptionally poor taste. It's not easy to get right, though.
/r/MensRights10/12/09 04:34 AM
1

Objective evidence of social inequality, your own subjective experience of inequality, and yes, conversations with others about their experience. But they tend not to support many of the specific ways that I am told I benefit. Similarly (though less blatantly), the fact that band-aids more closely match white people's skin tone sends a subtle message that darker skinned people are not "normal." See, the thing is, I think that is nonsense. From my perspective, the colour of band-aids is effective…
/r/MensRights10/12/09 04:11 AM
4

I am in no way implying that this attitude is shared by redditors. I don´t recall any redditor actually agreeing with the article. Do you honestly not see how Dudes, don´t you read the feminism subreddit? Turns out that you shouldn´t punish female pedophiles... implies exactly what you claim not to imply?
/r/MensRights09/12/09 04:38 PM
-1

It has come to my attention over the past 20 years for example, that gay people HATE bisexuals. I have heard this expressed by gay friends and acquaintances time after time after time. My girlfriend is bisexual and thus I can tell you from second-hand experience that you are full of shit. Make this observation in front of a Liberal Fascist though, and you will be instantly branded (usually publicly and with great volume) as a Homophobe. I vote party-line NDP in Canada and thus I can tell you fro…
/r/MensRights09/12/09 03:39 PM
1

Obvious troll is obvious.
/r/MensRights09/12/09 03:34 PM
4

While that attitude may be prevalent in society, I can't say I've encountered it on Reddit. Citations please?
/r/MensRights09/12/09 03:28 PM
2

Well... I would have to check my province's laws :)
/r/MensRights09/12/09 07:38 AM
2

See the other replies for justification.
/r/MensRights09/12/09 07:34 AM
2

Um... you're going to have to explain that one.
/r/MensRights09/12/09 07:34 AM
4

What is it that says that men are "thinking with the wrong head," as though they lack any sort of deeper connection to the opposite (or same) sex as far as attraction goes? What is it that paints men and boys as willing and eager to fuck anything that's offered to them? That tells boys and adolescents that they should be glad a teacher took advantage of them, that all teenagers really want to have sex with attractive 30-year-old women, so what's the problem with that? What is it that says men sh…
/r/MensRights08/12/09 06:27 PM
4

[The term "patriarchy"] basically re-frames everything as men's fault Indeed. In my view, feminism tends to demonstrate massive hypocrisy in how it treats the English language. Sometimes it seems like they think they're the only ones who ought to be able to say what words mean.
/r/MensRights08/12/09 06:24 PM
2

I don't know about the us but in the uk women have historically voted more right wing, it's only under balir that they started voting more to the "left", (if you can call new labour left wing that is). Speaking as a Canadian, I find the UK party political spectrum - and demographics of their supporters - quite strange. From what I've heard of it, anyway. :)
/r/MensRights08/12/09 06:19 PM
4

Privilege tends to be invisible, especially to those who benefit from it. Ugh. Have you noticed how MRAs don't talk about privilege, except perhaps mockingly? When women are treated differently in the courts, it's not labelled "female privilege". I think that's because MRAs in general agree with me (although I don't consider myself an MRA) that it's a bogus notion - bogus in that it's unfalsifiable. If I claim that I don't see evidence of my "privilege", that lack of visible evidence is taken as…
/r/MensRights08/12/09 06:18 PM
4

I understand that it's not hard to find MRA sites that view feminism as the enemy. What I don't get is why I see the hostile MRA so often used to tar the thoughtful ones. And you don't think the same goes on the other way around?
/r/MensRights08/12/09 06:05 PM
2

In fairness to feminists, before MRAs, I don't think most feminists knew men had problems. In fairness to MRAs, (TIL) the MR movement can be dated to at least 1913.
/r/MensRights08/12/09 06:03 PM
3

WND? Really?
/r/MensRights07/12/09 05:27 PM
4

More Daily Mail? FFS.
/r/MensRights06/12/09 05:44 PM
2

a society that enforces unrealistic beauty standards That's a pretty lousy standard for "enforcement". After all, I've somehow managed to avoid buying a car, a TV, or all kinds of other things that advertising claims I "need".
/r/MensRights06/12/09 12:58 AM
1

... And what's wrong with that?
/r/MensRights05/12/09 05:20 PM
4

Of course, the feminist angle is that this is making Women Look Bad, and the producers should Stop It.
/r/MensRights05/12/09 05:12 PM
1

I'm not a woman and I don't think anything of the sort. I'm pointing out that there is something inconsistent about how marketing to women is perceived by society vs. marketing to men. The implication is that it's more acceptable to be upset about marketing to women, simply because set phrases exist for doing so. I suppose it could be argued that this simply boils down to the fact that the feminist movement has been around longer than the MRA movement.
/r/MensRights05/12/09 04:06 PM
5

Relevance to MR?
/r/MensRights04/12/09 08:56 PM
-4

Wowwwwww. Resubmitting to /r/worstof.
/r/MensRights04/12/09 04:07 PM
0

Ah, 4chan.
/r/MensRights04/12/09 12:58 AM
1

Linking to /b/ is a pretty bad idea, considering that your comment will outlive the thread by several orders of magnitude.
/r/MensRights03/12/09 06:41 PM
5

You can buy reusable cloth diapers. They worked fine for my niece and nephew, and AFAIK for my sisters and myself (I'd have to ask my parents though to be sure).
/r/MensRights03/12/09 06:15 PM
3

I wish I had just been born Um, what exactly happened instead?
/r/MensRights03/12/09 06:14 PM
1

Well, yes, but it seems a bit odd to criticize feminism for becoming "scattered" while at the same time trying to either (a) make blanket statements about misandry in "feminism" or (b) accept a wide range of opinions in MRA. I'm not saying that you're doing this here, of course (how would you have the opportunity?), but the subreddit at large often does.
/r/MensRights03/12/09 06:13 PM
5

Dude. My food, board, care etc. don't cost $2200 a month, and I'm an adult.
/r/MensRights03/12/09 06:10 PM
5

Read for comprehension, would you? What's there to prevent future men... Clearly, the goal is to point out that the system does not achieve the desired goals, because it implicitly provides incentive for such behaviour. The goal is not to advocate that behaviour.
/r/MensRights03/12/09 06:09 PM
2

I have no problem with recognizing a continuum from clearly-not-rape to clearly-rape. I have a huge fucking problem with saying "we're going to draw a line right here, and put everyone on this side away for X years and ignore everyone on the other side". No matter where "here" is.
/r/MensRights03/12/09 02:16 AM
2

Dude, anger doesn't get things done.
/r/MensRights03/12/09 02:13 AM
1

As a Canadian, phrases like immigration is out of control strongly discourage me from taking your side.
/r/MensRights25/11/09 06:41 PM
-1

what exactly do you find objectionable?
/r/MensRights25/11/09 06:39 PM
2

They are, but it still doesn't sound like a particularly nice way to refer to a human being IMO.
/r/MensRights24/11/09 08:10 PM
2

There are over 6000 subscribers on this subreddit, but comments rarely get past 20. This kind of ratio isn't exactly unusual for Reddit.
/r/MensRights24/11/09 01:03 PM
1

MRA should be about equality for women, too. Um, sure. BTW, I really dislike "male" and "female" being used as nouns. It makes you sound like a biologist studying humans like any other animal.
/r/MensRights24/11/09 01:02 PM
2

Notwithstanding how bad of a thing it is, I would call 10% "unusual".
/r/MensRights23/11/09 08:53 AM
0

As long as we're alluding to memes... in excess of nine times ten to the third power.
/r/MensRights23/11/09 07:37 AM
0

Downvoted for WND.
/r/MensRights23/11/09 07:36 AM
17

(Bad haircuts, well-trimmed fingernails, and cunnilingus? Intrinsic aspects of lesbianism. Fucking over your whole family? Not so much.) I guess when you're gay you get to make jokes like that. :) Seriously, though, Dan Savage is the only sex columnist I've ever really found to have a level head upon shoulders.
/r/MensRights23/11/09 07:34 AM
1

Male Circumcision is still legal throughout Canada Still legal, but fairly unusual in reality. Let's quote old Kellogg Because the reasons for doing it today are the same.
/r/MensRights23/11/09 07:27 AM
3

Yeah, because making a racist joke when we're trying to have a serious discussion about sexism is totally appropriate.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 01:33 PM
3

Schrodinger’s Rapist - the argument that all sex with male partners is rape committed by the man, and that women then choose whether or not they wish to report the rape. While the article was arguably quite offensive, I think you mischaracterize it here. By a lot.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 01:30 PM
2

Why did the kid knock on the door, he clearly wanted the sex to happen hence she got a pass. So she got an underaged kid drunk because...
/r/MensRights18/11/09 01:25 PM
5

I think he was implying that the WBB posts would stay here and the good stuff would move to his subreddit.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 01:22 PM
3

Did Franklin call them "manly" himself though?
/r/MensRights18/11/09 01:20 PM
1

That's why I'm constantly asking for citations here.
/r/MensRights18/11/09 12:21 PM
0

there are more gays than lesbians [citation needed]. gays have been and still are the major victims of discrimination and violence [citation needed]. greater contribution gays have made toward recognition [citation needed].
/r/MensRights17/11/09 06:18 PM
0

Yeah, I WTF'd something fierce at that one, too. And people taking issue with it are getting downvoted, too. The integrity of the RDF must be maintained at all costs apparently.
/r/MensRights17/11/09 06:16 PM
2

A substance usable as lubrication is hardly what you want as a sponsor for false rape stories.
/r/MensRights17/11/09 03:22 AM
2

Er, what is? Did you forget a link?
/r/MensRights17/11/09 03:21 AM
1

but guys are not taught to not rape. What. The. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
/r/MensRights17/11/09 03:16 AM
-1

Fuck you, you know that's not what I meant.
/r/MensRights17/11/09 01:48 AM
-6

Old news tbh.
/r/MensRights16/11/09 11:23 AM
1

And I care what she looks like because...?
/r/MensRights15/11/09 05:53 PM
1

Citation, please?
/r/MensRights15/11/09 02:44 AM
7

A Women Title fail.
/r/MensRights14/11/09 03:50 PM
5

hypocritical Look at the language Look at your language. Take the log out of your eye.
/r/MensRights14/11/09 03:46 PM
1

is spared jail Doing this kind of thing chronically suggests to me that she might not be fit to stand trial anyway.
/r/MensRights14/11/09 03:45 PM
1

Cool story bro.
/r/MensRights14/11/09 03:44 PM
1

Relevance?
/r/MensRights14/11/09 03:40 PM
3

Considering how much women are fighting for equality, it scares me how much they misuse their position. It's not all the same women. Many people have strange ideas of equality, too. In particular, a lot of people are happy to swap one artificial inequality for another (legal status), while railing against natural ones (tendencies in physical characteristics).
/r/MensRights14/11/09 03:39 PM
6

why can so few women manage even a basic level of spelling/grammar? Same reason so few men can. Great job making MRA look virtuous and not-at-all-about-misogyny, BTW. Not.
/r/MensRights13/11/09 09:00 AM
4

BTW, people who use Facebook seriously are dumbasses. Film at 11.
/r/MensRights13/11/09 08:59 AM
2

Ha Ha, Only Serious?
/r/MensRights13/11/09 08:58 AM
5

I see what you're saying. On the other hand, Historically, that was not the goal of feminism. Movements change over time, you know.
/r/MensRights13/11/09 08:57 AM
0

I don't really see how it's parallel. Equally silly, yes.
/r/MensRights13/11/09 08:23 AM
1

Never heard of such a thing. Sounds impossible to legislate anyway.
/r/MensRights11/11/09 10:42 PM
2

non-quota-based affirmative action What?
/r/MensRights11/11/09 08:23 PM
0

Um, yes, that's the point. The ad is seeking someone with "empathy for women's equality issues" because that's what the job involves. That successful candidates are overwhelmingly likely to be women is beside the point. Or so goes the logic, anyway.
/r/MensRights11/11/09 10:00 AM
2

"love triangle"? Wasn't one of them a crazy stalker?
/r/MensRights11/11/09 04:18 AM
0

And there are stringent physical tests for firemen. Turnabout is fair play.
/r/MensRights11/11/09 04:16 AM
3

It isn't, but AFAIK it's SOP for the police for all kinds of investigations. They are not legally obligated to tell the truth.
/r/MensRights11/11/09 04:12 AM
-3

While you have a valid point, free speech does not apply to private property. And while the distinction between "dissent" and "trolling" may be subjective, so is the definition of pornography, and that hasn't kept obscenity laws off the books.
/r/MensRights11/11/09 04:10 AM
1

Canada does not, to the best of my knowledge (and it would come as a great shock), have minimum quotas for female employment. And it's your list.
/r/MensRights11/11/09 02:45 AM
3

Heh. It's not about feeling better or worse, it just seemed very unusual. :)
/r/MensRights11/11/09 02:43 AM
1

only those who have lived through breast cancer are allowed to call themselves "survivors." Where did you get that impression?
/r/MensRights10/11/09 12:09 PM
1

Not hiring a man for their gender is fine Not in all those countries you list. Certainly not in Canada. Although admittedly the case would be harder to prove.
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:17 AM
1

Downvoted for Daily Mail plus admitted karma-whoring.
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:15 AM
-1

I see the downvote brigade was here. :/ Upvoted the rest of y'all.
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:14 AM
2

perhaps because [neglect] is so difficult to identify. And even harder to prove intent. These days, people aren't expected to know shit about parenting.
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:12 AM
2

it will never be a woman's right Er, what won't be?
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:07 AM
2

At public expense?
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:06 AM
2

She got scared and said "You're moving with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air." After all, those boys were up to no good.
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:05 AM
1

that she had given her girlfriend a bit of a beating. You don't suppose it's possible she was talking about her sex life?
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:04 AM
1

I haven't encountered it yet.
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:01 AM
8

two women in the IT department making fun of the only male in their department IT one male What kind of bizarro world do you live in?
/r/MensRights10/11/09 10:00 AM
1

I hope they at least get financial reimbursement for the whole ordeal.
/r/MensRights08/11/09 12:22 PM
7

Or it could be, you know, because insurance is a matter of pricing risk, and there are actual statistics that back up Ms. Weiss' assertion about risk-taking behaviour. (The same thing happens with the rates in Canada, BTW. I find it hard to care, personally, because I don't own a car.) But you think they'd give you credit quickly for accident-free time. Plug in some Bayesian shit and re-assess the risk given the client's history, on a regular basis. The only way you're realistically going to get…
/r/MensRights08/11/09 09:54 AM
1

Nevermind. I was under the impression that proctologists were specifically concerned with care of the prostate gland.
/r/MensRights08/11/09 04:33 AM
6

Increasing the punishment for false accusations isn't the important thing. The important thing is protecting the identity of the accused. We should be doing it for murder cases, too. Really we should be doing it for any crime where there isn't a manhunt for the suspect (i.e. the name had to be released to the public in order to find the suspect).
/r/MensRights08/11/09 12:41 AM
3

As a friend of mine likes to say, “Your proctologist called. They found your head.” This would work better if the author were responding to a man. :/
/r/MensRights08/11/09 12:37 AM
1

Those things shouldn't be "damaging" at all. If we correct your typo: is more damaging than 10 men rationally articulating what they see as the clear problems around things like date rape, gender bias in custody battles, rape accusations, prison sentencing bias, and so on. Can you not see how it reads like "10 men rationally articulating..." is still somewhat damaging, although less so?
/r/MensRights07/11/09 05:03 PM
2

GTFO spammer.
/r/MensRights07/11/09 04:05 AM
2

Things have never been equal. They're just fucked up for men and women in different ways. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison and there's no sane way to balance X amount of shit-women-deal-with against Y amount of shit-men-deal-with.
/r/MensRights06/11/09 10:44 PM
1

Is there a specific article you have in mind or are you hoping people will read everything?
/r/MensRights06/11/09 10:42 PM
1

Typo and all?
/r/MensRights06/11/09 10:41 PM
1

Er, yes. I actually didn't notice that. It wasn't what I was objecting to.
/r/MensRights06/11/09 09:02 PM
1

Fair enough, considering I'm being her devil's advocate. :) Better safe than sorry, goes the logic. From my perspective, and from Oprah's, there is no reason to make any assumption either way about his guilt. But given the demographics of Oprah's audience, if she lets him on and he is guilty, the story is almost certain to go mainstream, and it would be bad for Oprah because people will think she should have known better than to promote someone found guilty of DV. Whereas if she doesn't let him …
/r/MensRights06/11/09 08:41 PM
2

is more damaging that 10 men rationally articulating what they see as the clear problems around things like date rape, gender bias in custody battles, rape accusations, prison sentencing bias, and so on. Those things shouldn't be "damaging" at all. They're kind of the point.
/r/MensRights06/11/09 06:13 AM
1

You make overreacting look good. I have been training myself in the art of flaming people on the internet since at least the mid-90s. :)
/r/MensRights06/11/09 03:40 AM
1

Perfectly justifiable. If Oprah let him on and he turned out to be guilty, it would be very bad for Oprah.
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:23 AM
1

for the most part I like how it is right now- minus the guys that come through and say thing like "yeah get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich." Do you suppose MRAs would be taken more seriously if more was done to get those idiots to STFU?
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:20 AM
1

There is a much of a "manifesto" for MRAs as there is for feminists. IOW, ask 10 MRAs what MRA is about and be prepared for at least 15 answers. Same for the feminists.
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:19 AM
1

Er, you're talking about football or something, right? o_O
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:18 AM
1

Have you ever heard the term "ableism"? :/
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:18 AM
1

It's no longer enough to have equal pay for the same work. The demand now is for an overall equal outcome So how come "equal pay for the same work" doesn't create an "overall equal outcome"?
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:15 AM
2

"Mainstream"? Sure thing. When there's an MRA column in Metro along side the "fourth wave feminism" one, then we can talk about "mainstream".
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:13 AM
1

I assume the author meant to attribute those "cynical claims" to RADAR rather than to herself.
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:12 AM
3

It's not. They're taking extreme examples of putative MRAs to support their case. (From where I sit, almost everyone uses these tactics. Nothing to see here; move along.)
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:09 AM
1

What about the other two? do We know what they are? Did you not notice the fucking sidebar with a nicely labelled chart and red circles highlighting the figures?
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:07 AM
7

In 2008, they claimed responsibility for helping block the passage of four domestic violence bills. [citation needed]
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:04 AM
3

In a word: LOL.
/r/MensRights06/11/09 02:03 AM
2

Lord knows I certainly felt that way as a child.
/r/MensRights05/11/09 03:39 AM
3

Yeah, I did. Yeah, this sucks. More reason not to play with fire, I guess. :/
/r/MensRights04/11/09 10:19 PM
3

Entrapment has long been a factor in the enforcement of vice laws... American courts have long recognized the right of police to invent ruses. WTF. Isn't entrapment supposed to be illegal?
/r/MensRights04/11/09 09:43 PM
2

is traditionally interpreted as speech against the government This is a simplification, and inaccurate.
/r/MensRights04/11/09 03:26 AM
3

I feel guilty about laughing.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 11:46 PM
1

Relevance?
/r/MensRights03/11/09 11:42 PM
5

Um, I don't remember them portraying those archetypes at all.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 11:41 PM
6

i'm a bristol based blogger who writes stories, talks about feminism and politics and generally muses on happenings. And the blog is accompanied by an ad for a weight loss program, complete with animation of a woman getting thinner. Google has an epic sense of irony.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 11:38 PM
2

No, not really. What happens is that specific exceptions are made that tend not to exclude speech against the government. But you can still commit libel or slander, say, against a political figure, and have the charges stick. You can't say something which is both defamatory and untrue.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 11:36 PM
1

Yeah, the criminal system is taking over the school system's responsibilities, hmm?
/r/MensRights03/11/09 11:34 PM
1

Wow, that's disgusting. :(
/r/MensRights03/11/09 04:54 AM
1

Related article on ifeminists.net. She soon found herself staring down the barrel of her father's shotgun.... (then later we find out that it was mother wielding it) Neat rhetorical device there.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 04:42 AM
1

David’s wife Ruth had taken the kids out for a walk in 39 degree weather — for seven hours. “By the time she got back their fingers were blue, their lips were blue, their ears were blue,” David says. The children were soaked; she was soaked. We argued for an hour. “We had to put them in a warm bath to warm them up; they were hypothermic.” Reading this as a Canadian accustomed to good ol' deg-C is a bit of a mindfuck. :)
/r/MensRights03/11/09 04:39 AM
1

some people who still deny that is exists there are 8 people who downvoted You know, that isn't necessarily the only possible motivation for downvoting. Just saying.
/r/MensRights03/11/09 04:38 AM
3

Mitchell, of Sebastopol in Ballarat, has pleaded guilty to one count of sexually penetrating a child under 16 Penetrating? Did she finger his ass or something?
/r/MensRights30/10/09 04:05 AM
2

Don't you dare associate feminism with liberalism. The liberal/conservative axis is about class, not sex.
/r/MensRights30/10/09 04:04 AM
3

Yes, you can. In the UK (or Canada), you sue the Crown.
/r/MensRights30/10/09 04:03 AM
0

That's especially when it shouldn't be.
/r/MensRights30/10/09 04:00 AM
2

Bingo cards are supposed to be 5x5 with a free square in the middle.
/r/MensRights30/10/09 03:59 AM
5

Articles like those are merely platforms for "men's rights" organizations (Isn't that an oxymoron?) to hock their shrill, you know, reverse sexism (impossible, that would involve a huge shift of the power structure, an article for another day) and their bill of male reproductive rights. God damn, she was being reasonable up until there.
/r/MensRights29/10/09 05:32 AM
1

His initial attempt to sue his accuser for malicious prosecution failed last October after a high court judge ruled that the woman, known as AB, was not the prosecutor. Today the court of appeal upheld that decision, in a ruling which underlined the role of the crown as prosecutor in protecting key witnesses from damage claims. Women's rights groups greeted it with "a huge sigh of relief". So he should still be able to sue the Crown, yeah? :s
/r/MensRights29/10/09 05:31 AM
0

obbop is a troll, a raving lunatic, and a mindless blogspammer. Nothing to see here.
/r/MensRights29/10/09 05:26 AM
3

Fucking upvoted hard. It's actually kind of offensive what they said about Ariel, when you consider how far Disney went out of their way to soften up Hans Christian Andersen's tale so that it could be told to a modern audience without epidemics of crying children and litigious parents.
/r/MensRights29/10/09 05:19 AM
1

Of course the lunatic fringe of feminism will want all instances of rape to be classified as "hate crimes" against women. Yes, the lunatic fringe will. And those MRAs who want false rape claims classified as hate crimes are also on the fringe.
/r/MensRights29/10/09 05:18 AM
1

... did you even read my objection? I don't care what your source is.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 09:30 PM
1

The problem is that accepting the legitimacy of such contracts would tend to push for their universal use.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:17 AM
1

comfortable dismissing her ideas... Not the ideas so much as the concept.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:13 AM
2

Can't understand why you were downvoted for that.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:11 AM
1

"Touche" is not calling someone else for being touchy; it's conceding that the person has a valid point. The term comes from the sport of fencing.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:10 AM
0

"Could feminine values be an important part of the solution?" Gotta love the Cavuto mark there.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:09 AM
2

maybe the bartenders could limit their drinks to two for anyone who asks to be limited to two? At least around here, BTW, bartenders have a legal obligation to stop serving to people at some particular point of intoxication (unfortunately I don't remember what point).
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:08 AM
2

75% of rape victims know their attacker. The idea that rape happens mostly when a stranger attacks someone in a dark alley may be a myth, but the use of date-rape drugs is not. I think you're just spouting whatever statistics come to mind. If you get date-raped by someone who drugs you, I think it's not at all fair to say you "know your attacker".
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:05 AM
1

Australian lip gloss that detects date rape drug Wait, what? Source please?
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:04 AM
-1

No reason to be downvoted; you're just not really contributing anything. We all know how the law works here.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 11:03 AM
1

GHB is also something that rave kids take on purpose. Indeed. Fucktards. I was floored when I saw GHB harm-reduction info pamphlets made available at a local community center (basically the primary support agency for LGBTOMGWTFBBQ people in the city).
/r/MensRights28/10/09 10:59 AM
2

Downvoted for Daily Mail.
/r/MensRights28/10/09 10:55 AM
1

Suit yourself.
/r/MensRights24/10/09 09:35 PM
1

Yes. Lurk moar.
/r/MensRights24/10/09 09:31 PM
3

giving her attention. From Blogger administration? Big deal. Downvoted because I think you are concern-trolling.
/r/MensRights24/10/09 09:26 PM
6

The blog that you are about to view may contain content only suitable for adults mrashavecooties I see.
/r/MensRights24/10/09 09:24 PM
2

Police charged him with violating the conditions of his sentence and made him go home and patch things up with his wife. WTF?
/r/MensRights23/10/09 08:25 PM
1

Do we really need this WBB shit? Do you have a point to make about how she is being treated in the media and/or in law?
/r/MensRights23/10/09 02:21 AM
2

Downvoted for tossing in the "fat" slag gratuitously. Fuck you.
/r/MensRights23/10/09 12:07 AM
1

I won't try to argue against that, but the point was that the discussion is never framed in those terms when we talk about men.
/r/MensRights22/10/09 09:00 PM
1

One word: beer. Always marketed towards men.
/r/MensRights22/10/09 10:50 AM
2

There is no collective consciousness. I think this view is rather naive. Parents teach a lot to their children consciously, and perhaps even more unconsciously.
/r/MensRights22/10/09 10:49 AM
1

Now that is bizarre imagery.
/r/MensRights22/10/09 10:48 AM
3

I hate it simply because it advertises Axe. :)
/r/MensRights22/10/09 10:47 AM
1

"for women" with an extra price hike Such as? The only "for women" products I can think of that would actually cost more would be razors, and those are objectively different. Of course, I haven't exactly been doing comparison shopping for these products...
/r/MensRights22/10/09 10:47 AM
1

Have fun.
/r/MensRights22/10/09 10:45 AM
1

No noticeable response yet. I'm not there to troll; I'm asking honest questions, and treating it like any other subreddit, really.
/r/MensRights22/10/09 10:45 AM
2

"cock", I would say.
/r/MensRights21/10/09 11:52 PM
2

I keep hearing this argument, and 'cunt' is always compared to 'dick'. I think that's a bit disingenous. dick : pussy :: cock : cunt. (Or if you prefer, dick : cock :: pussy : cunt.) Let's compare apples to apples at least.
/r/MensRights21/10/09 11:51 PM
2

smiles at keydemographic while silently signalling assistants to put sugar in his gas tank
/r/MensRights21/10/09 11:19 PM
1

this isn't really MensRights, but i did think that this was hilarious, until i did the math and realized she was 13 when she got married. So, there are like a zillion other more appropriate places to post it.
/r/MensRights21/10/09 11:08 PM
1

Sigh.
/r/MensRights21/10/09 11:05 PM
2

The point is that it's already normally seen as going the other way, and that we need to start seeing it this way too. Wake up sheeple, etc.
/r/MensRights21/10/09 10:46 PM
1

Indeed. Could we possibly not have this in some blatantly unnecessary web2.0 format?
/r/MensRights18/10/09 06:14 AM
3

Do you really have to invent the term "manternity" when "paternity" is already perfectly normal English?
/r/MensRights17/10/09 06:49 AM
4

Downvoted for wnd.
/r/MensRights17/10/09 06:46 AM
1

The government has allowed universities to practise affirmative action since 2003. "The lawyers at the equality ombudsman have said it is illegal (for a university to apply affirmative action), and even so they have chosen not to do anything," Crafoord said. Someone's story isn't straight here.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 03:09 PM
1

Relevance?
/r/MensRights16/10/09 03:06 PM
2

Isn't it a bit irresponsible to publish an address like that?
/r/MensRights16/10/09 03:04 PM
3

I don't know how much clearer I can make this: make your argument instead of asserting it.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 01:23 AM
1

Somehow I can't imagine this ending well.
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:49 PM
1

(How) do you know it's H1N1?
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:48 PM
0

Yes, let's fight sexism by bashing cultures instead.
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:47 PM
1

Go on...
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:46 PM
3

I'm not following your logic at all. How does HPV vaccination lead to disease and cancer?
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:42 PM
1

That gave me the mental image of some kind of magical country-sized baby-sorting centrifuge. Although I suppose a centrifuge actually sorts from inside to outside... maybe some kind of reverse-osmosis membrane for Y chromosomes?
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:37 PM
1

Or even Canada. Male circumcision is far from a given here, you know.
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:26 PM
2

WTF?
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:25 PM
7

Why vaccinate girls but not boys? The authors cite several factors. First, HPV is more likely to harm girls. Second, the vaccine is more effective in girls. Third, the rate of viral transmission depends on the virus's prevalence "in the opposite sex at any given time." If girls are routinely vaccinated, there's nothing for boys to catch or transmit. In other words, boys don't have to get vaccinated for the same reason they don't have to wash dishes, do laundry, buy birth control, or think about …
/r/MensRights15/10/09 11:23 PM
2

I would strongly recommend configuring your browser to download PDFs instead of trying to open them with a plugin.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 08:52 AM
4

Troll troll is troll.
/r/MensRights09/10/09 12:29 AM
-1

The Patriarchy(TM) justifies my paranoia!
/r/MensRights08/10/09 09:15 PM
-1

Fuck Geocities. And fuck all you day-old random-word-plus-two-digit sock puppets. You're not fooling anyone.
/r/MensRights08/10/09 02:24 AM
1

How come these stories always seem to involve 5-6 accused?
/r/MensRights07/10/09 08:31 PM
3

I don't find it funny. I do find it disturbing how mad they get, though.
/r/MensRights07/10/09 04:39 AM
2

My take: Do they think women should be forced to register for conscription? No. No one should. Do they think women should have to serve frontline combat duty in the military? No. No one should. Do they think women should be held to the same level of criminal responsibility for crimes? Of course. Do they believe alimony should be abolished immediately, along with commonlaw marriage? I believe the government shouldn't be in this business to begin with. Giving people a tax break because they sign a…
/r/MensRights07/10/09 04:33 AM
7

Indeed. And good riddance. Let cooler heads prevail. Best served "cold", indeed.
/r/MensRights07/10/09 04:27 AM
1

A problem, not a "weakness" (implying a personal failing).
/r/MensRights06/10/09 09:44 PM
2

“political correctness”, a Marxist technique What? Rising to the top of a business organization is an endeavor that takes a tremendous amount of ambition and drive, coupled with a great deal of time and effort — something facilitated by a life largely arranged around achieving and maintaining this goal. An ambition and drive that, it should be noted, is not even common among men, never mind women. However, I feel it also should be noted that these things don't necessarily equate to long hours an…
/r/MensRights06/10/09 09:40 PM
1

30% of tested men. That means 30% of men who had a reason to be suspicious. Selection bias, you know.
/r/MensRights05/10/09 05:51 PM
7

Holy shit. Thanks for reminding me why I don't pay for newspapers. All of the Torstar news service has been going downhill lately TBH. Even the proofreading is much worse than it used to be.
/r/MensRights05/10/09 05:49 PM
0

...television is reserved for fat idiots eating their TV dinners, film at 11.
/r/MensRights04/10/09 06:00 AM
1

Sorry, but I must point out a math fail that you've copied and pasted from your May article. but we've also seen .004444 percent 28 out of 6300 is .004444 as a ratio, but that is .004444 * 100 = .4444 percent. Although it would be more appropriate to give 2 significant figures (the amount available in the numbers input to the equation) and state .44% .
/r/MensRights03/10/09 12:33 AM
1

Yeah, I figured that out later. Deleted.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:59 PM
1

She would just get her on misdemeanor false reporting. Is there any other appropriate charge under the local law?
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:51 PM
1

I think this is more telling.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:48 PM
6

the word has none of it is social meaning.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:43 PM
1

Where are the "feminists" Same place we are when a man does something just as bad. :/
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:41 PM
5

Sarcasm detection fail.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:40 PM
1

Wait. Hold on. This is 7 months old. How did I get here? (Oh. From following links from the novelty account I was serially downvoting. Sigh.)
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:36 PM
2

Wow, you created a novelty account just to spew even more misogynist tripe. Now that's class.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 09:29 PM
9

You are full of hate and I have zero respect for your viewpoint. The fact that you choose the term "pussies" as an insult is the icing on the cake. Fuck off.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 11:08 AM
1

I see what you did there.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 11:03 AM
3

Relevance?
/r/MensRights02/10/09 08:50 AM
-4

No. Seriously. Fuck you guys. You're making the concept of MRA look bad. Especially you, BestServedCold. Keep your slurs to yourself.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 08:49 AM
0

I've already submitted him to /r/WorstOf.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 08:45 AM
1

Many feminists argue that the problem of false accusations is so minuscule that to discuss it extensively is a harmful distraction from the far more serious problem of rape. On the other side are men's-rights activists, claiming that false accusations are as much of a scourge as rape itself. Am I imagining things, or is this phrasing identical to that in the Salon article?
/r/MensRights02/10/09 08:41 AM
2

the Canadian equivalent of affirmative action No such thing. I vote, get a lawyer.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 03:29 AM
-10

You guys are being assholes. I fully agree with Saydrah. You are making an overly broad assertion and engaging in non-productive us-vs-them rhetoric.
/r/MensRights02/10/09 03:24 AM
-2

To balance the comment I made in another subreddit: Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin and Germaine Greer are in positions of power? Can I quote you on that?
/r/MensRights01/10/09 05:30 PM
6

Danger ought to be measured in terms of risk (logarithm of probability) per unit exposure.
/r/MensRights01/10/09 05:28 PM
10

shutter shudder, perhaps?
/r/MensRights01/10/09 05:20 PM
2

This applies to all sorts of things, really, but seems especially common WRT sex crimes. Unless, of course, you're a celebrity. Then everything must be downplayed.
/r/MensRights01/10/09 05:19 PM
0

Where do you get all these reports from, anyway?
/r/MensRights01/10/09 05:18 PM
3

Which is missing the point. There are reasons to submit to a rape that wouldn't generally apply to a non-sexual violent crime. There are also reasons to submit to non-sexual violent crime, in general, that might not have applied to your particular circumstance.
/r/MensRights30/09/09 09:58 PM
2

The point was that the mere unwillingness on my part to call it theft doesn't make it not theft; extenuating circumstances may, but there are reasons besides extenuating circumstances that I might not want to press charges. Threats; coercion; emotional attachment to the person who took my car. Similarly with rape.
/r/MensRights30/09/09 09:28 PM
3

If your honestly being violated, then I think you oughta be able to muster a decisive objection, and even struggle a bit physically. You'd think so, but you haven't been there. Psychology is pretty weird, you know.
/r/MensRights30/09/09 09:16 PM
0

If someone steals my car, and I don't call it theft, does that make it not theft?
/r/MensRights30/09/09 09:14 PM
2

My girlfriend is plenty strong enough to push me off physically. Hell, she's plenty strong enough to bend me over and... Ok, maybe I just shouldn't go there.
/r/MensRights30/09/09 09:13 PM
0

We have this one already.
/r/MensRights30/09/09 07:08 AM
0

It's especially bad when you're trying to discuss something like "the psychology of hate". The more emotionally involved you get, the more hypocritical you look.
/r/MensRights30/09/09 12:34 AM
1

I was hoping someone would ask. :) It attacks inequality at the root: wealth. Money is power. If people in set X are disproportionately represented among the wealthy, or among the poor, then instead of favouring people outside or inside (respectively) the set with new legislation (which then becomes "fighting past discrimination with new discrimination"), we simply balance people out. That's the socialist way, doncha know. When I wrote "Past discrimination is in many ways responsible for current…
/r/MensRights29/09/09 10:52 PM
5

It's hard to give this article much credit when right underneath there's a link to see how to "get enviably thin the Nicole Ritchie way!".
/r/MensRights29/09/09 07:26 PM
-1

The fuck are you talking about? People take the risk of multiple pregnancy in fertility treatments because otherwise the risk of wasting the procedure entirely is too high.
/r/MensRights29/09/09 07:17 PM
4

Money can't buy happiness.
/r/MensRights29/09/09 07:17 PM
1

How is this /r/MensRights material? Are you alleging some conspiracy to spread autism in men?
/r/MensRights29/09/09 05:11 PM
3

And if by "rape" you mean "shovel".
/r/MensRights29/09/09 03:12 AM
3

Nope, alive and well. I even have a bookmark for a Geocities site.
/r/MensRights29/09/09 03:12 AM
1

Past discrimination is in many ways responsible for current inequality. That doesn't make it right to fight it with new discrimination, but it doesn't mean we can overlook it, either. We can start with progressive tax reform.
/r/MensRights29/09/09 01:15 AM
3

From another perspective... does equality ever reach 50/50 or does it bounce around even when healthy? You are talking about equality between men and women, but you might as well be talking about equality between literal apples and oranges. Many things can be "equal", but in some regards we will have to settle for "just" or even "fair", because a numerical comparison is impossible.
/r/MensRights29/09/09 01:13 AM
2

OK, actually that was off the mark. What really bothers me is this sentiment: The entire secret of male power is that men do, men have, shut up and shoveled the fuckin' gravel. Because of my left-wing political views, this really sets off the bullshit alarm: people in power are generally not people who have experience with hard labour. OTOH, I suppose it could be argued that the secret of male power is getting other males to shovel the fucking gravel...
/r/MensRights28/09/09 07:29 PM
1

It's not the buildup I object to, it's the over-generalization.
/r/MensRights28/09/09 05:53 PM
4

I can see how this is trying to make a point but... ugh.
/r/MensRights28/09/09 03:56 PM
2

I agree with you, of course. The rhetoric here is extreme. But I think it's meant in the 'if you see Buddha in the street, slay him' way.
/r/MensRights27/09/09 07:57 PM
-1

Or you could, you know, try not being paranoid, and try to accept that false rape accusations are uncommon in the same way that actual rape is. Putting aside any question of what the ratios are (i.e. what % of claims are true), and even taking the most outrageous statistics from advocates on both sides, the odds are that you will not be either raped or falsely accused of rape in your lifetime.
/r/MensRights27/09/09 08:14 AM
3

What you perceive as case (1) gets perceived as case (4) by others, for the simple reason that most of the time a man gets to evaluate a woman's appearance, he doesn't get a chance to evaluate her other attributes - because she is e.g. a stranger passing by on the sidewalk. In that sense, I would argue that "objectification" is in fact normal and healthy for everyone. If you have no interaction with someone besides seeing the person, then that person had value to you if s/he was physically attra…
/r/MensRights27/09/09 08:08 AM
6

Some of the writer's rhetoric strikes me as over the top, but the message is spot on.
/r/MensRights27/09/09 12:47 AM
10

...Dude, what the fuck?
/r/MensRights26/09/09 07:44 PM
1

And there's noone around who knows who the father was married to (or at least partnered with)?
/r/MensRights25/09/09 03:04 PM
6

Please tell me this is a joke. A sexist one.
/r/MensRights25/09/09 06:36 AM
2

How exactly does not naming the mother protect the daughter's identity when you name the father?
/r/MensRights25/09/09 06:34 AM
2

Um, what are you talking about?
/r/MensRights24/09/09 02:51 PM
4

Ima let you finish, drewhenson's girlfriend, but the number of people killed in the Holocaust was one of the greatest statistics of all time! ... yeah?
/r/MensRights24/09/09 05:26 AM
3

FWIW, I identify as a moderate socialist, and I'm here.
/r/MensRights24/09/09 05:20 AM
0

I agree in principle, but you really don't need to go calling them "cunts". Take the moral high ground.
/r/MensRights24/09/09 05:19 AM
3

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights23/09/09 03:27 AM
2

O_O
/r/MensRights22/09/09 02:58 PM
0

1) WBB much? 2) Both people involved are female. How is that relevant to MR?
/r/MensRights22/09/09 02:58 PM
1

We all like to think that skilled labour is less and less relevant today as technology marches onward. We're missing a lot of links for that to work, though. But I'm willing to let others take on those roles. I'm a scrawny geek :P
/r/MensRights22/09/09 05:46 AM
3

This is what prenups are for. Assuming you're willing to buy into any of this marriage shit in the first place.
/r/MensRights22/09/09 05:44 AM
-10

Wow, bitter much?
/r/MensRights22/09/09 05:42 AM
2

Indeed. Here we see a shining example of the flip side of the "rape culture" coin.
/r/MensRights22/09/09 05:40 AM
3

FFS. Those accused of serious crimes (rape, murder, arson) are given WTF-worthy sentences more often than not, in my extensive experience with news reports. All kinds of people get way shorter (or longer) sentences than I would have given out, from the facts in the articles anyway. To be honest this barely registers on the scale. And what's with trying to sensationalize the method of the murder? Stabbing is stabbing, and it's pretty common as far as murder goes.
/r/MensRights22/09/09 05:38 AM
2

Bawwwwwwww moar. You want focussed coverage, go to a focussed site.
/r/MensRights22/09/09 05:34 AM
1

Fair enough. How does r/feminism without the s compare to r/feminisms with it BTW?
/r/MensRights21/09/09 02:20 PM
1

Apparently it isn't pretty.
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:58 PM
-2

No, she's saying that subscribing to feminism does not imply subscribing to a set block of opinions. Durrr.
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:55 PM
-1

Reddit! Why do such trite reversals of OP claims get upvotes so easily >_<
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:53 PM
2

Because the people who start saying it already have "a few bad apples" in mind.
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:51 PM
4

No, I feel threatened because I see posts on Reddit about rape and without a doubt there is SOMEONE who says a woman claiming to be raped is probably a cheating, lying whore, so I click on that person's username and, lo and behold, guess which subreddit most of his posts are in. And those people get heavily downvoted until they figure out what's what. The real problem MR has with how rape is treated in general is the erosion of presumption of innocence, a value that our legal system is founded u…
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:50 PM
2

Anywhere you go within the MRM your going to find a mix of woman bashing and gender issue discussion. That is because most MRAs were happy manginas, whose lives were going wonderfully according to plan until some bitch played the system to fuck him every which way the Judge would cosign. So you find a lot of anger and frustration. The anger and frustration and bitterness is what often brings men to the MRM. Almost all MRM newbies, come in mad at the world, but most of them work through that phas…
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:35 PM
1

Nonsense of this sort does happen on both (all?) sides. And yes, it does hurt the cause. But there are also a lot of people around, on both (all?) sides that understand that it's not a zero-sum game or a competition. I personally subscribe to equality, feminisms, MR and women (I wasn't originally intending to subscribe to women, but a personal exchange with one of the mods changed my mind), and am happy to tell off anyone who's (from my perspective) full of it. On either (any?) side.
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:33 PM
5

LOLWUT?
/r/MensRights21/09/09 01:01 PM
1

No, not all the guys informed her; some of the guys informed her that she "most certainly slept with" all of the roommates.
/r/MensRights20/09/09 11:49 PM
3

That's bureaucracy for you. :(
/r/MensRights20/09/09 04:58 PM
5

Duuuuuuuuude, WTF?
/r/MensRights20/09/09 04:53 PM
1

The article. I didn't buy this argument when it was used against minimum wage and I sure as hell don't buy it now. The act isn't even guaranteeing pay equality, BTW; that was already implemented. It's simply giving women more of a chance to make their case. Of course, if everyone is left to negotiate their own salary, that's a different matter. BTW, I've always been mystified when feminists present statistics trying to make the argument that women make less than men for doing the same work, beca…
/r/MensRights20/09/09 04:07 PM
1

Wow. What unmitigated bullshit.
/r/MensRights20/09/09 05:09 AM
3

Worth a laugh, but I don't see what it's doing in MR? :/
/r/MensRights20/09/09 04:08 AM
1

1) This is 6 years old. 2) Feminism is generally considered to be in its fourth wave now.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 06:18 PM
1

Anyone care to explain how the presence or absence of a foreskin has dick all (pun very much intended) to do with contracting an STD?
/r/MensRights19/09/09 07:02 AM
3

If 4chan is trolls trolling trolls, surely Reddit is downvoters downvoting downvoters. While accusing each other of cowardly acts of downvoting. IOW I really don't think this is a line of argument you want to test out.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 06:54 AM
3

I assume by "multisexual" he means what is usually described as "pansexual", or at least something close to it.
/r/MensRights19/09/09 06:52 AM
3

So: Words have power, and carry the baggage of all their past usage. You can't use words like "bitch" without intending to convey the sexist ideas that underlie their history. Feminism refuses to change its label, and sticks with the name "feminism", because the inherent bias in the term is irrelevant and they are fighting for equality because they say so. Cognitive dissonance much?
/r/MensRights19/09/09 06:47 AM
2

That's quite some spin you're putting on it.
/r/MensRights17/09/09 07:01 AM
1

Anyone else find it perversely amusing that he came up with the brilliant idea to throw his daughter off Inspiration Point?
/r/MensRights17/09/09 06:57 AM
4

but I (many of you do as well, I think) recognise that the issue isn't a man versus woman thing, but more of a man versus man's perceived image (one held both by men and women). It's about treating men fairly. There are subreddits about treating women fairly as well. And subreddits about treating everyone fairly, whether they're men or women. The reason MR is necessary is for balance, so that men aren't overlooked in the equation. "Treating everyone fairly" does sometimes require that you examin…
/r/MensRights16/09/09 05:58 AM
4

So basically, extending that logic, you're saying that any claim that women are oppressed is invalid because they aren't actually a minority. Interesting. :|
/r/MensRights16/09/09 05:50 AM
2

Interesting how the reporter says that without the cameras, the officers involved might have "lost their jobs and reputations" - and doesn't say anything about criminal charges.
/r/MensRights15/09/09 11:45 PM
3

Science FTW.
/r/MensRights15/09/09 11:44 PM
2

Now that is trivializing things.
/r/MensRights15/09/09 05:51 AM
2

And by American you presumably actually meant Canadian without realizing it :)
/r/MensRights15/09/09 05:36 AM
1

That is true. However, I personally get angry when people imply that FGM is analogous to MGM in terms of what is actually done. The foreskin is not that significant to male sexuality. To be equivalent to FGM, MGM would have to involve taking a chunk out of the glans. (Although that's still not quite accurate, as the urethra does not run through the clitoris in women.)
/r/MensRights14/09/09 09:41 PM
1

Child abusers and imprisoners get disturbingly light sentences all the time, regardless of sex/gender.
/r/MensRights14/09/09 09:39 PM
2

Seriously, you guys. Way to get way off-topic and lower outsiders' opinions.
/r/MensRights14/09/09 09:27 PM
1

FWIW I follow feminisms and equality and find them to be pretty reasonable on average. They have a bias, just as MensRights does, but they are far from being circle-jerks (a term I use with full irony) again just like MensRights. I can't speak for feminism without an s, though.
/r/MensRights14/09/09 09:22 PM
3

I assume you use the term "dick-measuring contest" with full irony? :)
/r/MensRights14/09/09 09:19 PM
1

It is still the man who chose to pull the trigger. What happened to self-control?
/r/MensRights14/09/09 08:52 PM
2

I find "cunt" a stronger word than "dick". It would be more accurate to put "cunt" on the same level as "cock", and "pussy" and "dick" likewise.
/r/MensRights14/09/09 08:50 PM
0

The law doesn't work that way, nor should it. You may say that lying about rape is serious, but at worst it is libel or slander.
/r/MensRights14/09/09 08:39 PM
2

She says that the term "sexual assualt" trivializes the case. It looks to me like sexual harassment plus breaking-and-entering, to be factual. But even then, how can that be seen as trivial? Does she want it to be classified as a rape somehow?
/r/MensRights14/09/09 08:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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