TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

zap283 Archive

View 7 posts and 318 comments by zap283 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)
1

Or maybe it's possible that we accept that there will be some collateral damage when you're dealing with military powers that hide their operatives and command centers amongst civilian populations and at the same time would like there not to be quite so much xenophobia here at home.
/r/MensRights11/11/16 09:56 PM
2

I mean the man literally called Mexican immigrants rapists, pledged to ban Muslims from the country, and brought with him a Vice President who supports conversion therapy. Why, exactly, is that not enough for me to be reasonably concerned about how he plans to treat minority groups? This isn't about smug superiority- it's about the very real harm that the President-Elect can and, from everything he's said, will inflict on me and people I care about.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 10:34 AM
2

Yes, it means wonderful things for men, especially if you happen to be queer, black, latino, or muslim. Great times all around. We care about those men too, right?
/r/MensRights10/11/16 10:01 AM
1

I mean, are you going to argue that Trump hasn't said a large number of horrifyingly racist, sexist things? I think it's valid for those members of groups that Trump himself says he wants to victimize to ask Trump voters what was important enough to sell out their safety and equality for.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 09:50 AM
1

You know, she doesn't actually say anything about it being men's fault. She says "Folx who aren't cis hetero men, I'm sorry". She's expressing her condolences to the many people, not just women, who have been personally denounced by Donald Trump because of the way they were born.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 09:46 AM
4

Listen, guys. I get the allure of the salt an all, but can we cool it just a bit? I'm not here to talk about Donald Trump's policies or worthiness to be President. But the man has spouted honest to god sexism and racism the whole election long. This one is not about us. It is perfectly reasonable for people in the many groups he has slandered to express some concern about the fact that so many people were willing to vote for him anyway. I'd like to believe that people voted in spite of the uncon…
/r/MensRights10/11/16 09:44 AM
1

Still- punishment serves very little purpose. I suppose it makes us feel a little better, but that's about it. The main point is- making it a worse crime to kill me for being gay than, say, because you wanted my wallet doesn't serve to stop anyone from killing me, so it seems pointless to me, and it wastes political capital we could be spending on real issues.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 06:13 AM
1

In the situation you described, the perpetrator committed multiple crimes, and so can reasonably be charged multiple times. In a hate crime, the hatred it's just one more motive. It's no different from killing someone for revenge or money. Admittedly, I'm not sold on the idea of incarceration in general. It can't undo the crime. It doesn't prevent crime. It doesn't rehabilitate the owner. We've got to keep at it for the moment if only to keep dangerous criminals away from the general population,…
/r/MensRights01/09/16 05:42 AM
1

I understand that it's already illegal to beat or murder me. What difference does it make why they do it?
/r/MensRights01/09/16 04:23 AM
1

Probably. But hate crime laws aren't moral, and they aren't pragmatic, so I don't see the point of them.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 04:03 AM
4

As a gay man, no, I don't. I don't think we get to punish people for their thoughts. I don't think that penalties do much to protect me from beatings. Nobody things "well I'd beat that queer to death but they'll give me 5 extra years, so I better not."
/r/MensRights27/08/16 10:15 PM
3

You really continue to be completely wrong. I suspect we're not going to find any common ground on this subject.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 02:04 AM
3

You're really just patently wrong about that.
/r/MensRights16/07/16 01:50 AM
3

I'm fairly sympathetic, since so many people come to us after being burned badly by some issue or another, and there's validity to that anger. But there's a difference between that and the folks who wander in here for a safe haven from the 'PC police'.
/r/MensRights15/07/16 10:52 AM
11

As an egalitarian who's very interested in the rights of trans people, I'm surprised and saddened to see it too. This kind of humor is crass and disgusting, not to mention the fact that this comic is specifically intolerant of a transboy, who certainly falls under the umbrella of men's rights issues. Absolutely disgraceful.
/r/MensRights15/07/16 08:22 AM
3

..who on earth is out there basing their kids' allowance on the value of their labor? You just pick a number that seems appropriate, and maybe refuse to give it to them until they do their chores.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 08:01 PM
-3

Well said! Seriously, I'm here because there are issues other spaces don't talk about. I may dislike some of what's called the SJW crowd, but it's because they talk about majorly important issues, and they do it so badly. We're really all on the same side in the end.
/r/MensRights28/03/16 06:06 AM
3

"Straight" doesn't address gender identity, though. Hence the convenience of another term.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 08:30 AM
4

Sure! And so are plenty of trans people. Straight just means you are attracted to the opposite gender. It's useful to have a term for referring to people who aren't transgender. "Normal" is patronizing, "non-trans" is inelegant, and cis is a perfectly good prefix just sitting around, so it works well.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 05:15 AM
1

Yes. In much the same way that passing an HIV test doesn't prove that you're never going to be infected. A screening only tells you what's going on at the time you screen.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:54 AM
1

What the actual source says: Rates of persistence of gender dysphoria from childhood into adolescence or adulthood vary. In natal males, persistence has ranged from 2.2% to 30%. In natal females, persistence has ranged from 12% to 50%. Persistence of gender dysphoria is modestly correlated with dimensional measures of severity ascertained at the time of a childhood baseline assessment. In one sample of natal males, lower socioeconomic background was also modestly correlated with persistence. It …
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:42 AM
1

And absolutely none of the factors that contribute to the suicide rate of transgender people go away after SRS. All that we can tell from the screening irises us that there was a point in the lives of those people where they were stable. If you get low enough just once, you can wind up committing suicide. There's a while lifetime after the surgery for that to happen.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:40 AM
1

The linked OP article is about people so have undergone sex surgeries, and how they are 20x more likely to commit suicide. You forgot the rest of it. The ending to that statistic is "Than the general population". You're comparing people who have undergone SRS, who universally come from a group (trans people) which is massively more at risk for suicide than the general population. Show me a source that says trans people who undergo SRS commit suicide more often than trans people who don't, and th…
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:20 AM
1

So let's say for a moment that we don't want to dismiss this out of hand (although considering the source, we'd be reasonable to do so). There's an incredibly simple explanation. LGBT people commit suicide at a massively higher rate than the general public. They're more prune to depression and a number of other mental illnesses due in large part to the way they're treated in our society. Transgender people sometimes have reassignment surgery and the general public doesn't. Thus, of course people…
/r/MensRights21/03/16 05:48 PM
6

I dunno, generally paladin abilities are based around martial prowess. Force abilities will do mental enchantments, energy blasts, telekinesis, and divination. Additionally, paladin abilities are granted by a deity, while force abilities involve manipulating naturally present energies. Finally, paladins lose their abilities and maybe become antipaladins when they break their code. Jedi can turn dark, but deciding to stop following the code without turning to the dark side doesn't remove your pow…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 12:59 AM
17

This post has reminded me of how unpleasant it is that 'toxic masculinity' has been co-opted to mean 'a problem where some men treat women badly', when it started out as describing the small, rigid, and unhealthy ways that men are pressured to conform to.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 12:36 AM
3

Seriously. They also searched for more than twice as many female-related as male-related tags. I wish we wouldn't hold up bad science just for agreeing with us.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 07:01 AM
-4

I really, truly don't think that aiming for a diverse workforce is something to look down on, and I don't think it can't be done while also finding perfectly qualified people.
/r/MensRights15/12/15 01:33 AM
-7

..what exactly is the problem here? She didn't say anything about discriminating, she said that she had a meting and the team she met with wasn't a very diverse group, in terms of ethnicity and gender. Nobody's doing anything that affects men here, it's a simple observation.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 11:45 PM
1

Because people ought to be able to do business without having the personal information used to contact them for any reason other than that business, let alone for romantic advances.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 10:10 AM
1

The punishment is that an inappropriate advance makes the recipient very uncomfortable, and they will tend to tell people you're creepy. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's okay to do.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 09:56 AM
1

There are times when it's appropriate to approach strangers and times when it's not. After making a delivery to someone's house falls squarely into the latter category.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 09:32 AM
1

You can't possibly man to tell me you don't understand the difference between social situations where it's fine to approach strangers and situations where you just let everyone get on with their business.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 08:26 AM
2

If you don't know someone, yes, it's pretty inappropriate to bit on them as they leave their home.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 08:10 AM
3

I don't agree. It's not just unprofessional, it's something any person would have a right to be angry about.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 06:16 AM
3

I mean, I feel for the guy, having that difficulty, but that doesn't really excuse the massive inappropriateness of his advance.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 05:44 AM
1

Ah, My mistake. I read 'now report him' as a dig at internet mob tactics. Carry on!
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:29 PM
3

Well, sure it's imaginary. So are plenty of things humans come up with for comfort. People have an inherent need to believe their home is safe, and it's legitimately unpleasant of someone to interfere with that belief.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:28 PM
2

I dunno. If you're hitting on the customers, you probably deserve some kind of disciplinary action.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:12 PM
2

I really don't agree. This isn't a social relationship. This isn't two people at a coffeeshop or a bar. This is someone who's been in her home and is using information she provided not to him, but to a delivery service for business purposes. Using that information for personal reasons and hitting on someone whose home you were in for work are both highly inappropriate, and it's reasonable to feel uncomfortable in that situation. If she had given this guy her number in a social setting, or if it …
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:11 PM
5

I don't really agree with that. I'm a man and I would still feel skeeved if someone I don't know used information from their workplace to start hitting on me, particularly if they knew where I lived. It bursts that safety bubble that people need to feel exists in their home- much like being robbed, it's not the missing property that's so terrible, it's the feeling that your private space has been violated. Now this is just a text message, but the delivery driver has presumably been to the house,…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 08:06 PM
8

It's really that simple. We are better off, as a society, when we can control how many kids we have. Would it be neat if this was a 50/50 split in care provided? Sure. But we're not the ones with the complex reproductive system that can be shut off.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:52 PM
-5

You know, I'm gonna go out ona limb here and say that the humiliation of your wife leaving you does not entitle you to any money. India is not really a place where men need much more control or where women don't still need to be uplifted a bit.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:45 PM
2

Both of those comments mention that while that may be what's going on, she needs to own her problems and handle things.
/r/MensRights21/11/15 09:10 PM
0

I don't really see what you mean about the second link. Here are a few of the top level comments. This is one of those times when a little fight (waking her up with your morning noise) is actually a bigger issue (you are annoyed at her lack of initiative and worried it won't bode well for the future) I can't tell you what to do...clearly you're struggling as you've turned to online strangers for advice...but I'll Suggest you postpone that marriage till she has a job....weddings are expensive. Sh…
/r/MensRights21/11/15 07:35 PM
5

It's really very important that he get somewhere they can test for drugs as soon as possible. Make that the priority, then he can easily decide what he wants to do about the possibility of charges and so on after having time to process.
/r/MensRights31/10/15 12:38 PM
2

I guess? You don't really have any evidence for that. Even if they are fake, it doesn't mean they don't illustrate the things I described.
/r/MensRights04/10/15 02:22 AM
2

Well no, but you can see the little kernel of truth that started the "entitled make street harassers" rhetoric. One guy kept asking to touch her breasts after having been told explicitly she was uncomfortable with the request. One guy said she was slutty and acted like having a drink and then not going back to his place was leading him on. On the other hand you also see the imbalance where she feels entitled to the attention and how the creep factor is in the eye of the beholder. Interactions be…
/r/MensRights04/10/15 12:48 AM
1

Different strokes, I suppose.
/r/MensRights19/09/15 10:37 AM
9

That internet is funded by the fees the students pay for it as much as by taxpayer money.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:23 PM
7

Aaactually, plenty of us enjoy the odd straight flick, as long as the dude is hot enough. There's even a whole studio called Straight Guys for Gay Eyes' which is basically straight porn where the women are quieter and the camera's on the guy the whole time.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 10:22 PM
1

..only in that we spend more time hanging out platonically with women. It's experience, not biology.
/r/MensRights18/09/15 02:57 AM
11

What disgusts me about this article is the assumption that all gay men are fashion judging, breast-groping queens. Sure, some of us are pretty flamboyant, But the vast majority of us are nothing like what this person describes. This is one more example of 'all men must fit perfectly into some box', made even worse since it's being directed at an already marginalized group.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 08:49 PM
8

Gay men have an instinct and intuition for the female way of thinking that straight men often lack. Ehhh. People often say that about us, but it's overstated. We just tend to spend more time hanging out with women platonically is all.
/r/MensRights15/09/15 08:47 PM
0

"Top Family Judge Rules" carries the unpleasant connotation that the Judge is the one who decided the way things should be. It probably shouldn't, but it's the way most readers react to a headline about a ruling.
/r/MensRights08/09/15 12:26 PM
1

Not that I don't agree with the others here that the woman here is defending porn, but porn really has very little to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 04:52 AM
-5

Okay, seriously. We all know how shitty people can be online. People of all stripes have been known to dox, harass, threaten, and generally terrorize anybody who becomes famous enough. That's not just a feminist issue. How many times has SRS or tumblr gone on a crusade against somebody and made their life hell just because of a perception of sexism? I see this as a response to the long unaddressed issue of internet harassment. We shouldn't be decrying it because they happened to include sexism a…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 03:32 PM
2

Well, a lot of it does have to do with socialization. Just like boys are influenced to aid jobs like clerical work or being a hair stylist, girls are influenced to avoid dirty or physical labor. The same is true for many other fields, as well. The problem with women in tech, for example, is not so much discriminatory hiring practices as it is the fact that so many fewer young girls feel like it's appropriate to be interested in computers. What we can do about these things fire both sexes it's to…
/r/MensRights15/06/15 04:05 PM
1

I don't think anyone here ought to waste their time thinking about TRP. Believing that men's issues deserve attention and solutions doesn't have anything to do with believing that women are bimbos who will swoon in spite of their conscious minds anytime a guy walks past who's 'alpha' enough.
/r/MensRights02/05/15 06:40 AM
1

You insist on missing the point that he's not being investigated because he has naked pictures of her, he's being investigated for coercing her into participating. And yes, it is a PR campaign no matter if you want to admit it or not. Every time we back someone up and they turn out to be in the wrong, it damages our credibility and cements our position in the public consciousness as supporters of sexual assault. We're here to change minds, and that's the very definition of a PR campaign.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 11:27 PM
1

You're right, it is based on her testimony. That's why it's not a conviction, but a charge. Now we do due process and see if he's guilty or not, which should be as easy as checking the logs of the texts they exchanged. If her testimony is true, then it makes sense to overlook her possession of pictures of him, as she was coerced into participating in the exchange. In this case, her possession is being overlooked because she's a victim, not because she's female. If her testimony is false and she …
/r/MensRights11/03/15 04:22 PM
1

From the article: He also cites the girl's testimony that B.H. said he "would tell me what to do and how to do it," and says B.H. was more culpable because he sent the first photo and threatened to tell friends they were having sex if she didn't send him one back Look, I'm here for the same reason as anybody else, and this one incident doesn't disprove the problems in the way the law treats men in similar situations, but this one isn't the case we want to hold up as our poster child.
/r/MensRights11/03/15 03:34 PM
1

One might almost venture to say that children are not usually ready for certain things, like the intimacy and vulnerability that come along with sex.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 10:38 PM
2

Let's also remember that sex is a level of intimacy that takes a while to be prepared for. It's a moment of incredible vulnerability, and it's patently wrong to expose a child to that.
/r/MensRights09/11/14 10:36 PM
-1

I'm confused. The author is reaching for a central position by using softer language discussing a 'need for change' instead of stating that everyone agrees with her own position on affirmative consent. I never said she was reaching for common ground with us. For goodness' sake, is this place going the way of SRS regarding discussion?
/r/MensRights22/10/14 05:08 PM
-1

I understand the issues quite well, thanks, having been subbed here for more than two years. My point is that she doesn't at any point claim that there's a consensus on affirmative consent. My concern is because when we misrepresent the opposing argument, it damages what credibility we have with the general public.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 04:30 PM
-1

I understand the issues quite well, thanks, having been subbed here for more than two years. My point is that she doesn't at any point claim that there's a consensus on affirmative consent. My concern is because when we misrepresent the opposing argument, it damages what credibility we have with the general public.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 04:30 PM
-4

Your title is disingenuous. Here is the full quote: I’ve had a lot of different conversations about the University’s new policy. While there is much disagreement over the ideal policy, I’ve generally come across a consensus that ultimately society needs to change, adapt and fix how the criminal justice system handles sexual assault more broadly. The piece is reaching for the common ground that most people agree that something needs to change, even through they disagree on what. Just because we h…
/r/MensRights22/10/14 03:23 PM
1

Seriously. This is just standard gun threat language. We're not really being any better by calling it feminist.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:20 PM
1

To be honest, my personal connection with the movement is more social than legal. Though there are issues whereby men get harsher sentences for the same crimes as women, and the clusterbomb that is custody law, but those, I think, are symptomatic. The fact is, men pay a massive social cost for stepping out of the frightfully narrow confines of the gender role assigned to them. Rigid gender roles have been the norm throughout history. One day, the women's rights movement came along and explained …
/r/MensRights16/07/14 06:47 PM
1

I'm just saying the discussion is more nuanced than either "MEN DO NOT HIT WOMEN EVAR"or "BUT SHE HIT ME FIRST". There are always questions of whether the force of the response was reasonable, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 09:09 PM
-4

I'm just saying, you seem to be responding to something other than the point I raised.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 04:59 PM
-2

I'm not really sure what this has to do with justifiable self defense?
/r/MensRights11/07/14 04:44 PM
2

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 04:22 PM
-2

This is true. My main point is that it's not unreasonable to say that many men possess the strength to respond with an unjustifiable level of force when in a confrontation with many women. This doesn't mean that any force on the male participant's part is equivalent to this level, but it would be naive of us not to acknowledge it exists.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 03:40 PM
12

Ehhh that's not really true. Self-defense arguments are all about justifying the amount of force used. If a kid kicks you in the shins and you respond by punching their lights out when they posed no real risk to you, you're not going to get off.
/r/MensRights11/07/14 02:36 PM
2

I think we may be talking about different things. I'm troubled by the fact that everyone feels they must be beautiful to be worth something as a person. When people feel they are not beautiful, we respond by reassuring them that they are. As a society, we make a lot of hey out of proclaiming that everyone is beautiful. What I think we ought to do instead is to respond to a lack of confidence in one's appearance by reminding them of their accomplishments. Maybe they're not beautiful, but they pla…
/r/MensRights27/06/14 07:29 PM
1

It's just an anecdote, so it's hardly proof of systemic bias, but it's one experience illustrating how that kind of thing can happen. I can only offer my word that my friend is the opposite of tumblrina. Also, I never said she was put down or anything. There was just a generally snotty attitude towards the female students from a couple of professor, and a refusal to really include them in class participation. It should be noted that I was upfront about this being a singular example, relating to …
/r/MensRights27/06/14 06:23 PM
5

Okay, first, she's not a scientist, she's an engineer. Second, you asked for an example of how women are put off from STEM fields, and I'd say that having shitty experiences like that is a pretty good way for it to happen. Finally, this particular person is the farthest thing from a martyr you'll ever find. Her response to that kind of bullshit was to work harder, not to whine, or whatever it is you're implying she did. Every person with a complaint is not a whiner, and the fact of the matter is…
/r/MensRights27/06/14 04:06 PM
1

The Engineering program at the University of Illinois can be very abrasive to women sometimes. My friend had a number of professors who refused to take anything she said seriously or call on her to answer questions. This, they did to a woman who's been doing Lego robotics since middle school, spends her free time analyzing systems in complex games like Civilization to search for the most efficient strategies, can program in assembly, and has grades in all advanced classes like you wouldn't belie…
/r/MensRights27/06/14 03:32 PM
3

I think it's a decent point for everyone. We spend far too much time on the fantasy that everyone is beautiful, when some people are obviously not. Wouldn't it just be nicer if we could teach all of our kids not to wrap their self worth up in their appearance?
/r/MensRights27/06/14 03:14 PM
3

What on earth does what girls are allowed to wear have to do with men? Nobody's blaming men for anything. Nobody's limiting any man's freedom in any way here.
/r/MensRights03/06/14 02:09 PM
10

or act as the primary breadwinner in a household This might be a weak point. For purely anatomical reasons, there was a large period of history where we, as a species, followed the animalistic pattern of male hunters and female getherers/child-rearers.
/r/MensRights23/04/14 03:09 PM
1

What we don't support gay marriage? My bad. I forgot gay men's issues aren't men's issues.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 09:05 PM
0

My comment addressed that there might be something to look at in the different treatment he got versus the other teacher. However, my main point was the fact that when people point at the fact that men are overrepresented in the higher positions in the business world, we rightly point out that women tend to be unwilling to make the sacrifices of personal time necessary to achieve those ranks. There's no reason that a similar thing might not be happening here. Either way, it's too soon to tell.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 10:54 PM
2

I notice a couple of things here that set off my alarms. Firstly, we only have his claims, and as we all know from plenty of MRM issues, a claim is not the same as guilt. Second, we have this: Krieger allegedly forced him to coach three sports, even though his contract only required him to join two teams, according to his reverse discrimination suit. When he complained that the extra responsibilities interfered with his family obligations Krieger allegedly told him, “We all make choices,” the su…
/r/MensRights19/12/13 08:28 PM
2

I didn't say anything about the conviction rate. I just pointed out that if 8% are found to be false, that still leaves 92% not shown to be false (though not necessarily shown to be true). I'm not quite sure what you mean about the 8% figure. Could you elaborate?
/r/MensRights16/12/13 06:10 AM
2

Even so, doesn't that indicate that 92% or rape allegations are not found to be false? 8% isn't a lot. Honestly, the erosion of the rights of the accused is a far better argument than claiming there's an epidemic of false rape accusations.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 01:22 AM
9

This is a really great example of how class privilege trumps absolutely everything.
/r/MensRights02/12/13 11:32 PM
2

There is definitely plenty wrong here, however, I still think it's disingenuous to say 'feminist' is synonymous with "grumpy women in bad clothes who spend their days in a state of agitation about whether it's right to let girls play with dolls." Ideological differences are hard enough to deal with without being incendiary about it.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 07:23 PM
2

Of course nobody in court mentions anything about men. That's not how lawsuits work. You can only bring in things that are relevant to the case at hand, namely that the complainant felt they were discriminated against during the hiring process. You can't just bring in a random aside because you feel it's morally right to do so.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:50 PM
5

This is utterly unrelated to men or men's rights. If you want to revel in this kind of thing, start up an /r/feminismsucks.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 05:24 PM
1

And yet it has everything from video games to real life.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:24 PM
2

Tropes are everywhere.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 03:35 PM
7

It's equal parts 'how dare women be sexual' and 'boys are sex-obsessed monsters'.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:05 PM
0

Well, to be honest, they don't. But high school boys do.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 03:04 PM
1

I stated my opinion once, then I clarified why I hold it. I fail to see the problem.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 02:41 PM
1

I would argue that this article, which spends so much time railing against boys being 'feminized ' (a terms usually used to mean 'taught not to act like "real" men') is saying exactly that boys need to be taught how to act like a stereotypical man.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 01:11 PM
3

One hormone is not the be-all end-all of personality.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 01:10 PM
1

Outside of the issues plaguing boys in education, I don't think I agree with this. I think it's backwards to assume that boys are all 'wired' a certain way.I was honestly nothing like this when I was young. I certainly agree that boys need role models to help them understand what it is to be a man, but that doesn't imply that what they need to be taught is how to emulate a stereotype.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 12:14 AM
5

Yeah.. how dare they want to vote.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 06:18 PM
-1

Honestly, India is not the same as the US in this way. This solution looks unbalanced, but in a country in which women struggle even for subsistence-level financial independence, it makes sense.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 01:10 AM
1

Yeah, they should really stop whining about things like equal rights, being unfairly arrested, or being beaten and murdered all for not fitting the stereotype for what a man is. This has nothing to do with the way society treats heterosexual men based on the stereotype for what a man is.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 06:48 PM
-1

You're a disgrace if you think gay men being persecuted isn't a men's issue.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:56 PM
1

My god you're a disgrace.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 03:45 PM
2

Isn't the whole point of this place to remove social stigmas against males who don't fit stereotypes? What if #royalbabbything turns out to be transgender? What if he had been born a girl and been transgender? Wouldn't it be our duty as MRAs to support someone born male who is viewed as a freak because his gender identity doesn't fit his genitals? Wouldn't it be our duty to support a man who had been born in a woman's body?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 02:58 PM
4

Maybe not, but somehow, a bunch of theocratic countries whose religions specifically make women into property have way higher female rape statistics than us. Certainly seems like there's some simple ways to get the numbers down.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 03:42 PM
2

Great point. I cede that these are regarding a nuance, unlike the male versions which seem fixated on violent rape. That said, I don't know that reacting against the original posters is the best medium for that message.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 09:27 AM
2

Ah. So, yeah. Not a good thing.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 07:50 AM
12

Isn't this on par with the 'teach men not to rape" posters that paint men as violent attackers? should we really be please about using that kind of rhetoric?
/r/MensRights04/05/13 04:38 AM
2

Ah. In any case, I just meant o point out that our store wouldn't do this, which makes me think this was an employee on a power trip.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:19 AM
7

..and my store's actions so far don't include anything like this.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 01:53 AM
4

As a person who works at a JC Penney, I'd like to mention that this is not our store's policy at all.
/r/MensRights20/03/13 11:05 PM
1

Then we're going back to my original point about how we don't put societal pressure on people to manage their diabetes, or any other major health conditions.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 06:16 AM
1

That's an entirely separate issue. This is a discussion about private insurance premiums.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:52 AM
1

If you have a problem with it, then invest your own money, create your own personal health fund, and use that if you get sick. Don't be a part of a system of mutual financial assistance and then complain about having o help he other members. Furthermore, since obesity is a risk factor, they're already paying more than non-obese people.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 11:22 PM
3

What's the matter with fat acceptance? It's not like people go around yelling at diabetics to test their blood sugar.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 05:32 AM
1

The morality of each action is its own. If that research is unethical, it remains so no matter what is done with the information gained that way. That someone used that information while condemning the method by which it was obtained is a flimsy rationalization for torture.
/r/MensRights26/02/13 05:10 PM
3

I would argue that you've proposed a second dilemma, namely 'should we sacrifice people for scientific advancement'. That the people have not yet been tortured or killed changes the nature of the issue. When the information already exists, when the people have long since died, the best thing to do with information gained is to use it to ease suffering. Not only does this use fail to harm anyone, it turns the atrocity to a better purpose.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:15 PM
2

Oh I don't have a problem with the hypocrisy. They should have used the thing outright. There's not even an ethical dilemma there.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 11:04 PM
6

Yeah, he's based on Dr. Mengele. Sadly, the parallel breaks down a little bit. Mengele didn't keep records, conduct rigorous experiments, or, really, learn anything of use. Krell Moset actually did make some breakthroughs. This episode ends with them deciding to save a crew member's life with a holographic version of Dr. Moset, but to also delete it afterwards, because his knowledge came from the suffering of countless Bajorans. This is one of the few times I have ever seen the end of an episode…
/r/MensRights25/02/13 09:17 PM
1

You are correct. I misspoke the first time. It was a mistake and I hope I've corrected it and made my intended meaning clear.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:48 AM
1

'Hydrophobia' is an irrational and debilitating fear of water. 'Hydrophobic' is a term used for surfaces and materials which repel water.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:29 PM
1

Hydrophobia isn't a phobia in terms of fear, either. The suffix -phobia can be used to mean avoidance, which is the sense at work in homophobia.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:04 PM
1

I'm really not sure what you mean by that.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 12:21 AM
1

I found it homophobic. I read "the bitterness of never coming out" as 'feminists=angry closet lesbian, amirite?". Given the problems society has with gay men, I don't think homophobia has a place in the MRM.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 12:20 AM
1

I disagree. This debate has been had over Huckleberry Finn for precisely the reason you describe. Pretending nobody thought like that doesn't make the history go away.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 12:18 AM
2

Honestly, it has a lot to do with regulating a volatile reproductive system. Many women take birth control not to prevent pregnancy, but to lessen menstrual symptoms which range from mild to debilitating. From this perspective, we're talking about medical issues, which is a perfectly reasonable reason to subsidize the pill. In this instance, there isn't really a male equivalent, so I"m inclined to let the matter rest.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 08:43 AM
1

I feel like this guy is advocating a return to a system whereby a boy's sense of self worth comes from pleasing his father. This is no more emotionally healthy than measuring self worth by emotionally appealing to the mother.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 08:38 AM
6

Homophobia is a men's issue, too.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 05:48 AM
12

Dear everyone. Please look at Skari7's comment, explaining how this is not a test on believing these metaphors are apt, but rather a test on the content of one philosopher's works.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:13 AM
1

None of these things were even mentioned in the comment I referred to. Once upon a time, it was considered impossible for a man to rape his wife because she had given consent to all sex when they married. Women were once barred from attending universities. Regardless of whether they were being excused from things or not, women with academic interests were completely out of luck. And it should go without saying that women once lacked the right to vote. While these aren't our issues per se, I thin…
/r/MensRights18/02/13 03:49 AM
1

I'm not shutting down anything. I am right here, debating with you. The issue I want to debate is whether a school dance is worth our time and attention. We are, even as I type this debating. You're the one who won't engage my arguments and won't defend the legitimacy of the issue you want to bring to the floor. This, right here, what I'm doing, is every bit as much of "the courage to voice their opinions and work things out in open debate" as your position. This is the debate. I'm having it. Wh…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:58 PM
1

I've been here for a good long time, thank. As such, I think it's my duty to defend the place from nonsense so we can focus on real men's rights issues without being derided for SRS-style behavior. Also, I notice that you didn't actually address any of my arguments.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:07 PM
0

I'm not arguing for or against the cancellation at all. I have said over and over again hat I'm not delving into the issue. What I have said is that this is trivial, that this is unrelated to real men's rights issues, and that canceling a dance is a poor choice if your goal is to undermine the father-child relationship.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:47 PM
-9

Well, they were traditional ideas just past the edge of living memory.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:40 PM
0

Let's assume for a moment that this woman did, as you say, want no men to have any role in her children's lives. Getting a dance cancelled is still not 'making sure that nobody else's children can enjoy having a father figure'. These children are perfectly capable of doing so outside of a school dance. If this is the best she can do to drive a wedge between fathers and children, I don't think she's much of a threat. Again, my main point here isn't whether I agree or disagree with her, it's that …
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:36 PM
1

To be honest, I think the better option would be to simply allow everyone at the dance. That said, canceling a school dance really isn't an infringement on anybody's rights. These fathers don't need a school event to have memorable experiences with their children. No one has the right to demand a school function, let alone one that excludes people. Since nobody's rights are being infringed, I hold that this isn't a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:33 PM
-1

So while men are dying and being taken advantage of, you're going to sit here and whine about 'cherished memories'? For goodness' sake, it's a school dance. Without even delving into the issue, why is this even here? It's far, far beyond the point of triviality.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 10:52 AM
-1

This has nothing, literally nothing to do with men's rights. This is a school dance. This is the kind of ridiculous, cotton-candy bullshit SRS screams about. No one is being harmed here. No one is being mistreated. No one is dying, unable to make financial ends meet, or being wrongfully convicted. Absolute tripe.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 06:47 AM
2

I agree with this. There's a difference between the kind of radical feminism seen in this situation and straw feminists whose only missions are to burn bras and have unshaven legs while tearing down anything with men in it.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 05:39 AM
3

Yes. This was my point precisely.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:58 PM
1

Indeed. I meant to address your first point when I said that this is a great analogy for what happens when people give tips to prevent rape. The second part was fine, so I didn't feel the need to address it. At the time, I was worried mostly about how the first part looks to bystanders.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 08:27 PM
13

This is gross. If someone has been raped, they've been raped. This is a great analogy for what happens when somebody says people should try and be responsible to prevent rape. But once a person has been raped, the crime is committed and they are a victim. It doesn't do anyone any good to blame a victim for the crime committed after the fact, and it's cruel.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:22 PM
2

Indeed. Source-checking is my usual reaction to interesting news. Though, with traditional media, the lack of citations makes this difficult, so it tends to be more of an aggregate search than a source-check.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:16 PM
6

Trouble with wiki is that people are citing it, the tertiary source, instead of hunting down the secondary and primary sources it cites. You don't cite an encyclopedia, either.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 02:05 PM
8

ah. thanks!x
/r/MensRights11/10/12 04:50 AM
7

I'm confused. What's the matter with kotaku, gizmodo, lifehacker, and io9?
/r/MensRights11/10/12 04:30 AM
1

this post boils down to 'people who disagree with p are idiots. Therefore, p.'. I think we're about done here.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:48 PM
2

Eliminating pieces of culture is not identical to retarding culture. Let's look at other pieces of culture we've eliminated over the years. Slavery, Nazism, genocide (in some nations), crusades, Jim crow, and colonization (for the most part) all come to mind. Is the dance anywhere as bad? No. But these things show conclusively that removing something from our culture does not, in itself, retard society. To answer your question, no. A club does not have to do those things. A club is a group of st…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:47 PM
2

A women's changing room in a gym is in a private business. I (along with most of the MRM) don't think battery shelters should discriminate based on gender. Gender-segregated restrooms stem from the traditional idea of separating the sexes for the sake of chastity, from the idea of men as sexual predators, and from women feeling uncomfortable being exposed near men. These things need to go just as badly as anything else, though attacking the restrooms themselves should probably be lower on the li…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:39 PM
2

Quite possible. If that's the case, then those interested should b allowed to attend this event to avoid misallocating resources.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:35 PM
2

They either have to make it all-inclusive or they have to put the same resources into an alternate event. Again, please provide proof that making things inclusive "retards society"
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:34 PM
1

You're avoiding the question. You have presented nothing that is being hurt by the presence of mothers and sons. And no, you don't have to include eeveryone at every event ever unless you are a public service. No, schools cannot have a christmas celebration. No, they cannot have a Rosh Hashana celebration. Not a kwanzaa celebration, ash wednesday, or any other function predicated on belonging to a certain group. You might point out football team events of marching band events, but those are not …
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:33 PM
2

Life may not be fair, but there is no reason on earth that public services can't be. You have not responded to the question. What is your proof that public services are allowed to be exclusive based on a person's gender?
/r/MensRights19/09/12 08:20 PM
1

Fair enough. If your statement only meant for them to dance at a father-daughter dance, then I retract my argument, as I was arguing against a strawman. That said, that it is strange for a mother and son to dance at such an event belies the exclusivity of that event. You don't claim that the event is not exclusive. In order to justify these dances, you must prove that public services are allowed to exclude people based on their gender.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:35 AM
-2

But there isn't one, now is there? One can be provided, or the existing event can be made all-inclusive. These are the only ways to avoid excluding people.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:33 AM
3

Has one been planned? Is it a part of the academic calendar in the way that the father-daughter dance is? Are there resources devoted to it like for the father-daughter dance? You get two options: either allow everyone at one dance or create an equivalent alternative. Also, please provide evidence that society is worsened when things are made fair. That's a pretty hefty claim. Also, take a look at the edit in my post.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:31 AM
6

You, yourself, stated that it doesn't make sense for sons to dance with their mothers the way it does for daughters to dance with their fathers. The gender roles at play here are: Boys as powerful and independent, who should be more interested in courting females of their more youthful age and shouldn't display affection for their mothers Girls as fragile things that should enjoy dancing with their father, who is a non-threatening male, and must protect them from younger males, who the girls sho…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:28 AM
4

There's a difference between competition-based acheivments which have measurable, ability-based distinctions and exclusive events. You are not allowed to exclude people from public functions. EDIT: To reverse your own question at you: what does it hurt to make it a parent-child dance? Why don't you just let mothers and sons in? There's nothing stopping the fathers and daughters from dancing if the mothers and sons are there.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 06:24 AM
1

First Lord? It does seem to be an old aristocracy holdover.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 05:11 AM
5

Because it's a public school event. When you're a public service, your functions have to be all-inclusive. These are the rules. Picture this from the other side. If it were a mother-son only event, we, as MRAs would be rightly appalled. It's inconsistent and biased to take a different position with the situation reversed.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 04:42 AM
2

Because you don't get to exclude people. I will absolutely not stop being against traditional gender roles. They're exactly why men are viewed as disposable workhorses. The issue here is that you don't get to exclude people from a school-wide function. You don't get to have a prayer. You don't get to have a <race> only dance. You don't get to have a dance just for daughters and fathers. It's that simple.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 04:40 AM
4

Aren't they? wasn't a girl prohibited from attending? Why don't they just include everyone? Why not convert them int 'parent child dances'?
/r/MensRights19/09/12 04:22 AM
5

It just doesn't make much sense for mothers to dance with sons at a father-daughter dance This is exactly the kind of gender role nonsense that creates men's rights problems.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 04:20 AM
2

Hang on a second. Wouldn't we be on the other side if this was a mother-son event?
/r/MensRights19/09/12 04:19 AM
12

Mostly, yeah, but some of these are pretty douchey. Blocking attorneys, hiding assets, and wreaking havoc on the schedule of court proceedings are all really quite unpleasant. On the other hand, they're not specifically male tactics.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 08:22 AM
9

I'm endlessly amused by the fact that 'It's a fuck-ing song' matches up perfectly with 'I don't think you do".
/r/MensRights17/08/12 01:26 AM
1

This is absolutely true. My friends went to MBLGTACC, which we refer to as the Big Gay Conference a couple years back, and told me (being in a polyamorous relationship myself) that there was a guy there who had come out as poly to his other gay friends. Apparently, they yelled at him and angrily told him he was 'hurting the movement'. They actually went up to him and did the sympathy thing, what with knowing me and all. Tl;dr the gays among us sometimes spend a lot of time worrying about how the…
/r/MensRights16/08/12 12:40 PM
8

Domestic violence is actually a colossal problem in the LGBT community. We tend not to deal with it because we're busy trying to make everyone think we all have these perfect, wholesome relationships.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:58 AM
3

Ridiculous. Keep crap like that out of here.
/r/MensRights16/08/12 08:56 AM
1

We don't need population growth, but a declining population leads to problems like we're facing now with the aging baby boomers.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 03:50 AM
1

No. No one pointed it to the OED. That link does not appear in the code, other than as an entry in google's database of indexed sites. The pagerank algorithm makes that choice based on a number of complex criteria including clickthrough, site traffic, and the network of links between the site in question and others.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:14 PM
1

There's not a person making the decision; it's just a search algorithm.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 04:46 PM
2

Generally, yeah. Sometimes they're too self-absorbed to see the harm in it, and sometimes they feel there's something wrong with the parent.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 01:16 PM
2

NOt at all. It simply happens that most kidnappers are family members.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 01:15 PM
3

I'm really confused why everyone seems to think I'm talking about anything but the claim that kidnappers won't just be at the grocery store. Of course that was ridiculous of her. I'm not talking about that.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 11:01 AM
11

It's really a complicated issue. We have to have children to maintain our population, and it's paradoxical to ask someone to have children at the expense of their job. On the one hand, it is a choice, and your employer isn't responsible for that, but on the other, disincentivizing healthy, stable, middle-class people from having children is disastrous for society as a whole. In this case, it's probably best to just protect maternity leave and fight for paternity leave as well. Paternity leave le…
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:38 AM
13

..yes.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:31 AM
12

..I'm not really sure why you think I'm contesting anything.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 01:26 AM
18

Oh, absolutely. Just pointing out that stranger danger isn't as much of a thing as it's made out to be.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 01:18 AM
22

Well, certainly. I'm just pointing out that you may well see kidnapped children at the store with their kidnapper.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 12:55 AM
24

Yeah. To put it ore in a Men's Rights context, it's very common for one of the child's parents to be the kidnapper, and the mother can more frequently get away with it. Both sides of parental kidnappings are more common in situations involving separated parents, and this tends to leave the other parent with little to no recourse, as it can be difficult to find the other parent
/r/MensRights14/08/12 12:54 AM
53

Well, kidnappers really will. The most likely kidnappers are family members, who take the kids, run off somewhere, and then just start living their lives like normal.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 11:50 PM
2

Right, but google didn't make the mistake. Google can only censor the results. If you want to ask them to fix the mistake, talk to the OED.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 11:41 PM
3

Generally, such things are decided by pagerank. Google doesn't drive content, it only serves it up to us. If we ask them to block out what we find offensive, we'll find them blocking us out down the line. Censorship is censorship. What we can do is to contact the websites who do drive this content and let them know their content is offensive.
/r/MensRights13/08/12 11:06 PM
2

What's good is excellent! What's not is pretty bad. Though it's sort of a crapshoot as to who agrees. The MRA is one of the few places I find myself and conservatives on the same side.
/r/MensRights09/08/12 01:16 AM
3

It's a good article, but not a great one. Mixed in there are some really weirldy backwards notions like the idea that having multiple sexual partners is 'immoral' and that liberalism is to blame for everything. Still, it makes some very nice points.
/r/MensRights08/08/12 07:18 PM
2

Still, we can lessen our PR problems
/r/MensRights24/07/12 05:18 PM
9

We should, perhaps, be cautious about comments like these. They tend to be quoted out of context.
/r/MensRights24/07/12 04:52 PM
7

On the other hand, we do legally divorce children from much of the responsibility for their actions, and as a result, their ability to defend themselves or to seek help in a bad situation without their parents' help is pretty minimal. In such a situation, it makes sense to at least look into every case and to be skeptical of the statements of the accused parents. Within reason of course. Perhaps more chillingly, the child role is the one that solicits this kind of protection and the one that req…
/r/MensRights21/07/12 08:50 AM
2

I actually like the idea of safe spaces in general. The sexes are very different, so it makes sense to have some groups that exist for the purpose of communicating in he same way and being able to let your hair down, so to speak. That said, these spaces really ought to exist for men, too. I don't think that the point of women-only spaces is to get away from men because they are harmful, but because it can be comforting to be in a single-sex group for certain discussions. In this context it makes…
/r/MensRights12/07/12 04:33 PM
1

Fair enough!
/r/MensRights10/07/12 10:43 PM
5

Common sense is frequently neither. This is exactly the kind of thing that the human brain is awful at (I know lots of bad women drivers, so women must be bad drivers). I'll beleive it when I see a few peer-reviewed studies instead of people saying 'it just makes sense'.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 10:29 PM
-1

Honestly, since you have to have segregated teams, it seems pretty balanced to me to be allocating the funding half and half. It's a limited resource, so expanding one half means, by definition, the other half has to reduce. Not spoiling for a fight or anything, just my two cents.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 10:27 PM
4

The only citation in this article is "in studies". That makes me skeptical. :/
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:55 PM
0

What's the big deal about title IX, exactly? That one seems pretty much to be a balanced policy.
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:54 PM
6

Source?
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:32 PM
3

This policy is just weird. What is even the point of it?
/r/MensRights10/07/12 08:32 PM
1

This is really a bit simplistic. It has a lot more to do with women's expectations than it does with the many issues affecting men. While it's related, I think it's much more productive to focus on other issues.
/r/MensRights08/07/12 07:07 PM
1

The paradox is the rights thing, not the situation, which is difficult, but solvable, as you say.
/r/MensRights03/07/12 04:52 AM
2

It's a tricky subject. I can't remember where, but I once read a blog post about how people have rights to things, like love, friendship, intimacy, touch, and sex, that no one else can ever be morally compelled to give them. It's a really difficult paradox.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 11:45 PM
1

I don't know if that's exactly weaponization, as anyone ought to be able to say no at any time, but certainly it's incredibly unrealistic to expect someone to stay with you if you're not planning to address their intimacy needs.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:16 PM
3

To be fair, these are all common white lies people tell to everyone, and usually for the reasons described. It's way easier to tell someone I'm on my way than to describe in detail the things I need to do that are causing my lateness. I think the real issue here are things like "Remember, men aren't as good at communicating as women are." The funny thing is, a guy will toss this line out even if what held him up is perfectly legitimate. Still, you shouldn't let it slide - it's a lie nonetheless.…
/r/MensRights02/07/12 07:14 PM
4

I'm.. not sure what your point is, but I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with the literal interpretation.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 08:28 PM
6

I'm not sure if you mean to, but that does sound kind of sexist there. Are you talking about societal attitudes or telling me yours?
/r/MensRights29/06/12 08:21 PM
55

Interestingly, it's used in both cases to call out deviation from gender norms. A female bitch is loud, harsh, rough, and aggressive, while a male bitch is weak, innefectual, or impotent.
/r/MensRights29/06/12 08:18 AM
-2

PErsonally, I'm pretty okay with the ehalth care law. Is it what I wanted? No, in most ways. But it's a major change in health reform, and we haven't been able to get one through in decades. This is law that lets us pass all the other health care laws. If they strike down this law, then, wen it comes time to pass all of those things in it for men, the fight will be that much harder. Now, there's no reason in my mind that women don't deserve those things, it's just that men deserve them, too. So …
/r/MensRights28/06/12 08:00 AM
1

Unfortunately, Money, unlike civil rights, is a zero sum game. Yes, that we have forced schools to create equal sports oppostunities for female students (and these opportunities cannot exist any other way) has caused a reduction in men's sports funding and opportunities. Talk to me when we dip below even.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:17 PM
2

Dear god, this. Not what they're there for.
/r/MensRights24/06/12 12:14 PM
2

They mean that if you adopt the mentality that it's okay because everyone else does it, even if it's something you don't like, no one will ever change that behavior.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 11:22 AM
1

If we're being technical, it's Calories. We measure food in kilocalories, which we then capitalize for I don't know what reason. /pedantery
/r/MensRights14/06/12 12:22 PM
2

I agree with this, particularly the converse that family is a privilege, not a right.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 10:42 PM
13

Agreed. As the instructor, it was her job to shut distractions like that down. When a question doesn't benefit the entire class, you ask them to wait until you have time to answer individually. That said, she does call for more women-only groups, and there's a disconnect between these two things. Note how she conveniently forgets about the male student who caused no problems whatsoever.
/r/MensRights10/06/12 10:30 PM
2

There's not a huge amount you can say to them. That kind of front is something men are heavily encouraged to put up. It's a similar concept to the idea that women shouldn't do anything that isn't dainty and 'ladylike'. Pointing this kind of thing out to a man who says things like this is likely to be interpreted as an insult to his masculinity and things will go sour quickly. What you can do is to be part of the solution by refusing to foster the stereotype, which you're already doing. So, in co…
/r/MensRights09/06/12 08:43 PM
1

..who agrees with me, adding to my confusion.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 10:20 AM
2

I'm not sure who IG is, so I can't read his reply. But adultery is a necessary condition for cuckoldry to take place, and, though the end goal of the social controls under discussion is to prevent cuckoldry, they do so by preventing adultery. Preventing cuckoldry without limiting the opportunity for adultery requires an ability to determine paternity. Preventing cuckoldry by limiting the opportunity to adultery requires being able to know that the mother has never slept with anyone else.
/r/MensRights08/06/12 12:11 AM
1

Your question seems loaded to me. No, I don't, but adultery is requisite for cuckoldry, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 09:19 PM
2

Totally agreed. I'm really happy about this, but the rest of the site makes my skin crawl.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 03:16 PM
4

I remember reaching the conclusion that legal paternal surrender was an important concept back in high school, and things kind of continued from there. I stumbled girlwriteswhat at some point and that led me here.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 03:12 PM
17

I think what's being said is that, as a result of the desire to be certain that the children are one's own, strict social controls have historically been imposed on women to limit their opportunity for adultery. Thus, quick and easy DNA testing ought to be a feminist cause, as it erases one contributor towards sexism against women.
/r/MensRights07/06/12 12:20 PM
7

There's a decent amount of difference between the Beckham commercial and these two. The Beckham spot has him surrounded by a number of women demanding, rather predatorially, that he take his shirt off for their ogling. These ads portray a strong, vibrant woman wielding her sexuality as a tool in order to get what she wants, whether that's more customers or something as silly as her fast food order. These ads show female sexuality as powerful and male sexuality as subject to womens' approval, as …
/r/MensRights05/06/12 09:04 PM
1

I do not, no.
/r/MensRights03/06/12 11:16 PM
2

I think it's important to note that there's an awful lesson for the boy in here, too. As a male, he doesn't have any negotiation or conflict resolution ability. He just has to punch people when there are problems.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 09:44 PM
0

That's kind of gross.
/r/MensRights02/06/12 09:42 PM
1

It was facebook
/r/MensRights02/06/12 09:42 PM
1

The teacher stole ~$8.00 worth of food and was fired from her job even after the charges were dropped. The damages are silly, but it hardly seems that it's the school's right to punish their employees in this way.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:43 PM
1

Right? It seems to me that this is exactly the kind of thing we should teach our children.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 10:34 PM
0

I honestly think its worth keeping them around as examples. It's helpful to have them handy fore when someone asks for proof of misandry.
/r/MensRights21/05/12 12:06 PM
1

That's an excellent point and I have no way to rebut it. Consider my opinion flipped.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 10:10 PM
2

But consent isn't just needed once. If you change your mind halfway through, there is no longer consent on your part. If you think that intoxication removes a person's ability to consent, then this poses a problem, as such people would argue that a person who drank more after the test wasn't able to continue giving that consent. I do not think that willful self-intoxication provides grounds for rape, but I do accept that consent is a continuous thing, not something that covers an entire experien…
/r/MensRights13/05/12 07:17 AM
2

Not at all. I just meant to point out a flaw in the proposed system. Others have said all the rest better then I could.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 07:14 AM
4

I disagree. She's saying that this is a nice thing to do; it's a favor. That's different than an expectation.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:54 PM
2

Unfortunately, you only get that one timestamp. This doesn't prove that that was the time you had sex, nor does it prove that no additional drinks were consumed between the test and sex.
/r/MensRights12/05/12 09:51 PM
8

I'm gonna disagree with her on the concept of government assistance in general, because I'm a dirty socialist, but she's spot on about the fact that this is not empowerment. Additionally, those slides could just as easily apply to a man.
/r/MensRights06/05/12 09:06 PM
1

Why does this have a negative score? It's an important observation.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 07:48 PM
0

In my discussion on the subject, I found no one really playing up the intoxiation angle (although they were smoking pot, not drinking). It had a lot more to do with whether or not her partner should have ensured that she said explicitly 'yes'. The objectification I see here is that it removes from women the responsibility, and with it the agency, of making their wishes known.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 07:46 PM
-2

Ah. Thanks for this tip. I will do this form now on.
/r/MensRights24/04/12 12:09 AM
1

I found this on a friends facebook wall. Nobody's really playing the intoxication angle, but I thought it would be a good chance to talk about this definition of rape. I do not agree with this as a definition for these reasons: In a trial, this boils down to the complainant's word versus the defendant's. In such situations, we must err on the side of the defendant. This definition teats women as object, to which sex simply happens, rather than as agents, who are capable of and responsible for ex…
/r/MensRights23/04/12 10:52 PM
9

Perhaps a slight edit is in order; you're looking for a graphic designer.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 03:50 PM
2

I'm also interested in this subject. It seems to me that it would be difficult to quantify pleasure. We have the number of nerves to go on, but I don't really know how thorough our understanding of the nervous system in this area is.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 04:04 PM
2

I'm afraid I'm in too much of a rush at the moment to find you hard numbers, but what's generally regarded as the problem of bias in the courts is that men tend to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes. Hopefully someone can back me up here with some links, else I'll have to come back later.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 03:53 PM
0

While I agree that anti-male bias in the court system is an important issue, I'm not sure that applies here. It doesn't seem to me that he's been disenfranchised because he's a man. It seems to me he's simply been wrongfully convicted by an altogether incompetent court.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 03:51 PM
15

Sir(madame?), you are my hero. No matter what kind of argument is being had, this cannot be said enough.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 02:06 PM
0

This is incredibly tragic, and my heart goes out to Mr. Cook, but is this particularly a men's rights issue? It seems to me that the court was simply incompetent.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 01:47 PM
1

This is, perhaps a bit broad. Maybe it would be better to stick to the appeal to authority when discussing this argument, particularly as feminist groups had no objections when people assumed the SPLC had called us a hate group. Only when we bring up that it's not the case do they quibble over what the SPLC actually said.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 03:29 AM
2

MRM opponents have been bringing up the fact that the terms 'hate site' and 'hate group' were not used, and the SPLC simply included us as a list of misogynistic websites. Their reasoning goes that we are attempting to play semantics in order to distract from allegations of misogyny. This is a good opportunity to discuss ways to deal with that argument. Thoughts?
/r/MensRights18/04/12 09:24 PM
0

To be fair, she's just asking people to help make a difference in what she feels are important causes. She never asked men to "clean up" and "put on a suit". That was part of a hypothetical. Let's try and be focused and keep our criticism on more damaging articles.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 12:29 PM
2

I think she mans that if a poor white man puts on a nice suit, it becomes difficult for a passerby to distinguish between him and a wealthy white man, while other groups retain their otherness.
/r/MensRights16/04/12 12:26 PM
1

Now, in fairness, “creep shame” can be a useful term to have, as feminist authors that I respect, such as Amanda Marcotte in this piece and Clarisse Thorn in this piece, have noted. The word “creep” and “creepy” are primarily used as gendered terms against men. It’s not hard to see why: Generally speaking, men are considered the “hunters” on the dating scene and therefore, as Marcotte notes, male sexuality can be “constructed” as predatory. Men want to be considered manly enough to hunt for wome…
/r/MensRights14/04/12 01:03 PM
1

See my comment, below.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:51 PM
1

That's certainly true! But there's plenty of issues where we disagree with what the law says, too. I'm honestly looking more from the moral perspective than the legal one at the moment.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 06:19 PM
-1

There's a part of me that feels that he consented to the possibility of these embryos coming to term at the time of fertilization. I certainly don't think he ought to be forced to support this child, but I don't think I'm against her having the right to use the,.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 05:55 PM
2

Sorry. I didn't mean to come off as insulting, but I really think that person was simply asking. Sometimes that kind of thing gets lost in translation to text.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 09:52 AM
1

I am not defending feminism. I am defending a single person who has been nothing but pleasant in this thread. Say what you will about feminism, but don't be cruel to this person right here because she has done nothing to earn your scorn. Say she's ignorant. Say she's wrong (and provide citations). But don't sit here wasting your energy being mad at someone for asking you to be polite. I don't care what you've done for 20 years. Until you show me evidence that this person, right here, means us ha…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:46 AM
2

You might be referring to my comments in a different thread of this post. This thread is about courtesy, and I take the firm stance that everyone deserves it. If you don't like someone's positions, tell them so, but don't be unpleasant about it. Furthermore, I hear you going on and on about what feminists did/do/are trying to do. I haven't heard a single thing about this person, other than what you assume because she says she's a feminist. Prejudice is prejudice, and I don't want it poisoning th…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 01:41 AM
0

Here is an interesting report on child custody law in the US. The section beginning on page 16 is relevant. [Here}(http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1928&dat=19830322&id=I10gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hWQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1465,4019125) is an article on the subject relating to a situation in Maine.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 12:24 AM
4

Whoah, now. Let's all of us calm down. We've got kind of a breakdown of communication here; tone is difficult to convey via text. A cursory google search for various permutations of feminist, lobbying, and alimony doesn't return much. Could you suggest where that information could be found?
/r/MensRights03/04/12 12:20 AM
2

I am not a white knight. I am not here to defend feminism. I am not here to right some grave injustice. I am asking for common courtesy to be a part of a movement I consider vital to my society. Surely you have felt the sting of being judged just for being an MRA. Why on earth would you want to do the same to someone else? It doesn't matter what other people have done; this person has been nothing but polite. And if we're going to call ourselves activists, than it is our job to educate people, n…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 12:12 AM
2

I don't much care about your experience. This particular person, regardless of affiliation, has shown nothing but an interest in understanding us better. It sets us all back whenever one of us treats someone poorly.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 12:08 AM
1

What's more, she's an atheist. Worldwide, you'd be hard-pressed to find a group so universally distrusted and despised. She's pretty much none of the things one generally has to be to be a politician. Obama's only peculiarity is his race.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:32 PM
2

This person came here and asked, quite specifically, for the proof of the claim. She is clearly not familiar with the information we have here, or where else to go to find information about the MRM. She is here to learn from us, so why don't we point her in the direction of the information she needs instead of calling her stupid?
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:22 PM
3

Oi. First off, I am neither a feminist, nor a woman. Second, there's a jump from 'I have problems accepting feminists as allies' to 'therefore, everything feminists say is a lie'. Yes, there is a good supply of pigheaded feminists out there, but if we sit here and throw tantrums at the ones who show up with an open mind, wanting to learn about us and our issues, we're only fanning the flames. Politeness is not impotence, it's common decency.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:20 PM
1

Here, I made you a nice syllogism. All people who make inflammatory arguments and change their argument when it is defeated are people who are trolls. diana101 is a person who makes inflammatory arguments and changes his or her argument when it is defeated. Therefore, diana101 is a person who is a troll. QED
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:15 PM
2

No, but it does include that. Men have the right to be whatever kind of people they want to be, and should be free from being taught, as children, to affect certain behavioral modes based on their gender.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:11 PM
2

This. I'm gay, involved in groups, and it irks me to no end when LGBT groups co-opt random stories for the press attention. It's not helpful, it's just a grab at the limelight.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:10 PM
3

When was that said? The post you're responding to merely (and rightly) states that feminists will continue to vilify us as long as we do the same to them, and that's in nobody's best interests. Why do we have to sit around engaging in ad hominems? Why don't we direct that energy towards substantive changes to systemic problems, rather than bicker over the character of other groups?
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:04 PM
3

strategically, feminists acknowledging and welcoming the MR perspectives is never going to happen if feminists continue to be demonized by the movement. It is certainly a two-sided issue, isn't it? Essentially, there's just quite a lot of mistrust on both sides.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 09:58 PM
2

This is closer, but why don't we try actually linking to those answers? It's not beneath us to support our claims, even if we've done it before.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 09:56 PM
3

The trouble is this. We've had quite a lot of time with feminism, and it's created a lot of good things for women. The trouble is that once in a while, it has done so to the detriment of men (see: emphasis on girls in schools and female-oriented learning styles and outrage over idealizing media coverage). The trouble with this approach is that it does treat things as a zero-sum game. Rather than increasing everyone's well-being, it simply shifts power around. What's more is that academic feminis…
/r/MensRights02/04/12 12:33 PM
2

This isn't productive. Bring citations, please, or don't make the claim.
/r/MensRights02/04/12 12:09 PM
1

Ah. I was unaware that VAWA contained provisions specifically related to ongoing violence. Thanks for the clarification!
/r/MensRights02/04/12 10:23 AM
1

I'm not entirely sure what else t would refer to. Thoughts?
/r/MensRights31/03/12 08:49 AM
9

As a question of clarity, what do standard anti-assault laws fail to do that necessitates a law specifically regarding violence against women?
/r/MensRights31/03/12 07:38 AM
1

The qeustion is, is he obligated to help, or is it simply a good thing to do? If we cannot compel him, he is not obligated and thus, not worthy of the level of scorn shown to him.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 09:14 PM
1

Good point on the last portion there. Where, then, does this man's responsibility begin and end, and how do we go about enforcing it?
/r/MensRights29/03/12 05:21 PM
4

From this limited exposure to her position, It's my understanding that Ms. Wolf would simply rather there be no militaries anywhere. Nice though, but not terribly pragmatic.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 02:44 AM
2

First, I quite agree that calling the cops would have been an appropriate response. Second, 'let's say' is a prepositional phrase usually used to set up a hypothetical situation. You did not argue that restraining these children could have resulted in consequences, but I did. I will also argue that while calling the police would have been a nice thing to do, it's not his responsibility. A good question to be asking is 'where were this girl's parents?'. They are the only people who have an enforc…
/r/MensRights29/03/12 01:05 AM
2

I beleive the point makomk was making was that we treat trans people as their birth gender, even after transitioning.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 12:46 AM
2

Right, but let's say he did have to go in and physically stop them. The slightest amount of harm to even one of those attackers would be viewed as monstrous. Not because they're girls, but because they are children. Assuming he didn't manage to videotape himself somehow, it becomes a matter of his word against theirs, and they're poor, sweet, innocent children who would never lie to get out of being in trouble.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 12:41 AM
11

She didn't say anything about it showing women in combat roles; her objection is based on its pro-military stance. Say Ms. Wolf is anti-military (she does) but don't put words in her mouth.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 12:04 AM
2

It's specifically mentioned that she killed him during a domestic dispute. Is there some reason to assume it was not self defense?
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:16 AM
1

I truly don't see anything self-hating here. Could someone please explicate?
/r/MensRights25/03/12 06:38 AM
-2

Ehhhh. Mostly the problem I see here is with the idea that a physician should be asking these kinds of questions. If a woman goes to her doctor, she should be believed immediately. If a woman goes to a police officer, she should be treated with the healthy skepticism given to any claim of wrongdoing.
/r/MensRights24/03/12 01:10 AM
1

I think that the critical thinking issues a bit divorced from the effects of technology. If you look back through history, humans halves always been augmenting themselves with technology. Tools, weapons, and writing are all forms of using technology to do more than we are capable of using only our biology. While it's true that information technology allows nearly instantaneous answers, this is merely an outsourcing of menial tasks such as memorization. Even in the pre-IT days, facts not committe…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 05:31 PM
1

I think we disagree on the technology thing, but that kind of campaign sounds fantastic. It might be nice if we could find some group to pitch it to, or maybe start a kickstarter or something.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 12:22 AM
2

I think the situation you're thinking about is what happens when people ask 'what makes a real man/woman. The issue I'm talking about is promoting a positive ideal of masculinity which does not restrict the expressions of men, but helps them to be strong, positive people. Check out Cartesian_Duelist's post above for a better explanation than I could give you of this kind of ideal.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 11:40 PM
1

All I can say is well put! Now how do we promote masculinity over machismo?
/r/MensRights18/03/12 11:37 PM
1

I could, but that wouldn't really be germane to societal questions. Unfortunately, my knowledge is too limited to say exactly what societal traits are uniquely male, hence this thread.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 07:03 PM
2

With the huge differences in our biology, I find it difficult to beleive the claim that gender is entirely a social construction. While i doubt there is a gene that causes women to wear dresses, differences in psychology and neurochemistry have been well documented.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:47 PM
1

This. People have already shown outrage about the subject, particularly the shirts that proclaim 'I am a wireless hotspot'. Not 'I am carrying one'. It's dehumanizing and wrong, but I don't think it's a particularly gendered issue.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:44 PM
1

I think this has less to do with superficial qualities and more to do with innate character traits. For example, and I'm sure I'm glossing here, but it makes perfect biological sense to say that women possess a certain amount of talent for nurturing children. They are talented at collaboration and making group decisions. These things are fine and good. But since part of the problem with the perception of men today is that these strengths are the ones they must have, I think it would be productiv…
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:40 PM
1

Yes, you're absolutely correct. So how should we, as men, define masculinity? We have a problem today with young men, myself included, who don't know quite what to make of manhood. Shouldn't we work one some kind of a paradigm for them?
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:37 PM
1

This is precisely what I meant. Sorry for being unclear! I am concerned with the idea of necessitating the involvement of 'like-minded men' just because it sort of implies a bit more rigidity in the role than I think is healthy. Feel free to let me know if I'm reading you wrong here.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:34 PM
1

These are quite good! But mostly what I'm thinking about here are the qualities a 'good man' has that relate to himself, and not to anyone around him.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 06:33 PM
1

I don't have much to add to the discussion that has gone on here, but it is important to note that part of the problem MRAs are trying to address is that no one cares about issues when they are about men. I mean this without accusations, but women need not beg someone to think of the children to be heard when it comes to, say, abortions rights. It's certainly true that it would be easier to curry favor that way, but, in the end, it fails to address some important root issues.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 04:22 AM
1

Perhaps, then, a better question is how we can better the modern idea of masculinity by using these qualities.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 04:03 AM
2

I certainly agree, but there's some value in promoting a positive idea of masculinity, while being careful not to fall into the 'real men' trap.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 03:50 AM
0

these are things that I like! But they're also fine examples for anyone to follow. The tricky part of the question is to find what is both positive and inherently male. I don't mean to say that such things are few in number, but that not many have spent much time trying to come up with what they are.
/r/MensRights18/03/12 03:46 AM
1

Here are the facts as I see them. On one hand (please note that I do not call this a side) you have feminism, which advances the interests of women. That's fine and good, aside from the rough spots where things get exaggerated. Women ought to have someone working for their interests. Then you have the MRM. That's also fine and good, except where it gets misogynistic and reactionary (and we do). Men also ought to have someone working for their interests. The thing is that, while we're working in …
/r/MensRights15/03/12 10:28 AM
3

"Stop being angry" is a bit different from "Let's be civil when representing the movement in public" I think, and that's probably at the heart of such posts. One can be angry, but allow that anger to fuel action, rather than letting it drown productivity in short-term pressure relief.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 10:18 AM
-2

This. So hard.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 08:25 PM
2

It's important to note here that it doesn't matter what feminists do or do not do. It does not matter what is fair. It does not matter what is right. For better or for worse, people have a perception that the movement is misogynistic. We need to be aware of that. You can't get around people's biases simply by pointing them out. We need to make an attempt to package our message in a way that people can deal with. If we can do that, we can begin to bring around public opinion.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 08:02 AM
1

May I just say that I like your posts quite a bit! Additionally, I would quite agree that once someone has passed out or is otherwise fully incapacitated, they have lost their ability to consent. This is in opposition to someone who has blacked out, in which case their lack of long-term memory formation is not apparent and their behavior may be completely normal, albeit uninhibited. I agree that there is a line, and I would define that line as follows: if a person is in a state that would preven…
/r/MensRights28/02/12 01:38 PM
1

These things are great educational points, however I feel I must respond to a few of them. Firstly, we do live in a society where people play hard to get. A refusal is, in fact, sometimes a temporary barrier to invite additional attempts. Second, sex seems to be the only area where one gets away without explicitly stating their intentions. For example, I cannot give someone money and then later compel them to repay me without first having explicitly stated that the money was not a gift. Why shou…
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:59 AM
1

Ah, I see. We're talking about two different things here, although it's a fine, fine line between ignoring body language and not seeing it. In any case what's under discussion here is not the idea of being cautious around suspicious individuals, but the idea that men are inherently suspicious.
/r/MensRights27/02/12 12:38 AM
1

Go ahead and be cautious. Just don't tell young men that they need to be careful lest they rape someone.
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:49 AM
1

YOu keep mentioning body language. Could you clarify what level of importance it holds?
/r/MensRights26/02/12 10:48 AM
2

Caution is one thing, but it's quite another to base ad campaigns on the idea that every man is a potential rapist. This all feeds into the larger issue that men are generally believed to be morally inferior and violent. Nobody here has a problem worth decrying rape, but doing it by teaching men, particularly young men, that they're going to hurt someone unless they pay constant attention to themselves is highly damaging.
/r/MensRights25/02/12 07:45 AM
1

While it's nice to see this being treated as the crime that it is, I must say that I find the publishing of this woman's personal details every bit as revolting as the publishing of details based on the mere accusation of rape. We really should keep defendents anonymous until conviction.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 10:42 AM
2

No, but your physical therapist who will be training you to walk again probably has an idea what it's like to be unable to walk.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 10:26 AM
2

I happen to be a man, and an MRA, thank you very much. I just happen to think that there's nothing wrong with learning more about the physical limitations they're learning to treat. Would you object to a physical therapist being required to experience life in a wheelchair for a week? This is no different.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 10:22 AM
11

This week, 14 noncommissioned officers at Camp Zama took turns wearing the “pregnancy simulators” as they stretched, twisted and exercised during a three-day class that teaches them to serve as fitness instructors for pregnant soldiers and new mothers. They were taking a class training them specifically for the purpose of becoming exercise trainers for pregnant soldiers. What's the problem with the belly?
/r/MensRights23/02/12 12:13 PM
2

I think we, here, all want to fight back against precisely these things (with the pronouns flipped, of course). We shuold remember that what we're fighting against harder than anything else is the silence that makes people think there aren't issues related to the male gender. That doesn't invalidate those issues on the female side, and I think this image is geared more toward the fight against those views (which are caustic) than toward blaming men.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 02:55 AM
1

This. Absolutely.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:13 AM
0

I really don't think the issue here is one of bodily sovereignty, but one of practicing what is a regulated medical procedure without authorization.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:08 AM
1

A vasectomy can, I think, be treated as any other piece of information. You tell your SO when you feel you can trust them with it, and not before.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 03:44 AM
2

To be fair, all the jail time comments are extraneous. The issue at stake in this particular trial was that of nullity. It mentions that where they are, a marriage is considered null if a party's consent was fraudulently obtained. That would mean he had not actually signed the license, or something along those lines. However, she could face sexual assault charges, depending on the court's interpretation of HIV. It could be seen as either a health condition, or a threat to his life, which have ve…
/r/MensRights04/12/11 03:22 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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