~ archived since 2018 ~

Congrats on 70 000 readers!

johnmars3

May 19, 2013

171 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Congrats on 70 000 readers!
Author	johnmars3
Upvotes	171
Comments	64
Date	May 19, 2013 1:58 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1emp6l/congrats-on-70-000-readers/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/congrats-on-70-000-readers.1612960 https://theredarchive.com/post/1612960

Comments

[–]egalitarian_activist27 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Orcasmic12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ENTP2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz-8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]egalitarian_activist7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]egalitarian_activist6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

They aren't as ban-happy as SRS

Yes they are. I was banned for posting the following three comments:

1) In reply to AFVMisters now flagrantly misrepresenting UofT Student Movement calling for organized protests as making 'threats of physical violence' I said:

This student movement has said the following about MRAs:

they need to be verbally condemned as well as physically challenged

They've also said they want to

track them down, find out where they live

What does "physically challenge" mean, and why do they want to find out where MRAs live?

2) The subject was: MRA uses threat of running away (and obvious extra threats from being featured in /r/mensrights ) to shame SO into getting an abortion. Gets loads of support.

Yay, totally abusive, doing stuff with her own body. I mean, who is she to not want to take a set of hormones or other birth control that often results in blood clots and other major risk factors, without his permission. Totally abuse.

She had every right to stop taking the pill, if she informed him. He consented to sex with birth control, so when she stopped birth control without telling him, his consent was invalid, and she was basically committing rape. It's like if a man secretly poked holes in a condom or lied about having an STD. That's why she's an abuser.

Male victims of female rape are, statistically, such a tiny minority of rape victims

That's not true if you properly define rape. According to the latest CDC (US government) survey, 4.8% of all men have been "made to penetrate" and 79.2% of the perpetrators were women. Examples of "made to penetrate" are: a woman who has sex with a man who is passed-out drunk, or a woman who forces a man to have sex with her through violence or threats of violence. There is some confusion due to the fact that their definition of rape excluded "made to penetrate" and only included men who had been penetrated. That was far less common (1.4% of men) and was mostly perpetrated by men. However, if you include "made to penetrate" as rape, which you should, since it is forced sex, women are a significant percentage of rapists, and the majority of male rape victims were raped by women. You can read the report at: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf Here are direct quotes from the report: "Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime" "For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%)." The above, lifetime stats do show a lower percentage of male victims (up to 6.2% of all men) than female victims (18.3% of all women) although this is far more than commonly believed. However, if you look at the report's stats for the past 12 months, just as many number of men have been "forced to penetrate" as women were raped, meaning that if you properly include being "made to penetrate" in the definition of rape, men were raped as often as women.

Here are additional studies that show a significant number of female rapists:

This academic study of university students shows similar rates of victimization between men and women: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf Page 412 discusses the results for men and page 414 discusses the results for women. There's a nice table here that presents the results of this study in a clearer way: http://feck-blog.blogspot.com/2011/05/predictors-of-sexual-coercion-against.html

Here's another study regarding sexual coercion of university students: http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-20318535/sexual-coercion-men-victimized-by-women

Here's another study: http://www.ejhs.org/volume5/deviancetonormal.htm The conclusion states, "the evidence presented here shows that as many as 7% of women self-report the use of physical force to obtain sex, 40% self-report sexual coercion, and over 50% self-report initiating sexual contact with a man while his judgment was impaired by drugs or alcohol".

Here are some stories from male victims: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/v73r4/men_who_have_been_raped_by_women_can_you_tell_us/

[–]Bodertz-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]egalitarian_activist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jayce5138 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gkx14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]notnotnotfred2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ted83672 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dupek1112 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]questionmonger24 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]questionmonger12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]andreipmbcn-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think we come at it from two different angles. There's absolutely nothing draconian about making suitor abuse illegal, any more than it is to make any other kind of abuse illegal. The key thing to note, however, is that some people perceive it as abuse, whereas others do not. It's a very similar problem with that of adultery, as only a third of the population believes there should be criminal penalties for it - but that is still one third of the population, including myself, that is not being served by the law. You may find it irrelevant, but I consider honourable conduct during courtship and devotion to one's spouse to be a matter of faith, and something I deeply value.

When it comes to adultery, people have advocated a distinction between covenant marriage and open marriage licenses, the former criminalizing adultery / forbidding no-fault divorce and the latter allowing both. There is nothing draconian about this: those who wish to enter a covenant marriage do so, and those who wish otherwise do not. My solution for suitor abuse would be along similar lines - the only difference is that, instead of covenant marriage, there would be covenant courtship, i.e. formal courtship that would entail legal protections for both parties. The only people who feel their "rights" would be at stake when it comes to it are those who wish to abuse others wantonly, so it should be no surprise that SRS felt threatened by my suggestion.

[–]typhonblue1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]questionmonger14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Criminalizing "friendzoning" sounds exactly like breech of promise laws that governments used to have to prevent men from leading women on.

But we don't have them anymore, right? I imagine that's because such a law is unjust and draconian. Advocating for draconian laws to be passed against women is radical.

Men already undergo forced abortion and considering that men's bodies also hormonally prime them for fatherhood...

Interesting. Have a source on this? Also what are the psychological effects of a woman getting an abortion on a man?

equating forcing abortion on men and women is not far-fetched.

One undergoes the physical process of abortion, one does not. The government forcing medical procedures on someone against their will is a violation of human rights. Definitely radical.

If due process was being eroded for any other crime, you wouldn't even be arguing against his stance.

I might. I'd certainly explore other options first. Nevertheless, point taken.

[–]eyeofthestorm3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]questionmonger5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Advocating for draconian laws to be passed against women is radical.

That's if it wasn't advocated as a thought experiment or out of frustration.

Regardless, we lived in a society where it was considered rational to direct draconian laws like that against men. In many ways we still live in that kind of a society.

Also what are the psychological effects of a woman getting an abortion on a man?

What I know is that one abortion clinic offered psychological counselling for men undergoing abortion and ended up having to close the program because it was flooded.

Abortion hits a lot of men like a mac truck and this may be why:

Dads' hormones change, too, during pregnancy

These pheromones appear to work both ways, at least in animals. In a study of mice, the males released their own pheromones. That triggered the female mice to make more prolactin, which also stimulates the growth of maternal brain circuits, Brizendine says. Through these unconscious chemical signals, she says, mothers and fathers may be spurring more loving, nurturing behavior in each other, increasing the odds their babies will survive.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-06-15-daddybrain15_cv_N.htm?csp=DailyBriefing

One undergoes the physical process of abortion, one does not.

The reality is that we don't know what kind of physical process is instigated by abortion on men.

Since men do undergo hormonal changes when a woman becomes pregnant, it stands to reason that he also undergoes hormonal changes when she ceases to be pregnant.

[–]KRosen3338 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]KRosen3334 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But men can't "opt out" of parenthood, where women can. That's the point.

If a women becomes pregnant, she has choice. If a man makes a women pregnant, he has an obligation to support whatever decision she makes. Having sexual relations was a joint decision, but, she is free from the obligation if she so chooses, he isn't. That is the law.

I must just say that I am totally against any kind of forced procedures and totally against any kind of state interventions in these things... but...

Abortion in the early stages simply links into the process that causes a period. One essentially takes a pill (hormones) that induce the body to abort, the same mechanism as what happens when women have their period. They then suck out the resulting fluid. Yes, it's not very pleasant, but "surgery" is a strong word that makes it sound worse than it is. We don't hack the babies up like they did in the old days.

The problem is, the vagina is treated like some god like special organ, it's just an orifice at the end of the day, not that qualitatively different from a mouth, anus, pee hole etc. It's all the connotations and associated power that elevate it. The vagina at the end of the day, is what women use to have power over men.

[–]KRosen333-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

100% Agree. Like I said, I'm not for anything forced on anyone. So I agree with you.

What I am saying is that the system needs to be fair. Giving the choice to women to opt out of 18 years of financial commitment, but not the same option to men, doesn't seem right. Thus we need to think of another solution.

What you're saying, is that women can be sexually promiscuous with less consequence if they make a mistake than if a man makes a mistake, and all the responsibility lies with the man. We can start with mandatory paternity tests for all pregnancies as a start, for example.

We're getting to the point where both partners will need to sign a pre coitus binding "agreement" before they have sex. Sounds like a joke, but that's where this reality is heading. That kind of takes out all the fun of it though, but that it seems is the only way people might have to protect themselves eventually.

That is feminism. Removing all color from life and making it uniform and compliant. I really do love that saying that Feminism is socialism in panties, and thus easier for people to accept.

[–]KRosen3331 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Legolas-the-elf9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are no radical MRAs

So when JeremiahMRA says it's moral to beat your wife so long as it's done to make her behave rather than out of anger, are you saying that this is a mainstream MRA position, or are you saying that he isn't an MRA?

When people like mayonesa and Demonspawn say that maybe we should take away the right to vote from women and most men, are you saying that that is a mainstream MRA position, or are you saying that they aren't MRAs?

What about Demonspawn's claim that the move away from traditionalism is literally the cause for the impending end of civilisation? Is that a mainstream MRA position? Or is he not an MRA?

Of course there are radical MRAs. Some of them have posted their radical ideas in this very subreddit. To deny that they exist is to act like the "good" feminists that are so often complained about here who look the other way and ignore the radicals in their midst.

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If a feminist came around and said "I'm a feminist but I don't believe that women should have the vote." Would you take her at her word?

I wouldn't. But if she said that women shouldn't be allowed to work in porn, or be a stripper, or be a prostitute, I can still believe that she is a feminist, removing rights for women or no.

The three of them are traditionalists and they believe that the traditional role of men is all the rights men need.

And I assume they believe that men are denied some of these rights, which they work to fix. Being an MRA doesn't mean you support every law that gives men more rights.

Why Jeremiah feels the need to call himself an MRA when he's a traditionalist, I don't know.

I assume it's because he advocates for the rights of men. He just doesn't go as far. Just like the Sex-Negative feminists.

And just as an aside, it really reflects badly on the MRM when MRAs will criticize feminists for the whole No True Scotsman thing when they are guilty of it as well.

[–]typhonblue2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Aaod2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fukuaneveryoneuknow-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil-11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link