~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
jaib9
[–]likwyd_16 82 points83 points84 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
How long is a gender studies course now, what with all those genders?
[–]candidly1 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It's probably perpetual.
[–]censoredandagain 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It needs to go through a process of specialization, like medicine. You don't get a degree in "gender studies", you get a degree in "gender studies of cat fireball 3 studies".
[–]guntermench43 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It actually only covers women, they just aren't allowed call them women's studies.
[–]likwyd_16 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The demand for equality while only studying themselves. Only complicated things typically require studying. Yet they are, to this day, threatened by what must be considered "stupid simple".
[–]ckiemnstr345 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It covers men as well but only in how men cause problems for women.
[–]3rdLevelRogue 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The same length in time, but with all the new material needing to be covered in the same time frame, the degree becomes even less valuable due to a greater degree of misinformation
[–]chambertlo 148 points149 points150 points 9 years ago (174 children) | Copy Link
That's just female privilege in general. Benefiting from doing the least amount of work, and demanding equal rights when you haven't earned it.
[–]zenwarrior01 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I believe you mean "special privileges", not "equal rights"?
[–]BLACK_TIN_IBIS 69 points70 points71 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Nobody earns rights you numbskull
[+]haveacigar4200 -51 points-50 points-49 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
Well, women do because they have to......
Attitudes of men like this guy are why feminists exist. These men don't think that women deserve equal rights and do what they can to assure that they don't.
[–]1LtKaiser 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Rights: the right to education Privilege : going to med school cause you have the competitive gpa to do so
Rights: equal pay Privilege: a raise because you worked none stop on a proposal that took 5 months to put together and even worked from home when you had that car accident and didn't call out there after
WE WOMEN can't expect to be paid the same when we have more breaks in employment, take more time off from work based on OUR choices. You chose to have a child, you chose to stay home, you can't punish men OR OTHER WOMEN for it.
[–]SaiHottari 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Education is not a right. It's a service provided by other people. To give you the right to education we would have to force other people to provide that service, which would be endentured servitude. Rights are things you would possess in a vacuum.
[–]PIG_CUNT 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Correct. The only rights that exist are legal rights. Such as how in the US, women have the legal right to not register for the draft. Men don't have that right.
[+]Rogdozz -24 points-23 points-22 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You guys in this thread make it kinda sound like all women are like that and only men work hard
[–]1LtKaiser 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
As a woman, I believe it is women holding women down in the workplace, not men. Women make it hard for other women to succeed and set the bar higher for their female employees than they would for male.
[+]rightsedfred 9 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Was that #notallwomen ?!?!
[+]Rogdozz -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What?
[–]supacrusha 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, everyone has equal rights, I dont believe in biological equality because that is simple bioligy, but I believe in human equality. You sir, are the reason feminism exists, because actual sexist bastards like you make them feel the need to exist.
[–]keyjunkrock 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That's not true at all. No one has ever tried to take the rights away from woman in the western world, in the past forever.
Is it plausible that by fighting for their rights in the 20s to the 70s that woman habe achieved them, and keep gaining more and more and more.
I recently applied to do a nursing course here. There are 0 men in the course but there's no affirmative action or something similar setup to give me a spot? Woman will be accepted into some courses and programs with grades far below men's just to have more woman in the work force. Which is funny considering I was told once I finish school I'll pretty much be able to pick my job where there are so few male nurses here.
I'm drunk so this was probably hard to read, hard to understand, and incredibly wordy.
[+]sennysun -19 points-18 points-17 points 9 years ago (150 children) | Copy Link
Women don't deserve equal rights to men?
[–]adamdavid85 164 points165 points166 points 9 years ago (142 children) | Copy Link
Women deserve equal rights and responsibilities to men. In the western world they have the former (one could easily argue they have more rights), but they certainly don't have any expectation of the latter.
[–]sennysun 68 points69 points70 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fair
[–]chinachinachina3 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Do you earn rights? Aren't they part of the bundle of citizenry?
[–]Negabite 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Some of them, like the right to drive a car on a public road, are things you have to earn. Not all rights are contingent on being a citizen either, for example the rights outlined in the US constitution are afforded to everyone inside of the US and its territories.
[–]makerender 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Just wanted to point out that what you're describing here is not a right. Driving on public roads is a privilege exactly because it has to be earned. As the person above you said rights are not earned, they are inherent and inalienable
[–]Negabite 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah you're right, my mistake.
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You seem to be implying that all privileges are earned and that this is a characteristic feature of privileges, and I just want to be clear that that is not so.
[–]makerender 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
You're right. The true definition of privileges is that they are granted, which is usually conditional on earning said granting but not the only way.
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Actually, what characterizes privileges isn't so much how they are obtained, but that they apply to some exclusive and explicitly determined set of people. For example, everyone who is a member of a country club has the privileges offered by the club. It would be hard to say they were earned or granted, so much as purchased.
[–]makerender 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I see what you mean, but in your example the privilege is still being granted by the country club after the membership is purchased.
If you look up the definition of privilege it's defining feature is the fact that they are given to you and are not inherent.
It is; however, very true that some people are granted certain privileges because of the exclusive group they belong to.
[–]iongantas1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, the defining factor it that it is only available to an explicit and exclusive group. Privilege means Private Law, where it comes from is entirely variable.
[–]chinachinachina3 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Driving on roads is not a right. It is a privilege. You're now just speaking nonsense. Man, I wish there was an electronic system to fact check the nonsense you're spewing.
[–]Negabite 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It probably wouldn't work very well because nobody reads anything anymore.
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -18 points-17 points-16 points 9 years ago (106 children) | Copy Link
What responsibilities do men have that women don't? The draft is the only one I know of, and that should be abolished anyway imo.
[–]lesbefriendly 65 points66 points67 points 9 years ago (69 children) | Copy Link
What responsibilities do men have that women don't? Sexual / financial.
A woman can legally remove any related responsibilities she may have following a pregnancy. A man cannot.
If a man is deemed a father, he is financially responsible for the child, with the only opt-outs being illegal.
[–]circlhat 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
What is sad is men paying for kids that aren't even theirs, and if you prove the kid isn't yours you still have to pay
[–]duhhhh 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Almost as bad as having to pay your 'made to penetrator' child support for decades. Can you imagine the outrage if rape victims needed to pay their rapists?
[+]crashfrog -40 points-39 points-38 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link
Literally none of that is true. Women have the same child support responsibilities for their children that men do, and both men and women can obviate those responsibilities in identical ways: by the legal ruling that they're not actually the parent, or when their children are adopted by someone else.
[–]Denver80 36 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
You are very naive if you think the courts haven't forced men to pay for children that aren't theirs.
[+]brewksy -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Which courts? Which cases?
Sure, find me the multitude of court cases that prove your point and make this subject actually worth even discussing. Obviously this is a very widespread issue that demands attention because men everywhere are being run into the ground with support payments that are unreasonable.
[–]childofeye 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Really all you have to do is google it. My wife and I literally told the judge we didn't want her ex husband paying child support under court order, because one, we didn't need it and 2, he will never pay. The judge disregarded our request and put a court order on him anyways.
This entire conversation is stupid though. I know plenty of women that work 10 times harder than any man. I've also seen plenty of men walk out on their women and children, and never pay a fucking dime. Some of these guys are seriously arguing that rights come from contributions, not just being a citizen. This is a short sighted view.
[+]chinachinachina3 -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
There are plenty of these cases because the man holds themselves out to be the father. This is why... The're legally proclaiming that they are the father. You can't just go back on that. This isn't hard.
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Do you mean men who were deceived into thinking they were the father, then realizing they weren't the father but still being forced to pay?
If a man was deceived into thinking a child was his, then that is not his fault.
Second, even men who never said they were the father and never acted as the parent are forced to pay.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/19/judge-outraged-at-man-ordered-to-pay-30000-for-a-kid-thats-not-his/
[–]chinachinachina3 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
You mean, a man who was deceived but did not utilize his right to contest his fatherhood? Why should this be any other way? The father has an absolute right to contest fatherhood. But, when a man doesn't contest the courts should allow them to back out whenever they want? Why? This isn't the way it works for anyone else. Why the hell should it work that way for fathers?
[–]Celda2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You mean, a man who was deceived but did not utilize his right to contest his fatherhood?
How could a man contest fatherhood when he was deceived?
But, when a man doesn't contest the courts should allow them to back out whenever they want? Why? This isn't the way it works for anyone else.
LOL are you stupid?
Anyone else who has been deceived or scammed that eventually realizes they were scammed, is then entitled to "back out" or seek restitution so long as they can prove they were deceived.
Someone who is lied to or deceived and chooses to sign a contract, is not held to that contract if they later realize that they were deceived (so long as they can prove their claim of being deceived).
[–]chinachinachina32 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
what do you mean how could a man contest fatherhood? The same way every other man that has contested father hood does it. Are you kidding me? You make an obvious and open statement to the woman, you hire a lawyer, and then you man up.
I'm not dumb. In fact, when I learned this in law school, it wasn't that big of a deal to almost the entirety of the class. As a would be father, you have the absolute right to contest it. And, if you have any questions, why shouldn't the would-be father contest it?
Moreover, you're acting as if the mother lays a trap upon some unsuspecting man without his absolute consent. The dude is showing up, putting his name on the birth certificate, and taking care of the kid. That man is not only implicitly agreeing to take on the duties of fatherhood, he's also explicitly doing it. Why should the man then be able to turn around after legally saying, "Yes! I will be this child's father!"
[–]Celda1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You didn't read what I said.
How could a man contest fatherhood if he was deceived and thinks he's the father? Why would he hire a lawyer to contest fatherhood when he thinks he is the father?
Obviously, he can't contest fatherhood unless he learns that he's been deceived.
Moreover, you're acting as if the mother lays a trap upon some unsuspecting man without his absolute consent. The dude is showing up, putting his name on the birth certificate, and taking care of the kid.
Yeah...because he thinks he's the father. But, he was deceived. It's one thing if a man knowingly adopts a child. Then he's agreed to be a father. But if a man is deceived into thinking he's the father, then he hasn't.
This is obvious..how do you not get that?
You're putting the entirety of the argument behind the idea that a man shouldn't have repercussions for his actions. Making this about a lie is missing the point entirely. This is a position with unbreakable duties and rights. The man isn't summoned by the government and forced to list themselves as anything if they contest. They make a claim to you being the father. If any woman told you that you were the father when you thought you weren't, why would you sign on the dotted line? Why would you hold yourself out as the father?
No, my argument is that someone shouldn't be punished for agreeing to something under deception. If someone agrees to a business deal, that contract is not valid if they can prove they were deceived.
That's the entire point, it is not missing the point.
If a man thought he wasn't the father, then he wouldn't say he was the father. But if he did think he was the father, then he would. How do you not get that simple concept? We are not talking about men who don't think that they're the father. We are talking about men who think they are, but wrong.
Your argument is that men who are deceived and wrongly trust our partners should just suffer. Which is quite despicable.
The deception is irrelevant because a man does not have to be the father to legally take on the father roles. This is the crux of the issue. There is no where in the legal system requiring a biological relationship between a child and father in order to gain the rights, privileges, and duties of parenthood.
Anyone can simply trust a partner... or a man can require testing. It's his legal right to require proof. The law should not allow a party to prove fraud when that party has actively stood up and proclaimed that they're the father.
And, this happens all of the time in law. There is a timeframe to bring a case, claim an objection, file an appeal, present facts, offer testimony, etc. After the deadline passes, there isn't a second set of rules available because we feel bad about individuals in a case. Typically, the legal system doesn't allow two bites at the apple.
[+]crashfrog -26 points-25 points-24 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sure, for men who don't get ahead of the situation or who had already voluntarily accepted paternity. It's a greater injustice when a child grows up without support simply because the "correct" father can't be identified.
[–]Abiv23 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
You are ignorant, educate yourself
The 'tender years' doctrine is still a primary decision factor for Judges in family court.
It's been written about a ton, here's one source
There are plenty of examples of fathers who were tricked into raising kids who weren't theirs by cheating wives, I won't link you to those but do your own research if you don't believe me
[–]Ayn_Rand_Was_Right 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I won't link you to those but do your own research if you don't believe me
While I 110% agree with you, this is not the right way to go about it. What you just said with that sentence is that you have no proof and pulled something from your ass. People laugh at people on tumblr for doing the same things.
[+]crashfrog -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
That's not really responsive to my point.
[–]Abiv23 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
read the whole post, specifically
"There are plenty of examples of fathers who were tricked into raising kids who weren't theirs by cheating wives, I won't link you to those but do your own research if you don't believe me"
If you have an ideology that states fathers in the above situation come second to the rights of the kid, i'm never going to see eye to eye with your pseudo commie bs
[–]crashfrog -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I did (it wasn't very long.) It's unresponsive, as I said.
[–]Abiv235 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
stop being so obtuse, my argument is clear and so is yours
you think the rights of the kid supercede anything done by the mother or the rights of the dad...that's not how a justice system works, one persons rights can't override anothers
we dont' have an intersectional justice system
[–]crashfrog3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
you think the rights of the kid supercede anything done by the mother or the rights of the dad..
Makes sense to me, since the child is the one in this situation by the least degree of its own action. Being the least contributing to the situation in which they find themselves, they're entitled to have their interests weighed the most. Additionally, adults can profitably work and children typically cannot (and anyway shouldn't, since they have school to go to.) The harm to an adult of having some of your income confiscated to provide for your children is quite a bit lesser than the harm of being a child in poverty, so again, the interests of the child outweigh.
that's not how a justice system works, one persons rights can't override anothers
That's exactly how a justice system works. When people come before the court with competing, legitimate interests, the purpose of the court is to negotiate the outcome where the balance of conflicting rights is just, not the one where it is equal. My right to freedom of speech is balanced against your right not to be defamed in public. My right to my own property is balanced against your right to be made whole for your injuries. And so on, dozens of examples.
[–]Abiv232 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
When people come before the court with competing, legitimate interests, the purpose of the court is to negotiate the outcome where the balance of conflicting rights is just
the legal system in family law makes decisions based on prior rulings, do you honestly believe every case has a jury or balances the particulars, it's all past precedence
I appreciate your viewpoint and how you've expressed it thusfar, I just don't agree
[–]crashfrog1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
the legal system in family law makes decisions based on prior rulings
Sure, because people have a right to consistent treatment under the law. Nevertheless, judges balance that right against the particulars of the situation before them, and against the other rights that are in play.
[+]brewksy -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
This article is a straw man - he didn't say women got custody more often than men, he said that both parents had responsibilities (in the form of parenting or support).
What is this article trying to say anyways? That women get saddled with custody more often than men? Or that women are lucky to get custody more often than men? I feel like this article is ripe for people to misrepresent to support their argument however they like.
Regardless, it still doesn't even come close to proving that mothers everywhere are somehow sneakily getting random guys to pay for their kids.
[–]Abiv23 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link
So, you completely missed the point of that article.
It states that Judges are still using 'the tender years doctrine' in their decisions.
Despite the fact it was found to violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
To recap, a doctrine that was found to be unconstitutional and biased against men is still routinely used in family court decisions...that proves bias against men in family court
The second issue in the post (fathers tricked into raising kids who aren't theirs) I didn't provide evidence for because it's easy to find...here's an article claiming 1 in 50 in britian are raising a kid who isn't theirs...it might not be an epidemic but even one instance is too much
If you require me to further connect the dots for you my post is saying, "Men are unfairly biased against in family law, one example being how paternity fraud is handled".
[+]brewksy -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
No I got the article's point, it was just a useless straw man to his point.
And your article? It actually talks about how fucking rare it is and how the perception of EPP was way off.
One instance is too many? Sure it is. But we've got a whole army of people complaining about a 2% issue? Sounds more like we've got a whole nothingburger here that people are trying to make into something it's not.
2%. Think about that. There's a higher percentage of someone on death row being wrongfully executed. And this is the nothingburer we are fighting about.
[–]Abiv236 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's a mens right issue, look at the sub you are in, arguing it only affects 2% of the population is not reason to dismiss it
Also, you should solidify your understanding of a strawman.
[–]majortom22 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Dude...this is painful. Textbook theory tells you how the world would be if it wasn't the way it is.
Its literally all true.
[+]brewksy -21 points-20 points-19 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link
Please name a situation where a woman can remove their responsibilities for raising a child?
I'm starting to think this thread is full of "divorced husbands that owe child support trying to get revenge on their wives"...
[–]lesbefriendly 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Putting the child up for adoption. Safe-haven laws allowing the abandonment of children to certain services. Choosing to abort before the child is born.
In most cases, the mother doesn't have to prove she attempted to inform the father of her decision.
[+]brewksy -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Hmmm. Interesting - I wasn't aware that a mother could put a child up for adoption without informing the father. What court case have you seen this happen in? I would have always assumed a parent would be given rights to raise a child long before an adoption would be accepted but perhaps you can shed some more light on this?
Abortion is a unique case because men don't have to carry a child. In what situation would a mother get willingly pregnant and then willingly have an abortion? Is there a high instance of men out there dying to have kids that find these women also willing to have kids but then the women just decide unilaterally to abort?
Or... is it just the disparity of the situation that bothers people? That's a tough one. Because it's their body, this might be one situation I agree with you that they have more rights than men, but I can't really fault them for it either.
[–]anagram88 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
One problem with abortion is this:
A couple decides to have a child, but shortly after the woman gets pregnant they lose their jobs and they're no longer able to raise the child because they're financially unstable. However, the father still wants to have the child and he's religiously against abortions (for example). The woman decides to have an abortion anyway and the father's desires aren't taken into account at all.
If you flip the genders such that the mother wants to keep the child and the father doesn't, the Dad has two choices: be forced to stay with a child he doesn't want, or abandon the family but still need to pay child support. The point is that if a woman wants to back out of a pregnancy she can without consequence, but men are screwed no matter what.
[–]brewksy 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
This is a good argument. It's so difficult because we are talking about the interests of parenthood and a person's body.
The laws look at it with respect to the biological sense that we all have the right to our bodies before anything else. But it distinctly tramples on the rights of a parent.
I suppose the solution eventually will be growing babies in a lab at some point so men can have babies without the biological rights getting in the way.
[–]unbuttoned3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The laws look at it with respect to the biological sense that we all have the right to our bodies before anything else
Except the death penalty is a harsher punishment than life in prison, and kidnapping is a less heinous crime than murder. The right to life is not subordinate to the right to bodily autonomy.
[–]duhhhh 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I wasn't aware that a mother could put a child up for adoption without informing the father.
Let's say a the mother chooses not to put the father on the birth certificate. There is no penalty to her for not disclosing what she knows.
http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/the-unknown-father-in-adoption/
[–]Ayn_Rand_Was_Right 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
A mother can put a child up for adoption without the consent of the father. The mother may not know who the father is or she may have been raped or she may fear violence from him if he finds out she is pregnant. Now there was a case where a Utah mother put her child up for adoption without the consent of the father and it was legal, Utah is a strange place. Thankfully the adopting family gave back the kid.
http://fox13now.com/2015/11/20/utah-father-says-newborns-mother-placed-child-with-adoptive-parents-against-his-wishes/
Here is the news article about that Utah case
[+]SharkGlue -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wait, either you're annoyed men have to pay for children, or not. Which is it?
[–]duhhhh 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Abortion, run away and give the child up for adoption without the father knowing, drop the infant at a fire station and walk away.
[+]brewksy -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Ok... so I can see the debate on the first argument (abortion), but the third one... how common is that again? Are there a lot of men out there scrambling to find their fire-station kids that I don't know about?
Edit: Doesn't a kid go to one of the parents of they're willing to care for them before being allowed for adoption?
[–]DirHR 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
You asked: Please name a situation where a woman can remove their responsibilities for raising a child?
That has been answered and now you are re-framing it to yeah but how many fathers care, you aren't debating honestly here. Women have the right to not only determine their own parental fate but that of a man too. That's godlike power. When you talk of bodily autonomy you (and the state) only care about the woman. Being forced to carry a baby for 10 months violates bodily autonomy but 18 years of a mans labor to pay for her decision is just fine.
[–]RubixCubeDonut 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
When you talk of bodily autonomy you (and the state) only care about the woman.
A point made even more pertinent by the legal status of MGM.
[–]duhhhh 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
If the parent knows about it, yes. Women always know. Men do not.
[+]brewksy -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Ok... can you at least give me a stat on how many fathers out there:
have sex with a woman they want to have kids with, and
somehow the woman keeps the child and doesn't tell the father, and
the father sees none of the warning signs of childbirth (belly, food cravings, etc.),
and seriously wants to raise a kid by himself...
Are these common where you're from? What percentage are we talking about here?
[–]duhhhh8 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So you are saying men do not deserve these rights because you don't know how many are abused because they don't have them?
Of course there are no stats. No one gives a shit about these men.
[–]brewksy1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, I'm not denying these rights at all. Obviously the above situation is exactly what we do NOT want in society. A parent should have the right to raise their kid if they have one, above all others.
My only concern is that it's not very typical to see so is it something that we really worry about or that deserves all of this attention? I have never heard of it happening ever before and I've not seen a big outcry of fathers trying to find their children.
I'm a believer in equal rights. Equal. Not at the expense of others. Not feminazi, or militant at all. I see the point of this sub (especially if someone feels like they've been denied certain rights). Its just hard to find a good debate to make if it's so hard to replicate in real life.
[–]duhhhh5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/paternity-registry/396044/
In order to assert their rights a man needs to "need to create an account and enter some basic information about themselves and their partners, listing the child’s place of conception, its race, and its approximate date of birth".
If they do not know the conception took place, they cannot do that can they?
"From a birth father’s perspective, however, there’s a significant problem: Hardly anyone knows that these registries exist. They aren’t advertised on billboards, park benches, subway cars, or in the men’s bathrooms at bars and restaurants. When asked about their advertising efforts, most state offices of vital records point to their websites or to pamphlets made available in their offices."
If they don't know these registries exist in 33 states and they have to do the steps above, they can lose the rights do have if they know she was pregnant.
[–]Wylanderuk 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Safe haven laws...
[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Removed responsibility and example of negligible consequences 2fer.
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/07/chicago-muslim-probation-baby/
[–]brewksy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How about something better than a Milo shitpost?
Show me how she avoids punishment from that article.
[+]SharkGlue -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Basically a bunch of cucks yes.
[–]brewksy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Are we finally getting to the bottom of what cuck actually means? It's almost like the people that have been using it all this time were just describing themselves this whole time...
[–]SharkGlue -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Prett much xD
Honestly, I feel sorry for anyone into the fetish. Your identity has become tarnished by a bunch of internet racists.
[+]blewpah -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Women are also legally obliged to take care of their children.
[–]DirHR 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Housing for mothers who can't afford their kids: Government housing. Housing for fathers who can't afford their kids: Prison.
[+]blewpah -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
You're comparing two different situations.
If a single father is trying to raise a kid and doesn't have money they don't put him in jail, and there are government programs to help them.
If a single father is raising a child, the mother is legally responsible for providing child support.
[–]DirHR 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Did you know that mothers default on child support more than fathers? http://www.npr.org/2015/03/01/389945311/who-fails-to-pay-child-support-moms-at-a-higher-rate-than-dads Feel free to google more links if you don't like this one.
Now do you ever hear about deadbeat moms? Campaigns on pizza boxes for deadbeat moms? Think the jails are full of deadbeat moms?
As with all criminal matters, the law goes easier on women.
[+]blewpah -16 points-15 points-14 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
None of that changes the fact that women are legally obliged to take care of their children. That's the assertion I was making.
[–]DirHR7 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This has already been explained to you but here you go. If they don't want them they can abort, use safe haven laws or adopt them away. If they do keep them but don't want to work a job that pays enough to pay for them, they can get all kinds of government assistance. The government will chase dad down to make him pay too with the threat of punishment if he doesn't.
[–]blewpah1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
As I said, you're comparing two different situations, one in which a mother is soley responsible for a child, the other in which a father is being obliged to help provide for his child that some one else is raising. They're different. Is it that hard to understand?
[–]DirHR6 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What's hard to understand is why you don't want to face the fact that when it comes to reproductive rights, women have more than men. You try to explain it away with but the mother is legally obliged to take care of their children. No, even after she has multiple chances to legally opt out of parenthood she can still get everyone else to help pay for it. Fathers have no opportunity to opt out and rarely get custody. Mothers get custody by default and fathers have to fight for it, they do not start out on equal footing. If dad hopes to win custody he better have lots of money and be able to prove she is an unfit parent.
When fathers do get primary custody, they are less likely to get child support and the state is less likely to pursue the deadbeat mother to the same ends that they pursue deadbeat fathers. If a father has enough money to win custody though, he probably doesn't qualify for government assistance.
You are being dishonest here, I am done.
The only chance that a mother has to legally opt out of parenthood is abortion. There isn't any reasonable way to provide that to a father though, obviously her having a child or aborting one because of the father's wishes doesn't make sense.
That's unfortunate, but it's just a fact of life.
When it comes to adoption, mothers can put their kids up for adoption when they are single mothers. If a mother put her child up for adoption without the knowledge of the father she'd get in a lot of trouble, maybe be charged with kidnapping or some such thing.
I haven't argued against all the stuff you're saying and I don't disagree with it. Courts are certainly biased against men when it comes to parenthood. But that's not what I was talking about.
I was arguing specifically against the assertaition that women just somehow get off scott free from responsibility when they have a kid. You're the one who started turning this into an argument about a lot more than that.
[–]circlhat 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Conscription , women are the only class of people who can vote without signing their life to the US.
[–]philksigma82 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Is the draft not a huge responsibility? For as much as we hear "my body, my choice" from feminists you would think that someone would stop and think about the fact that men dont have that privilege. My body belongs to the US government and if they choose that I will best serve as dead on a battlefield then thats where I end up.
10.5 million men in the US were drafted in the 20th century. The best analogue for women that I can come up with would be if the same number of women were forcibly impregnated... Although that woukd have had a much higher survival rate.
[–]Lostboulevard 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
We OWN you, sucker!
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
From my experience with feminists, I'd guess that the vast majority would be opposed to the draft, or would at least agree that it should be the same for both sexes.
Furthermore most of those 10.5 million men were drafted during ww2. You can support all kinds of ridiculous narratives by dredging up atrocities from decades ago that are no longer relevant. How about you use the number of draftees from the 21st century?
[–]philksigma82 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Youre incredibly naive to think that a major conflict can never happen again and this doesn't change the fact that a mans vote and existence as a legal citizen is paid for at a very steep price. The last draft event was during the 80s so there are many men alive today who have faced the idea of being drafted.
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Lol don't put words into my mouth. Obviously I recognize the possibility that another war like that could happen. But you kinda proved my point when you said that the draft hasn't been used since the 80s, despite the US being in multiple wars. I think most decent people at this point are against the draft, hence why it hasn't been used. It definitely should be formally gotten rid of in law, but for the time being it's not really a huge deal. That's kinda why I mentioned it in my original comment.
[–]philksigma82 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Whether a draft happens or not is not the point I'm making. The fact that a mans rights are conditional upon a major responsibility while women's are not is the issue. The original point I was responding to asked what responsibilities men have that women don't.
[–]DirHR 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Selective Service isn't going anywhere (you would have to be naive to think it is) and it needs to be extended to women. Just saying it should go away is not a valid argument. How long will you make that argument before you realize that you really are ignoring the issue?
[–]RacelessSexlessName 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Isn't this exactly what feminists do? Dredge up past stuff to justify current year stuff? Is this another double standard that they can do it and men can't?
[–]doobidoobidoobidoo -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No it's fucking dumb when feminists do it too lol. At least they aren't hypocrites though. I frequently see MRAs rightfully criticising all the fallacious arguments made by feminists and then going on to make all the same mistakes themselves.
[–]RacelessSexlessName 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Well, in context of the draft I can understand a man doing it because we are still forced to sign up for it. There could very well be a war that uses it again considering how much violence is brewing these days. Feminists dredge up stuff that has already been changed or fixed.
[–]sometimesynot 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Not OP, but some people mention that men have the most dangerous jobs, and that men are expected to pay for a lot more.
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Men choose dangerous jobs
[–]sometimesynot 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I don't necessarily disagree with that. Which is why I think that the gender pay gap is largely a non-issue. Women choose lower-paying jobs, and biologically, women have to have the babies if the family wants to procreate themselves. Those are the two largest contributors to whatever pay gap actually exists.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Isn't this the same argument feminists use to prove the earnings gap? That women don't really choose the low-paying jobs?
[–]sometimesynot -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
IMO, I think it's probably somewhere in between. Society values women's work less than men's so in general, careers/industries that are dominated by women are compensated less than men's. And then women continue to choose those professions.
In contrast, society values men's lives less than women's so even if a job could be accomplished by a woman, they'll give it to a man. But in general, men continue to choose those jobs.
That's not the tightest argument I've ever made, but I just feel like there are two sides to both stories in this case.
[–]Lostboulevard 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Not necessarily. Dangerous jobs pay more. If a man doesn't pay alimony/child support he is sent to jail.
"Choice" in this context amounts to the choice to turn over your wallet when a mugger puts a gun to your head.
Even so, I'm pretty sure most men would be happy to work dangerous jobs to support their families IF they were granted shared parenting. However Feminist organizations like NOW oppose equal parenting rights.
[–]cejones9 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link
My coworker recently got a divorce, she works 25ish hours a week at a yogurt shop. She's 35, done nothing with her life and her engineer ex husband is now paying for her apartment while he keeps their one child EVERY weekeday and every other weekend. The divorce was because she cheated frequently for years.
I know this is a divorce example so it's a little different but that bitch only has the responsibility of laundry. And I'll be damned she even has the fucking audacity to complain about laundry. She's the kind of person that "works out" at the gym for 3+ hours while the kid is in the day care center. The kid is in 2nd grade now, plenty old to be pissed about sitting in day care for so long so frequently.
Update: it actually just occurred to me that this was not an official divorce. Both of them were under the assumption that an official divorce would make him lose half his salary to her and this was the compromise. Take that as you will
[–]brewksy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
My god I despise these anecdotes. Trust me on this: your co-worker is not telling you the truth. He's feeding you bullshit so you'll side with him - divorce is NOT as simple as he is telling you it is.
For example: I work at a bank. Want to hear my anecdotes? - opening letters from the government every day demanding money from customers that refuse to pay child support even though it's a very small part of their income - listening to customers brag about how they hid a bunch of money in the divorce so they don't have to pay as much for their kids. - calling their spouses sluts or bitches when I can't even stand talking to them for more than 2 minutes because they're busy checking out every teller in the bank that's half their age.
Guess what? All those customers are guys. Don't let some anecdotal story about some hard-luck engineer paint your whole picture.
[–]cejones9 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
This is not a false "anecdote" I've worked with this woman for 7 years, she started openly telling us about cheating two years ago. She's brought one of the guys in several times, half of the divorce was because she thought she'd be with him afterwards but that didn't happen.
You can think it's a lie if you want but it's not. Mostly because like I said, she works 25 hours at 8$ an hour a week and lives alone now. She can't even afford rent with that.
Also you seem to misunderstand, the coworker is the wife not the husband. I don't like the husband, but I certainly like the wife less.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
How is that a response to what the dude said? You're telling him to leave just because he's asking questions you don't want to answer? How is that any different from SJW echo-chambers?
By the way, it's true, everyone has anecdotes that in some way confirm their preconceived notions about anything. Mentioning anecdote after anecdote without any hard data is meaningless.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What generalization? The one he specifically made to illustrate his point that anecdotal generalizations are meaningless and can be manipulated to portray any point of view?
[–]brewksy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Form a better argument then. Go ahead, I love a good debate. Sure, I can go back to whatever the hell "srs" is, but if you follow my posts you'll see that I generalize to call attention to the rampant over-generalization I see. If you have a problem with generalization, then I think we are finally on the same page.
[–]Afro3d 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You legit just generalized in like three of your posts in the last twenty minutes... Hypocrisy much?
[–]SharkGlue -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Your statement seems to be describing yourself.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Oh my god it did it again!
[–]Afro3d1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think you're the it more than i am judging by your profile
[–]SharkGlue2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well if you can't make a good argument, go for a personal attack. Bravo.
[+]haveacigar4200 -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
What responsibilities are not expected of women but are expected of man? I couldn't understand the argument 50 years ago but not today.
[–]FeierInMeinHose 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
How about signing up for selective service? Literally pledging to go to your death should a war break out. Same thing in any disaster, first out are women and children, men have to be prepared to give their own lives.
[–]haveacigar4200 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link
Fair point. The crazy feminist that demand equality should be pushing for that.
I do think men and women are not equal though. If war breaks out, like it did in World War II, the women need to stay here to bear and raise children and maintain the production. Otherwise, our nation's future is bleak win or lose.
[–]FeierInMeinHose 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
So why not have a reproduction selection? Men get pulled to die, women to birth. That is, after all, the responsibilities of each respective gender in wartime.
[–]haveacigar4200 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Have a reproduction selection, what?
[–]FeierInMeinHose -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Reproduction selection, as in selecting women at random to be forced to bear a child. It's the female equivalent to the service selection that men go through, referred to as the draft.
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That is a much less reasonable approach. You're not being objective.
Selective service is not perfect by any means. It should be reformed, perhaps only those that vote to go to war should be drafted. Your proposal was insane though.
If women are drafted to war then the countries future will be fucked. The disruption in production and live births would cause economic collapse for generations. We have to draft men because of our biological inequalities. We do NOT have to force women to have babies. The organic births are enough and you know it. You're just making an unreasonable point.
[–]FeierInMeinHose0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So it's totally not okay to force women to alter their lives for 9 months, but forcing men to alter their lives forever is fine. I'm not actually advocating for forcing women to have babies, much like Swift wasn't advocating for cannibalism, I was using it to draw a parallel.
[–]haveacigar42000 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Forcing women to have children is more preverse than selective service.
There is ZERO net benefit from forcing births. Actually, studies of communist Romania showed that the forced births INCREASED crime and poverty.
Selective service is not something anyone wants, but it is for necessary for protection of a state. Putting women in the military by force harms the nation FAR more than forcing men.
And that "alter their lives for nine months" bullshit is so ridiculous I don't know where to start.
First you have to rape the woman. Or forcibly inseminate her, so the sexual assault is necessary. This is not something every man has happen to them in he military.
Then she has to bear the child, so bodily harm is necessary. Not all men have to get hurt to serve, though some do.
Then she has to raise the kid for 18 years minimum. When you serve in the military you get fucking benefits you fucking moron. You don't have MORE financial obligations. Just stop. This argument you're trying to make work is just plain idiocy.
[–]chamclouder 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
Being primary bread winner
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
I have many friends where the woman is the primary breadwinner. That is just stupid on so many levels.
[–]chamclouder -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
And no one expects it of her. We don't value women on their earning potential or ability
[–]haveacigar4200 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Younger men do. I know many men that don't date women who can't support themselves and actually prefer women that earn more than they do. Your point is true of older generations but not so much of the young people of today.
[–]chamclouder -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Women can go into whatever field they want, low or high paying, with no expectation that they will need to be the primary earner. Men may choose to look for a woman that does make more but 99 times out of 100, women are choosing a man that makes more than they do.
In society, male value is based on earning ability. Not so with women. I dont agree that it should be that way but it is.
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
That is your opinion and it is wrong. This can not be proven, it is your perception of the world.
If women had no expectation to be primary earner then why are more of them going to college then men Despite the fact that women are capable of having kids, which makes going to school all but impossible?
[–]chamclouder1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's not my opinion. It's a wide sweeping general consensus backed by data and surveys that no matter how empowered the women are and may be, if it is providing for the family, it still seems to be the man’s job as a default and responsibility. Of course, a lot of women are doing it too, but the man doesn’t seem to have the option.
https://www.georgetown.edu/news/catherine-tinsley-breadwinners-research.html
https://psmag.com/economics/will-women-prefer-husbands-breadwinners-97317
It can and is proven. I recommend you read things before speaking: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1389781?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
For the love of Christ.
Your first source only stated that a majority of people preferred the man to be the breadwinner. They gave no statistics, it's just stated that a simple majority are in favor. They gave no analysis on the change, and just implied that there hasn't been much change.
Second source stated that a majority of women prefer the man to be the breadwinner, which makes sense seeing that so many women raise children. That source also stated that women make up 47% of the workforce, which is a huge change over the last 50 years.
I didn't bother with the third source because it is 17 years old. There are people that have kids now that were not even born when that was written. It is outdated and you seem to be missing my point that the Assumption of the male being breadwinner is diminishing.
Can you answer my question? If women are not concerned with providing for themselves then why are more of them going to college? Why are more of them completing college? How is this possible when there's a smaller pool of women to pull from? Many women have kids and can't go to college. Man sometimes can't go to school because of their children, but less often than women. Why are they outperforming us on Higher education? This indicates that young women want to provide for themselves more than previous generations. Why are you not seeing my point?
If women are not concerned with providing for themselves then why are more of them going to college?
That's not my position. My position, which is backed up, is there is an expectation for men to be the primary breadwinner, to make most of the money for a household. Society doesn't not have this expectation of women. They can pursue any pay level career.
Why are more of them completing college?
Because more women are being admitted to college. And more are being admitted to college because we have school system catered towards girls, that starts in elementary school. It appears boys underperform primarily due to how teachers treat and grade them. The evidence also suggests that when classes are geared towards boys' typical learning style, the boys perform better than boys in co-ed classes. Female college grants are also a thing.
http://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf
[–]haveacigar42001 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Doesn't matter what your position is, that wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making that the attitude is changing with younger generations and you will not accept that. Your argument was valid maybe 20 and 30 years ago. It definitely was valid 50 years ago, but it is not a valid nowadays because the attitudes have shifted.
Lmao! So now the school system is matriarchal! A system made of mostly male administrators is designed to keep men powerless. Sure.
I'm a man and I loved school. Most of my male peers didn't. They wanted to play video games and play sports. These motherfuckers could tell me the complex ins and outs of football politics but had no fucking clue about civics. Men like to focus their mind power on bullshit. Don't blame the system.
Your argument was valid maybe 20 and 30 years ago. It definitely was valid 50 years ago, but it is not a valid nowadays because the attitudes have shifted.
current data says other wise but by all means. You can lead a horse to water...
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
Where is some data that is less that 3 years old that shows no change?
[+]melvocado -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They have all the expectations for household chores like cooking and cleaning as well as childrearing. The responsibilities are not divided equally between parents.
[–]adamdavid85 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even if I agreed with your assertion that women are still expected to handle all the cooking and cleaning (which I don't, this isn't 1950), who is historically expected to handle the other household chores like managing the car, mowing and raking the lawn, snow removal in places where that's a necessity in winter, or fixing things that break around the house?
But again, we're not in 1950, and couples can decide how to divide the work in maintaining a household as they see fit.
[–]BillyErdball 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Women already have equal rights to men, in the western world at least.
[–]sennysun 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm aware
[–]haveacigar4200 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Apparently if you support men's rights you can't support women's rights. Human rights are only important to your own kind.
[+]sennysun -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I get that vibe from both sides
[–]TheCowfishy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Why are you being downvoted for that? Are we really going to circlejerk so hard here that we downvote the suggestion that women have equal rights to men? Come on this isn't t_d people
[–]sennysun -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's better not to question these things really
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
... unless you are a woman who is anti-feminist. Then you get treated like a pariah.
[+]haveacigar4200 -12 points-11 points-10 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link
^ Everything that is wrong with the sub condensed into one comment. ^
Being pro men's rights SHOULDNT mean you're a misogynist.
You bear a child and raise it and then tell me about work and "earning" rights.
[–]DarthRoacho 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I didnt bear my child, but ive raised her, largely with no help or contact from the mother. And also work 12 hrs a day. 7 days a week. I think ive earned the right to go out in public with her, without some nosy bitch asking me what im doing, do i know what i doing, is that your child.
[–]haveacigar4200 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
My point was that you don't "earn" rights. By definition it does not work that way. A right is godgiven at birth.
[–]zenwarrior01 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Are you suggesting that men don't raise kids too? Funny, because I do more work to raise my 10 and 13 year olds than my wife does. O.o
Does bearing a child give women (actually only "mothers") the right to increased pay and special privileges above men?
Granted, I'll agree that Chambertlo's phrase "demanding equal rights" wasn't concise or correct. He should have said something like, "demanding special privileges". Women already have equal rights. The problem is: they want and indeed have special privileges exclusive to them.
[–]AnotherDAM 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
You bear a child and raise it
wait, are you suggesting that women are required to bear and raise children? I don't think that is what this sub is about.
Or, are you suggesting that the evolutionary system which made us the smartest species we are aware of (e.g. deducing quantum mechanics) is so impossibly hard on females we should give it up? I don't think this sub is for that either.
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
No. I was saying that raising the world's children is hard work.
You don't "earn" rights by definition.
Saying women have not earned equal treatment is insane.
[–]TheSandmanECW 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
More rights than others isn't equal.
[–]RacelessSexlessName 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Still ignoring that father's raise children too.
[–]AnotherDAM 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So, you are saying the only people raising the world's children are women? Not sure that is going to float here either.
[–]i_comment_late -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wow, are you bitter. Who hurt you and skewed your perception
[–]drumstyx 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
They don't make a living at it though. That's why they're all screeching about a $15 minimum wage, hoping that their hot topic part time job will pay for their useless student loans.
[–]mrathrw 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
False equivalence. Plenty of men work minimum wage jobs too, and giving them living wages will help reduce the burden on them as breadwinners.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
ITT: Feminists throwing a fit, but being unable to find even 1 single article from a mainstream news agency critical of feminism from this decade. Not one.
THAT is feminist privilege. shit, just look at the feminists refusing to accept criticism right here in this very sub.
[+]SharkGlue -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Maybe, when everyone is telling you you're wrong, you're wrong?
[–]superhobo666 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Yet none of you can actually PROVE anybody but yourselves wrong.
[–]SharkGlue -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I didn't see any proof in your original statement.
[–]not_a_NSA_person 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Truth isnt measured in mass appeal homie
[–]delcrossb 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Straw man privilege?
[–]ThatDamnedImp 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
No, it's completely true. A feminist can say or do anything, and the mainstream media will literally bend over backwards to mitigate it. Or, if it's terrible enough, they will refuse to cover it.
Meanwhile, if a conservative just rolls his eyes at a woman, it becomes a talking point for MSNBC.
[+]MorgenPOW -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
"mitigate it"- I don't think this word means what you think it means.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
It means 'to soften or make seem less unappealing'.
So yes, I know damned well what it means. The mainstream media will bend over backwards to mitigate any god-awful thing a feminist says.
What the fuck were even thinking, writing this?
Edit: /u/MorganPOW, I want you to fucking answer for this, because it emblematic of everything wrong with you people. There are indeed two possible ways to read what I said--one of which makes sense in the context, and one of which does not. You purposefully chose to pretend that I HAD to have meant the one that makes no sense...instead of acknowledging the one that did make sense. And that seems to be completely in keeping with the way your side is acting here--dishonest, purposeful misinterpretation, saying idiotic things and then just relying on the fact that there are more brigaders here than honest actors to downvote me and upvote you.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you and those other people are just complete fucking retards who don't know a goddamned thing about the English language. That may very well be the case. But either way, it's something you should let the rest of us know.
[–]Draestyn 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Is this pasta
[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It can be, if you make your dreams be memes.
[–]Dancing_Anatolia 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just copy it, change some words, and paste it somewhere else. Be the change you want to see in the world.
[–]MorgenPOW -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Interesting! I didn't know about that definition of the word, i had only ever seen it used in the other context. I'm sorry that my wrongdoing lost you internet points.
[–]Phrodo_00 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just out of curiosity: That's the only definition of mitigate that I know, can you say what you were thinking of?
[–]serious_sarcasm -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Fucking horseshit bro.
[–]i_comment_late 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Hey u/jaib9, what is your real-life source for the example referred to in this quote? Who's the gender studies professor making "useless, unfounded" claims?? Who are the MSM fawning over them?? Or do you just want to be angry at the world for some reason?
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link
Do you have any legitimate criticism of it, or are you just here to shit up the place?
Feminists say and do all kinds of wretched things...and the media white knights for them. Criticize feminists, and the media says 'criticism of feminism proves that we need more feminism!'. Feminists scream 'KILL ALL MEN!!!' and that they 'Bathe in male tears' all over twitter, and when the media writes about it, they just got 'lol, it's just a joke. Fragile masculinity can't take a joke'.
But you want to pretend that this isn't a real thing because you're some assclown from /r/all here to shit up the place.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
the post implies men are somehow prevented from making a living
Talk about a straw man! Where does the post imply anything about men not being able to make a living? I don't even know how anyone could come to such a conclusion from the original post? O.o Outside of your imaginary land, the post is actually just making an observation that feminists enjoy support from wide numbers of people looking to gain their "daily virtue quota", without really knowing the actual facts, all while Women's Studies/feminism teaches completely false facts and statistics.
[–]serious_sarcasm -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Where does the post imply anything about men not being able to make a living?
You completely missed the point of their argument.
[–]zenwarrior01 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No, not one bit. You're just making up shit out of thin air.
mmhm
[–]ThatDamnedImp 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link
No, you're just here to be a sperg and trash the place. I don't care how many autistic feminist upvote you, you're just here to shit up the place.
You have no valid criticism whatsoever. This isn't about the actions of feminism--it's about the mainstream media never once criticizing feminists or feminism, the way they do every other idea.
If you want to disagree, find me a mainstream media article written since 2010 that is legitimately critical of feminist ideas.
I've asked this of a lot of you, and all any of you do is downvote...while pretending not to know what I'm talking about.
Edit: Nevermind. You've alreayd chosen to deliberately misread OP. You've instead chosen to argue about other aspects of it, because you know damned well that feminism is treated as privileged by the mainstream media. That's not remotely deniable. So you and your scummy, asshole friends just ignore that part of it altogether. Because you're scummy assholes, and dishonest shit like that is what scummy assholes do.
Mods: this is why you have to ban people when this shit from /r/all hits. Because if you don't, it emboldens the brigaders to ignore any actual arguments made, and just rely on superior numbers to silence everyone else.
Do your fucking jobs, for fuck's sake. you mods are the reason this sub is such shit.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]all-round-good-egg 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
The criteria was "legitimately critical of feminist ideas". The Huffy Post's article with the title of your search terms, "The Problem with Feminism" for example - since you brought it up - isn't a critique at all, it's "the problem with feminism is that people don't know how amazing it is" clickbait.
There probably aren't zero, but the ratio of pro-feminist articles and articles critical of feminism in mainstream media will certainly be incredibly lopsided.
Then we have the issue of subsequently Bingable articles not exactly having enjoyed prominent positions in publication X at the time of writing. So even a simplistic ratio isn't enough to judge an inherent bias.
[–]all-round-good-egg 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
No, you replied to "it's about the mainstream media never once criticizing feminists or feminism, the way they do every other idea". And you referred to a Huffy Post article proclaiming the wonderments of feminism as evidence that this is not the case.
The fact is that feminist ideology is treated with kid gloves in the mainstream media. It's not viciously dissected in the same way other political ideas are, not in the slightest.
This is with private institutions, as well as public ones - like the BBC - who have a legal obligation to be impartial.
You might say that this is hard to care about, but the individuals who speak up against feminism tend to be smeared as alleged misogynists or similar. If underhanded silencing tactics are not to be cared about, then I don't know what is.
[–]serious_sarcasm -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
It's not viciously dissected in the same way other political ideas are, not in the slightest.
Yes it is. Perhaps you have never heard of Fox News?
[–]all-round-good-egg 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
I am not familiar with Fox News as a viewer, perhaps somebody could verify whether or not the pro/agnostic/anti feminism ratio is in any way balanced there. I'd love to think that there was a channel that regularly dissected the alleged pay gap etc - perhaps there is a prime time series on it. Could you provide a link?
[–]serious_sarcasm-1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Have you tried PBS and NPR?
Oh, wait. You're not actually interested in nuanced debate, are you?
[–]all-round-good-egg1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No, I'm not an ideological feminist - I would love to encounter evidence that challenges my views or assumptions. I'm from the UK, so you naming channels from other countries doesn't change the view that I have from living here that the core tenets of feminism are not robustly challenged.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
So no, you can't.
And either way--by what right does the mainstream media refuse to air the criticisms of people like me? And yet they choose to air every goddamned idiotic 'idea' feminists come up with--manspreading, mansplaining, 'fragile masculinity' etc.
THAT is feminist privilege--the privilege of being heard without criticism when others cannot be heard at all.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That others are given those platforms may be a privilege, but honestly, it's one that's really really difficult for me to care about.
Finally some honesty.
[–]zenwarrior01 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"articles" <> "main stream media"
Of course there are plenty of "articles". Problem is: very, very few ever make it to mainstream media; never mind mainstream politics, law, rules, judicial decisions, healthcare, etc.
[–]serious_sarcasm -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Honestly, people like you are why no one takes men's rights seriously.
[–]i_comment_late -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Who in the fuck is screaming kill all the men? That's a straw man from the fucking '90s, dude. The feminists I know are screaming "fix the backlog of rape kits!", "don't defund Planned Parenthood!", "stop routine infant circumcision!", and "institute family leave, not just maternity leave!".
Get off tumblr, get some fresh air, go talk to other people.
[–]SharkGlue 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link
The kind of people in this sub
[–]tmone 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
brigading much? you realize that commenting here will get you banned from Twox, right?
edit.
nm. you aren't from twoX. you simply do nothing but argue and troll your way through /r/mensrights. why the fuck are you here?
[+]SharkGlue -14 points-13 points-12 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
To laugh at you mostly.
Funny how much you read into my comment when it's tautological and meaningless. Says more about your skin than anything.
[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
E hhh. You just ousted yourself as a troll. Lol. Kind of defeats the whole purpose doesn't it?
[+]SharkGlue -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Oh no, they know, what will ever be of me.
[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol.
[–]Lostboulevard 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
What a pathetic little worm you are. Piss off worm.
[–]SharkGlue 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Awe, triggered much? It's ok, just repress your feelings, that'll cure what ails you!
[–]Lostboulevard 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
triggered much?
lol. Best go back to your feminist sub worm.
[–]SharkGlue 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
TRIGGER WARNING for /u/Lostboulevard
Aweee, I think that's a yes. Or you wouldn't have spent so much time replying to me xD
[–]Lostboulevard 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I'm a cat playing with a mouse. It amuses me :)
[–]SharkGlue 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
xD omfg. I have the Laser pointer and have you running in circles.
[–]Lostboulevard1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Keep twitching mousey.
Making you run into the door is getting boring. Goodnight 10 day old alt account of an idiot.
[–]Lostboulevard0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Bye rodent. :)
[–]eadala -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link
I first came to this sub just to talk about legal issues and find support in an egalitarian community.
Now it's salty folk who conjure up some fictional woman in their head that says every extremist feminist argument all at once. Like people are LOOKING for a reason to be mad here. It's no better than r/TwoXChromosomes turning a tickle fight into a subtle rape attempt. Rationality has left the building at r/mensrights and you'll get downvoted to shit because the hateful boys outnumber the level headed individuals who are trying to make sense of an unequal world.
[–]zenwarrior01 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
The original post is talking about feminists, not women in general. We don't need to look around for these people. They're all over the Internet and all over the political spectrum pushing for and passing screwed up, sexist laws. The post was absolutely spot on from our experiences speaking with feminists online. Supporting absurd feminist talking points makes them feel good about themselves, giving them their "daily virtue signal quota". I see it every freakin day. You're quite lucky if you haven't.
[–]i_comment_late -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
How about you get off tumblr and go meet some real life feminists.
[–]zenwarrior01 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Are you suggesting that feminists are different online than offline? I met plenty when I took a couple women's studies classes with my bisexual friend. The shit was completely absurd with BS statistics and man hating. I also met plenty through an atheist group who then kicked me out after I called a prominent feminist author a cunt for writing that all men are animals (note she wasn't even part of the group; they just hated the word "cunt" apparently, all while calling guys "dicks" was perfectly acceptable to them).
More importantly, I've seen the horrific results of feminism in such sexist laws as the absolutely massive VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) which trained police officers to listen 100% to the woman and not hear a damn thing the man has to say... this during a relationship with an incredibly abusive ex-wife. Yea, I know full well what feminism is about. Perhaps you should go watch "The Red Pill" for a better understanding.
[–]serious_sarcasm -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
You do realize that you are just the opposite side of the coin for the caricature you've invented?
[–]zenwarrior01 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Quite the contrary. It's VERY difficult talking about these things in our society. Society demonizes MRA's BIG time. Please go watch "The Red Pill" to get some slight understanding about where we're coming from... it is a very difficult battle with very little support from others. It's not a "feel good" experience whatsoever. It's tough and it's very painful, especially for me getting away from an abusive psychopath only to put up with the feminist laws, training and sexist beliefs. 1 men's shelter in the entire U.S. last I checked vs thousands for women. Cops who are trained by VAWA to ignore men and only listen to the woman. That's what got me into the cause; not some petty online meme or misunderstanding.
[–]serious_sarcasm -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Society demonizes MRA's BIG time.
Do you know why that it is?
Also, if you think The Red Pill is men's right then you are part of the problem.
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Because feminists control the narrative in our current society, and have framed MRA's as "woman haters", all while many non-feminists believe in treating women like flowers with intense protection. Men are a disposable sex in our society. We die younger, do the risky labor, participate in war, are the last to get on the life boat, etc. Again, you need to watch "The Red Pill".
[–]_youtubot_ 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Video linked by /u/zenwarrior01:
"THE RED PILL" - Coming March 7, 2017 to Video-On-Demand...
Info | /u/zenwarrior01 can delete | v1.1.3b
[–]serious_sarcasm 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No. Just no.
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The movie "The Red Pill", not the absurd Reddit group of the same name. BIG difference.
[–]serious_sarcasm -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Why do you think they call it that?
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
She tells you in the movie. Perhaps you should watch it already? It's a term from "The Matrix". I'll help you out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE7PKRjrid4
.... I can't fix stupid.
[–]tmone 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
no better tha twox? please. for one, mensrights will not ban you for commenting on twox. TwoX will.
stop your bitchin, troll. get your brigading ass out of here.
[–]SharkGlue 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Try r/menslib. They're pro feminist and from they're own description: "Welcome! /r/MensLib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way."
[–]SharkGlue -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
Try menslib (I cant link directly to it) It's pro feminist and "is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way.£
eadala mentions egalitarianism though, not a desire to find a pro-feminist sub/site. Menslib appears to be fully subscribed to damaging and divisive feminist hypotheses such as The Patriarchy or 'toxic masculinity', so are clearly feminist, not simply "pro-feminist".
Might as well join f/Feminism and cut out the middle man.
[–]SharkGlue -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Menslib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way.
The first line of their description. Far more productive and less toxic than anything I've ever found here.
[–]all-round-good-egg 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In your opinion of course, my opinion is that their uncritical acceptance of feminist hypotheses makes them feminists, who are part of the problem. I would welcome a heavily moderated version of this place at some point, but menslib - unfortunately - is not that.
[–]i_comment_late -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Patriarchy fucking exists. If it didn't, we wouldn't have a groper-in-chief or politicians who make women's healthcare a political football. Feminists are NOT divisive simply for pointing this out. If that upsets you, that's on you.
[–]all-round-good-egg 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
There's an enormous disparity in healthcare spending between the sexes already, in favour of women. Excluding maternity related costs. Are you against equality in healthcare spending?
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Source? Because this says otherwise.
Go to the first pdf. A couple of things to note: 1. The disparity between men and women is not enormous. 2. The majority of that disparity is put down to maternity costs. 3. There is a much bigger disparity between children, with boys getting much more spending than girls.
Don't try to create strawmen. I am for equality in access to healthcare. And you can't deny that politicians are fucking with women's reproductive healthcare access. You can't even begin to imagine how devastating that is. So vasectomies and ED drugs are covered no question (as well they should be) but birth control and abortions are not because it's "paying for women to have sex" or "have sex, face consequences". And much needed clinics are being shut down because some politicians are using blatantly false pretenses to withdraw Title X funding. So tell me again about how much you care about healthcare equality.
Evangelical Christians are currently injecting their model of patriarchy into my healthcare. And you want to look the other way because the word "patriarchy" makes you squeamish?
Look, patriarchy exists. It's been around for millennia. Speaking out against it is not inviting divisiveness. And men can suffer under patriarchy too. That's actually a specific topic within feminism and gender studies, if only you would see.
[–]all-round-good-egg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No, they say that the additional difference is in maternity and prescription drugs, for women of child bearing age. So for that age bracket, there is close to 70% difference, vs simply massive overspending in every other age bracket apart from children, where the additional spending on boys accounts for 0.8% of total spending. But still more boys die than girls.
Actually more males die than females in every age bracket from birth until death. Yet healthcare is still massively skewed in favour of women. Government spending on women far outstrips spending on men looking at pensions too.
And you are not comparing like for like. Is male contraception covered? No. Abortion not being covered puts women on a similar footing as men, where you have sex and face the consequences of being a wage slave for 18 years to provide for a child you might never see with no options to get out apart from prison or suicide.
If you support legal parental surrender for males (females already have this option in many forms) then I would give your concern about reduced access to these options for females consideration. But as it stands you are quoting the feminist highlights, which - as always - ignore the wider picture for males. The contraceptive pill is incredibly cheap. Cheaper than a months supply of quality condoms.
We actually live in a matriarchy. Women can choose to stay and home or pop in and out of a career or politics as they please. At home they are the deciders of where we live, what size of house we have, what expensive décor our homes are adorned with.
The matriarchy does hurt men, the pressure of meeting the matriarch's desires lest she divorces - 80% of divorces are initiated by women.
If we lived in a patriarchy, 80% of divorces would be initiated by men and we wouldn't have to give half our shit away and pay the matriarch for the rest of her life!
Matriarchs being impressed by violent and dominant men hurts men too. Proxy violence. Perhaps this 'toxic femininity' should be addressed in your feminist warblings?
The truth is that we live in an equilibrium, there is no universal patriarchy or matriarchy. There is no 'toxic masculinity' without 'toxic femininity'. We compliment each other, but feminists have usurped this and put us in competition. (At least until the former feminist matriarchs decide to take it easy after having kids).
[–]Rudirs -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you.
[+]IHaTeD2 -6 points-5 points-4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
This sub and movement gets taken over by the right trying to paint the left and feminazis the same color to further push their agenda.
[–]i_comment_late 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You guys took over twox, so we wanted to see what you're all about.
[–]IHaTeD2 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Who do you mean by "you guys"? I'm pretty sure I'm banned there.
[–]crashfrog 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, who do you think is paying women "a living" to make "unfounded claims on the Internet"?
[–]Lostboulevard 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link
Anita Sarkeesian's backers, for one.
[–]SharkGlue 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link
How are a bunch of donors the MSM?
[–]Lostboulevard 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link
Find me a MSM article critical of Sarkeesian, then we'll talk.
[–]SharkGlue 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link
Find a Major news organisation that donated to her Kickstarters, then you won't be wrong.
[–]Lostboulevard 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link
Glowing reportage of the damsel in distress has been a boon for her business model, wouldn't you agree? If not for said coverage I doubt her Kickstarter would have earned more than a few bucks.
[–]SharkGlue 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link
Anita Sarkeesian's backers,
You're still wrong in your original statement.
Glowing reportage of the damsel in distress has been a boon for her business model,
I've said this before, but if the idiots who originally started the shit flinging at her for daring to talk about video games, had just not opened their mouths or just not been sexist pieces of garbage, Anita would never have been heard of. They made her successful. Of course, the media is going to defend someone against mostly bass less sexism and threats.
[–]Lostboulevard 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link
They made her successful.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the media would have pimped her regardless.
bass less sexism and threats.
Anita is a sexist. She thinks male sexual desire is evil. Actually she doesn't: she's obviously just trying to make a buck off of feminist idiots. But I digress. In the context of video games, she cares more about a man potentially being aroused by digital boobs than a hundred digital men being violently killed. Now THAT is sexism, of the most extreme kind. Male disposability in action.
[–]SharkGlue 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link
Maybe some small gaming articles. But nothing more.
she cares more about a man potentially being aroused by digital boobs than a hundred digital men being violently killed. Now THAT is sexism
Congratulations on your Whataboutism. Learn to have an argument in future.
[–]Lostboulevard 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link
I'm shocked that you have more empathy for digital objectification of women than digital slaying of men. Power fantasy indeed.
[–]SharkGlue5 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I am shocked, shocked, you have no comprehension of my point!
[–]Lostboulevard2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Try to emphasize your point rather than "beat" your opponent. I've found that helps. :)
I've used Bold and Italiacs to emphasise my point. Does that help?
Derp. In future, learn to debate rather than bold your words.
Still waiting for something to debate. All you have so far is "but wut about teh other issues"
OKay. I'll indulge you.
Male suicide. Lemme guess: men need to cry more?
Feminist opposition to shared parenting, even though every single study shows it is in the best interests of the child.
Males sentenced to on average 63% more than females. What to do?
Baby boys having their genitals mutilated. Nature made a mistake?
Should all boys be placed on Rittalin?
Why do feminists so often ally with the far right?
[–]SharkGlue4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
We need a decent Healthcare system both for mental and physical. Possibly also some form of special training for men so that they can be more open and honest about their feelings, and so women are not sexist about it.
Choice. That is all people want. No one wants to be forced to stay in a relationship they don't like. Male or female. As for the child, as long as they're cared for, single parenting from either gender is fine.
Yes, incarceration is huge, in part due to archaic laws in the US. Ideally, You want less incarceration and more community programs or rehabilitation programs. So only the worst are locked up and no one's life is ruined for something as small as pot. As for the gender imbalance, it is fucked up. This kind of bias is pervasive in the justice system (and needs to be addressed) and can also be seen in other ways. Basically, if a defendant looks more innocent, they will get a leaner sentence.
I think you're talking about circumcision. It should be outlawed. Personally, I'm against even getting a kid's ears pierced without their consent.
No clue what this is about. Talking out of your arse? Overprescription is an issue. Not aware of it being a gendered one though.
You're an idiot with no idea of main stream Feminism if you think this.
Aside from all that. You still have provided no evidence of the MSM backing her Kickstarter's as you claimed.
We need a decent Healthcare system both for mental and physical.
We need solutions. Not shrinks. Jobs in this case.
As for the child, as long as they're cared for, single parenting from either gender is fine.
It isn't. Every single study shows the necessity of fathers.
This kind of bias is pervasive in the justice system (and needs to be addressed) and can also be seen in other ways.
What are you doing to redress the massive sex gap? I'm joking. Of course feminists don't care about minor things like men being sentenced to on average 63 percent longer sentences. In fact feminists are trying to abolish female prisons entirely! Lol!
I think you're talking about circumcision. It should be outlawed.
Good for you. You're one of the potentially good guys/gals.
I take that back ;) Just kidding.
[–]SharkGlue3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
We need solutions. Not shrinks
Ohhh, so you want that male suicide rate to stay high? What an asshole!
Well, come back to me when your wife is abusing you at every turn. See how long you want to stay in that toxic relationship 'for the kids'.
In fact feminists are trying to abolish female prisons entirely!
You have to at least try and make factual statements if you want me to argue them.
Maybe people are good even if we they disagree?
You're so retarded I simply don't have time for you. And I actually enjoy debating retards.
Here's one of many articles on female prison abolishment:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10015766/Isnt-it-time-to-abolish-most-womens-prisons.html
"More than eight out of 10 of women sentenced and sent to prison have been convicted of non-violent offences. Many have young children, and some have themselves been victims of crime like domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape."
If you're locking people up for this then maybe you're wrong. Male or Female you shouldn't be in prison. Try read past the headline in future kid.
What is your point retard?
Soooo...women get the pussy pass. Everyone except imbeciles agree. What the fuck is your point?
Now an intelligent response would look like this: maybe males should be treated like females; maybe we should stress rehabilitation rather than punishment; maybe we can eliminate crime.
NO. Your dumb ass wants to act like a white knight. It is because of morons like you that we can't achieve progress.
I simply don't have time for you.
Your lies are building up.
What the fuck is your point?
I am shocked, shocked that you are still having this issue.
maybe males should be treated like females; maybe we should stress rehabilitation rather than punishment;
Have you read any of what I said? Can you read?
If you're locking people up for this then maybe you're wrong. Male or Female you shouldn't be in prison.
Me:
We need a decent Healthcare system both for mental and physical... so that they can be more open and honest about their feelings, and so women are not sexist about it.
You:
Well Jeez. You need to cry more. Why is that my problem?
Cry, cry away lil' feminist.
Well, I guess you're fine with the male suicide rate then. Maybe you're in the wrong sub. Try r/menarecancer. You might like telling men to kill themselves.
You hate men. What's the issue? I just hope you never have a son.
Well, I guess you're fine with the male suicide rate then.
You really got to work on this reading thing. You have the alphabet down, but words are still causing you trouble.
2/10
What's your solution to the male suicide epidemic?
Talking about your feelings? lol.
Go on, offer your solution you feminist piece of trash.
So you know mine. What's yours? Give them a gun and a rope? Are you sure you're not the man hating feminist here?
Let men be men. Let boys be boys. If "toxic masculinity" is to blame, male suicide rates would have peaked in the 50's.
Female unhappiness rates are at an all time high. Why? Fucked if I know, I'm a man. But women are unhappy.
What is the goal here?
It should be happiness.
Because they were so low in the fifties?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/187478/death-rate-from-suicide-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1950/
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/unitstates.pdf
I also never mentioned Toxic masculinity. Don't know why you're bringing it up.
Female unhappiness rates are at an all time high.
Anything at all to back that up?
It should be. So tell me again how men repressing their feelings is good for them?
Bitch -- if men "repress" certain "feelings" -- it's for your own good.
Do you ever wonder where electricity comes from? Or indoor plumbing? Men do those jobs. You should be THANKING men, not pretending as though you're "oppressed". I mean REALLY.
As for solving the problem? Well the first thing we should do is oppose feminism: we should support shared parenting.
So you want to repress men's feelings to get plumbing?
I think you are the man hating feminist here! What's next? Enslave all men in the sperm mines?
Um, no.
Bitch -- if men "repress" certain "feelings" -- it's for your own good. Do you ever wonder where electricity comes from? Or indoor plumbing? Men do those jobs.
You just drew that link. Do you have a problem with your short term memory as well as reading?
A genuine concern for the male suicide rate would lead you to support restrictions on the ownership and storage of handguns. Do you?
Or is this just a second issue that you actually don't give a shit about, it's just a handy baseball bat for you to beat Anita Sarkeesian with? And if that's the case, and you're just exploiting the male victims of suicide in order to score a cheap point on the internet, then why should I think she's the awfulest person, here?
No. In fact I think every man should be given a gun upon their 18th birthday. I want EVERY man to have a gun. Including homeless men.
just a handy baseball bat for you to beat Anita Sarkeesian with?
Sarkeesian hardly needs my help.
just exploiting the male victims of suicide
Fuck you. YOU ASSHOLES are the ones claiming that the male suicide epidemic can be solved by "men talking about their feelings." What a crock. You should be ashamed of yourself. Men will stop committing suicide when they have OPTIONS. And when they can actually spend time with their own children. You piece of shit. Fuck you.
YOU ASSHOLES are the ones claiming that the male suicide epidemic can be solved by "men talking about their feelings."
No, I believe we can make a pretty serious dent in the male suicide epidemic by curbing the ownership of handguns. I've never said anything about "feelings", although it makes sense that if your feelings are driving you to suicide, being able to talk about them with someone who could potentially help is a good thing.
Fuck you...What a crock. You should be ashamed of yourself...You piece of shit. Fuck you.
I just want you to know how not-seriously I take remarks like this from children.
No, I believe we can make a pretty serious dent in the male suicide epidemic by curbing the ownership of handguns.
Lol. And let's ban bridges next. Because people will jump off of them. Your analysis is entirely idiotic.
Do you remember this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGaoXAwl9kw
Gil Scott Heron mentioned, during the 80's, that black people should NOT give up their guns. I agree.
Poor people will NOT give up their guns. And eventually, we will come for you... lol. ;)
[–]crashfrog2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
And eventually, we will come for you... lol. ;)
I doubt it. Electric shopping cart scooters won't roll that far from Walmart.
Hey, those scooters have a fast mode!
[–]TheCowfishy4 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Damn dude I don't like Sarkeesian either but your logic and debate skills are weak as hell. Go read about the heirarchy of debate or something, damn
lol try producing an argument next time.
[–]TheCowfishy2 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm not here to argue with you, I'm just saying you're making a lot of points that I'm sure you think are very profound in your head, but they read like an essay from a high schooler.
Well if these highschool arguments are so easy to rebut I'm looking forward to your doing so. But you won't. Because you have jack shit.
[–]IVoidbringer1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
His points aren't even "essay from a highschooler"
This is your typically insane / deluded retard who thinks he's speaking sense when he isnt.
/u/lostboulevard you're not smart, you can't argue and you sound like a fucking idiot every time you comment
/u/lostboulevard you're not smart,
I disagree.
you can't argue and you sound like a fucking idiot every time you comment
Pick a comment numb nuts and I will destroy you with ease.
[–]IVoidbringer0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You would, being a fucking moron who has no idea how stupid he is.
Except you won't because you're a moron
Go ahead and pick a topic, smart guy/feminist. I will easily destroy you.
No need, as this comment shows you'll go full on "whataboutist" and not answer it anyway:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6nejgo/feminist_privilege/dk96b6a/
Anita Sarkeesian? Lol. Try harder feminist.
[–]WikiTextBot 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world. It is a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
During the Cold War, Western officials dubbed the Soviet propaganda strategy "whataboutism".
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.24
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
First tell me which claims of hers were unfounded.
[–]Lostboulevard 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
First tell me which claims of hers were founded.
[–]i_comment_late 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Yeah that's not how it works. Look, you're the one saying she's making unfounded claims on the internet, so it's up to you to prove that bud. If you're not up to par in critical thinking, it's no use engaging with you.
[–]Lostboulevard -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Yeah that's not how it works.
That's exactly how it works. In order for me to take you seriously you first have to make a logical argument and back it up. Otherwise I would be arguing all day with people who think they are Jesus Christ or that our thoughts are controlled by aliens from beyond the moon.
[–]i_comment_late 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Nice try. It really isn't how it works. You claimed she makes unfounded claims. So, you need to tell me tell me some examples. Otherwise take your logical fallacies elsewhere.
You started the damn accusation, it's on you to prove it. But I guess it's easier for you to point fingers and get pissy.
[–]Lostboulevard -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
You claimed she makes unfounded claims.
Have you heard of Thunderfoot? He does a good job (in fact a savage job) of debunking Anita's arguments.
And you're wrong. In order for me to debunk something you first have to make some sort of coherent argument for me to debunk. Anita's content is laughable.
[–]i_comment_late1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think you're seriously missing the point that you were the one making the argument first. So yeah, you need to support it. You can't just tell everyone else to prove you wrong, that's childish.
I'm actually not interested in presenting any argument for you to "debunk". You started it, you need to back it up. But I think you really just wanted to create an outrage circlejerk. Not interested.
Fwiw the only work of hers I have seen was about female superhero outfits and how sexualized and impractical they were. And it was fucking right on and something that has bothered me from the age of 9. If that triggers you I don't know what to tell you but I'm kinda done here.
You were triggered by an attractive digital woman? LMAO. Whatever you do don't go to a nude beach! You're adorable. May I suggest moving to Saudi Arabia? Pretty sure you won't see any skin on their beaches. :)
[–]Taldier 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link
The media literally only cares about Sarkeesian because she triggers you so hard. Nobody actually listens to what someone is saying if they are being constantly attacked. They just report on the attacks. After all if people are being so vicious to her, "there must be something to what she's saying".
You are the people who validate her. She regularly fades into obscurity, and then some dumbass makes a big deal out of her again. She feeds off your overreactions.
She's just a random woman with no political influence. She's not the voice of feminism or some nonsense.
Literally the only influence she has is the influence you give her by inflating her importance, all so that you can use her as a strawman.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The media literally only cares about Sarkeesian because she triggers you so hard.
You people only say this shit when you get called out.
If it wasn't true, you'd ignore stuff like this, rather than brigading the hell out of it every time it hits /r/all. You guys come in here with no argument whatsoever, repeating the same bullshit you've said for years, and you just downvote everyone who disagrees with you.
Look around--all of the people who actually suscribe here have 'controversial' daggers next to their names because you triggered tards know that what we're saying is true and you want very desperately to stop anyone from hearing it.
I mostly blame the god-awful mods here who will never ban a single goddamned one of you out of some idiot's idea of 'honor'. As if you can have a fair debate with brigaders who organize on IRC every time someone speaks ill of feminism.
Hell, what you're doing here--that's feminist privilege. You think that criticism of your movement should be forbidden.
[–]Taldier 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
^ Triggered
Apologies, couldnt help myself.
You casually generalize about those you disagree with, and yet many people on this sub would act horrified if they were generalized as being like you.
In reality, most rational adults who actually take the time to think about these issues move everyone towards equality.
There are important issues brought up on this sub. Things like equality in custody, and how men can be treated around children or when taking up "traditionally feminine" roles.
But in the end it gets overwhelmed by all the REEing of people like yourself ranting about irrelevant tumblr accounts or profiteering talking heads like Sarkeesian who just feed off the attention you give them.
Nobody actually gets to talk about anything because they shut each other out and scream instead of realizing that most of them would agree with each other if they just sat and thought about it instead of getting their messaging from equally ridiculous provocateurs on "their side".
If your self-image is wrapped up in all this nonsense then you really need to take a long look at yourself. You phrase your rhetoric like this is some sort of battle. Like youre "holding the line". Against what?
This is an internet forum. Someone posted some silly content on your sub that is funny within your group, but seems blatantly simplistic and ignorant to anyone who thinks its being taken seriously. And of course, some people here actually do take it seriously.
Then, because reddit is reddit. Everyone got to see that content on /r/all.
I'm not a part of any movement. I'm just a bored guy pointing out things that should be obvious on a Saturday afternoon.
[–]Lostboulevard 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
You are the people who validate her. She regularly fades into obscurity, and then some dumbass makes a big deal out of her again.
Hahaha you're absolutely right. However in my case I don't even play video games and have certainly never sent a message to Sarkeesian. I just find her "analysis" hilariously hypocritical. As "bad" as boobs are (apparently), what about the thousand men tortured and slayed to save the damsel?
She's just a random woman with no political influence.
I don't agree with this. She actually spoke at the UN for Pete's sake, arguing in favor of censoring the Internet. That's SERIOUS fucking stuff, regardless of your political stance.
[–]SharkGlue 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
I don't even play video games I just find her "analysis"
I don't even play video games
I just find her "analysis"
One of the main "criticisms" against her is that she's not a gamer. Maybe you have no right to criticise her work either.
[–]Lostboulevard 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Maybe. But until she makes a single compelling argument she's fair game for mockery.
[–]SharkGlue 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
It's not the mockery that most take issue with. It's that places like this sub want to see her crucified for talking about video games.
[–]Lostboulevard 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Crucified? lol. I'd be content with professional help to deal with her pathological man-hate.
[–]SharkGlue 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Ok, but this entire sub will need extensive training aswell.
[–]crashfrog 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
what about the thousand men tortured and slayed to save the damsel?
Yeah, actually, what about it? Is this something you care about, or just a devil's advocate counterargument?
If you don't actually give a shit about the portrayal of (some) men as basically disposable bullet-stoppers, grist for the hero's mill, then why should she?
[–]Lostboulevard 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Well since you asked. I care about them. Deeply.
[–]crashfrog -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
It really doesn't help me take you seriously when you lie right to my face.
[–]Lostboulevard 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Don't be smug. Of course I don't care about digitized "males." Any more than digitized big-boobed "females."
The more interesting question is why Anita S. was able to build an empire on the backs of gamers.
[–]crashfrog -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That's literally not something I can recognize as having happened. An "empire"? Jesus fucking christ. Literally nobody has heard of her except people, like you, in the throes of outrage addiction. Not a single fucking gamer has anything "on their backs."
[–]Lostboulevard 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Indeed. I just spoke at the UN last month.
You mildly amuse, if nothing else
I aim to please.
[–]14th_Eagle 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good luck making a living off that, regardless of your gender.
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Wowzers that was well said! It's amazing how so many otherwise intelligent people fall over themselves trying to make sure they support the feminist narrative to feel good about themselves.
[+]PissingOnTrump -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
Ill take "things that doing actually happen, but paid shills on reddit want you to believe they do so they can keep you angry and control the narrative" for $500.
[–]ThatDamnedImp 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
Cite me a source then.
When was the lastime a mainstream news site was critical of a feminist? Or feminism in general?
When you can't find one--that's feminist privilege. the privilege of having your ideology, and only your ideology, assumed to be true without ever having to prove a damned thing. And any criticism of you is heresy, as you asshats from /r/all prove with your constantly REEEEEEing.
Edit: amazingly, my comment is 'controversial', and yet not one of these whinging feminists that downvoted me has responded with a citation.
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
For that matter, cite me a source for OP's post. It's just a proclamation. Where's OP's source????
[–]doobidoobidoobidoo -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Feminists and feminism are criticised all the time in right wing media. What are you on about?
[–]duhhhh 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Mainstream media is now very woman-are-good/men-are-bad feminist. Which is probably a big part of why liberal men are migrating to (or being accused of migrating to by feminist liberals) the 'alt-right'.
Source?
[–]duhhhh 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Source for the bias in media? I guess you could compare the amount of misandry in articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, Huffington Post, NPR, Rolling Stone, Daily Mail, Gawker, Yahoo, and Business Insider to those same organizations 15 years ago.
[–]ghroat -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
"posting useless unfound claims on the internet"
My anoemia is cured
[+]geodebug -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
lol, dumb
[–]anagram88 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
no u
[–]i_comment_late -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
Wait, you realize men can be gender studies professors too? See: Hugo Schwyzer
[–]Vandechoz 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
well it does say "feminist privilege", not women
[+]i_comment_late -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
That doesn't change the point at all. Not sure how that's relevant.
[–]Vandechoz 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
Please elaborate, I can't understand how you think it's not relevant.
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Hmm, well, how's this for male privilege? Go look up Schwyzer's history. He was a self-promoted prominent figure in gender studies, who preyed on his female students and attempted a murder-suicide on his gf who had just been raped. And presumed to speak for her and forgive himself on her behalf. And he kept his jobs despite this. Many of us saw this as an example of male privilege even within gender studies.
[–]Vandechoz 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
sounds like the kind of feminist privilege that OP was pointing out
Well, no. The point is that his misdeeds were overlooked, and he maintained his position in his field even though colleagues decried his hypocrisy. If it were feminist privilege, then his female colleagues would've been afforded the same level of forgiveness as he was. Instead he got lectures and publishing at their expense. So you see it's an example of male privilege within gender studies.
[–]Vandechoz 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
his female colleagues would've been afforded the same level of forgiveness as he was
Who says they aren't?
I don't see how your original comment was relevant? O.o
[–]zenwarrior01 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You seem to have trouble seeing the difference between "women" and "feminists", or perhaps it just doesn't fit your absurd "MRA's hate women" narrative? Plenty of men are feminists for exactly the same reason the OP speaks to: gaining their "daily virtue signal quota" (in more ways than one with men). Many other men view women as fragile flowers in need of special privileges and protections. Thus why feminist agendas are so easily accepted by the majority.
You seem to have trouble seeing the value and original purpose of feminism apart from your preconceived hatred of it. Feminism is not about fragile flowers or virtue signalling. It's about equal rights, particularly equal reproductive health rights in this era, which applies to men as well. There is currently much activism around this.
I refuse to abandon a movement that has been a force for positive change simply because a subreddit wants to act as gatekeepers. The difference between a woman and a feminist is often an imposed one.
[–]i_comment_late 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Uh have you actually studied this stuff or are you just talking on assumption? Because gender studies is NOT just about women. It's about all genders.
But I suppose in order to realise that you'd have to let go of your knee-jerk outrage and maybe actually engage with the material. Good luck with that.
How many classes have you taken again?
[+]Rudirs -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
This is pointing out how stupid this guy is, right?
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]likwyd_16 82 points83 points84 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]candidly1 31 points32 points33 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]censoredandagain 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]guntermench43 27 points28 points29 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]likwyd_16 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ckiemnstr345 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]3rdLevelRogue 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chambertlo 148 points149 points150 points (174 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 18 points19 points20 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BLACK_TIN_IBIS 69 points70 points71 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[+]haveacigar4200 -51 points-50 points-49 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]1LtKaiser 45 points46 points47 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]SaiHottari 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PIG_CUNT 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rogdozz -24 points-23 points-22 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]1LtKaiser 26 points27 points28 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]rightsedfred [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Was that #notallwomen ?!?!
[+]Rogdozz -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]supacrusha 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]keyjunkrock 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]sennysun -19 points-18 points-17 points (150 children) | Copy Link
[–]adamdavid85 164 points165 points166 points (142 children) | Copy Link
[–]sennysun 68 points69 points70 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]chinachinachina3 21 points22 points23 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]Negabite 11 points12 points13 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]makerender 19 points20 points21 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Negabite 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]makerender 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]makerender 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]iongantas1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chinachinachina3 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Negabite 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -18 points-17 points-16 points (106 children) | Copy Link
[–]lesbefriendly 65 points66 points67 points (69 children) | Copy Link
[–]circlhat 49 points50 points51 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh 22 points23 points24 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]crashfrog -40 points-39 points-38 points (33 children) | Copy Link
[–]Denver80 36 points37 points38 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+]brewksy -8 points-7 points-6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]childofeye 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]chinachinachina3 -6 points-5 points-4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]chinachinachina3 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Celda2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chinachinachina32 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Celda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chinachinachina32 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Celda1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chinachinachina32 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]crashfrog -26 points-25 points-24 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Abiv23 22 points23 points24 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayn_Rand_Was_Right 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]crashfrog -17 points-16 points-15 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Abiv23 15 points16 points17 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Abiv235 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Abiv232 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]brewksy -17 points-16 points-15 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]Abiv23 18 points19 points20 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]brewksy -10 points-9 points-8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Abiv236 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]majortom22 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]brewksy -21 points-20 points-19 points (23 children) | Copy Link
[–]lesbefriendly 34 points35 points36 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]brewksy -7 points-6 points-5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]anagram88 17 points18 points19 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]brewksy 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]unbuttoned3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Ayn_Rand_Was_Right 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]SharkGlue -12 points-11 points-10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh 14 points15 points16 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+]brewksy -6 points-5 points-4 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]DirHR 15 points16 points17 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RubixCubeDonut 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh 12 points13 points14 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]brewksy -7 points-6 points-5 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]brewksy1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Wylanderuk 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WiseMonkeyGoodMonkey 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]brewksy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]SharkGlue -10 points-9 points-8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]brewksy 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]blewpah -17 points-16 points-15 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]DirHR 23 points24 points25 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]blewpah -11 points-10 points-9 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]DirHR 22 points23 points24 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[+]blewpah -16 points-15 points-14 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]DirHR7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blewpah1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DirHR6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]blewpah1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]circlhat 22 points23 points24 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]philksigma82 22 points23 points24 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 12 points13 points14 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -13 points-12 points-11 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]philksigma82 18 points19 points20 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -6 points-5 points-4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]philksigma82 11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DirHR 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RacelessSexlessName 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]doobidoobidoobidoo -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]RacelessSexlessName 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]sometimesynot 18 points19 points20 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+]doobidoobidoobidoo -15 points-14 points-13 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]sometimesynot 11 points12 points13 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sometimesynot -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]cejones9 22 points23 points24 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]brewksy -1 points0 points1 point (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]cejones9 17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (13 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]brewksy -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Afro3d 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue -3 points-2 points-1 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]SharkGlue -2 points-1 points0 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Afro3d1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]haveacigar4200 -7 points-6 points-5 points (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose 18 points19 points20 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeierInMeinHose0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar42000 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chamclouder 6 points7 points8 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]chamclouder -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 0 points1 point2 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]chamclouder -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]chamclouder1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar42000 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chamclouder1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar42001 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]chamclouder1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar42000 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[+]melvocado -15 points-14 points-13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]adamdavid85 13 points14 points15 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BillyErdball 15 points16 points17 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sennysun 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[+]sennysun -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheCowfishy -1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]sennysun -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]haveacigar4200 -12 points-11 points-10 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]DarthRoacho 45 points46 points47 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 20 points21 points22 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AnotherDAM 26 points27 points28 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]haveacigar4200 -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheSandmanECW 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]RacelessSexlessName 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AnotherDAM 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]drumstyx 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]mrathrw 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 21 points22 points23 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+]SharkGlue -6 points-5 points-4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]superhobo666 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]not_a_NSA_person 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]delcrossb 30 points31 points32 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 32 points33 points34 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+]MorgenPOW -10 points-9 points-8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 19 points20 points21 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Draestyn 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Dancing_Anatolia 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MorgenPOW -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Phrodo_00 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (67 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]ThatDamnedImp 30 points31 points32 points (22 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (20 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]zenwarrior01 11 points12 points13 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 18 points19 points20 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (13 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]all-round-good-egg 9 points10 points11 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]all-round-good-egg 3 points4 points5 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -5 points-4 points-3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]all-round-good-egg 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]all-round-good-egg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 13 points14 points15 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]zenwarrior01 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]zenwarrior01 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 4 points5 points6 points (39 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 11 points12 points13 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[+]SharkGlue -14 points-13 points-12 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]SharkGlue -8 points-7 points-6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]tmone 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 1 point2 points3 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 1 point2 points3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]eadala -3 points-2 points-1 points (24 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 14 points15 points16 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -2 points-1 points0 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 1 point2 points3 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]_youtubot_ 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]serious_sarcasm-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]tmone 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue -2 points-1 points0 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]all-round-good-egg 9 points10 points11 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]all-round-good-egg 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]all-round-good-egg 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]all-round-good-egg 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rudirs -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]IHaTeD2 -6 points-5 points-4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]IHaTeD2 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog 3 points4 points5 points (76 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 43 points44 points45 points (75 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 6 points7 points8 points (57 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 15 points16 points17 points (56 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 10 points11 points12 points (47 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 13 points14 points15 points (46 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 5 points6 points7 points (45 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 16 points17 points18 points (44 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 6 points7 points8 points (43 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 10 points11 points12 points (41 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheCowfishy4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheCowfishy2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IVoidbringer1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IVoidbringer0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]IVoidbringer0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]WikiTextBot 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 2 points3 points4 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard -1 points0 points1 point (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Taldier 0 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 20 points21 points22 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Taldier 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 6 points7 points8 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 8 points9 points10 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]SharkGlue 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 9 points10 points11 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog -4 points-3 points-2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 10 points11 points12 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]crashfrog1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Lostboulevard2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]14th_Eagle 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]PissingOnTrump -10 points-9 points-8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]ThatDamnedImp 13 points14 points15 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]doobidoobidoobidoo -5 points-4 points-3 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh 9 points10 points11 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]duhhhh 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ghroat -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]geodebug -10 points-9 points-8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]anagram88 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late -5 points-4 points-3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vandechoz 5 points6 points7 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[+]i_comment_late -8 points-7 points-6 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vandechoz 2 points3 points4 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vandechoz 3 points4 points5 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Vandechoz 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zenwarrior01 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]i_comment_late -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (3 children) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]i_comment_late 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[permanently deleted]
[–]i_comment_late 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Rudirs -10 points-9 points-8 points (0 children) | Copy Link