TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Why have they even mentioned a man.

NiggaPanda

January 5, 2016
2815 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://imgur.com/HlAWS1p
Archived from /r/MensRights

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

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

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

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

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

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

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Why have they even mentioned a man.
Author

NiggaPanda

Upvotes 2815
Comments 277
Date January 5, 2016 11:07 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3zmrla/why_have_they_even_mentioned_a_man/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-have-they-even-mentioned-a-man.963820
https://theredarchive.com/post/963820

Comments

[–]zulu127 606 points607 points608 points 10 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

They could just as easily say,

miner: a person, typically a man, who works in a mine.

but that doesn't happen.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (81 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Threwaway42 71 points72 points73 points 10 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

Like what?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]rudelyinterrupts 137 points138 points139 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I know a girl who is a mining engineer. She takes a very hands on approach and is a general all around badass. I get to hear about those women all the time. She feels like she has to separate herself from every woman out there and she does it. The problem is, she's the minority among the women who try the job.

[+]thedoze -20 points-19 points-18 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

any time I see a female miner or a female in a mine everyone dies.

Edit: no one watches horror movies?

[–]Bascome 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Having claimed to see a female miner in a mine and having said everyone dies, you must be dead.

[–]Taladar 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not quite true. Logically speaking there is also the option that the first part of the sentence never happened. So all the 0 times he saw a female miner in a mine everyone dies.

[–]Bascome 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We also forgot the "I watch horror movies" loophole. See his other reply.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Everyone dies" though. Maybe we are all dead and don't know it.

[–]thedoze 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't let movies kill me

[–]Bascome 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I missed the reference, no I don't really watch horror. Sorry bro.

[–]CaliBuddz 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean he could be a distance from the mine and see the female enter. Therefore, seeing her in the mine for a moment.

[–]kilkil 147 points148 points149 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh my god.

That is such bullshit.

[–]mynoduesp 151 points152 points153 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's a miner annoyance.

[–]RockFourFour 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ayyy, this fuckin guy

[–]Sean113 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Miner? I hardly know her.

[–]TheChilisGuy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just get stoned with them, they'll become more bearable.

[–]Stephen1985 80 points81 points82 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I used to work in a factory making tvs and anytime the line broke down we would have to unload all the tvs off the line and pack them in crates.

Whenever this happened i shit you not, the women just went to break because it was heavy lifting.

[–]25russianbear25 40 points41 points42 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

if you or anyone were the business owner (and everyone was the same sex) who would you pay more? And who would you pay less?

People who fully do their job? Or people who partially do their job?

I hate that some people cant grasp this concept.

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 32 points33 points34 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Experienced this too. It's fucking bullshit.

[–]DaedeM 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I worked in retail, and I was always made to do heavy lifting. Even when shit was clearly light enough for the girls. Hell it was a rule that it had to be a male if possible.

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

H & S rule?

[–]DaedeM 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe? But the shit I was carrying was definitely NOT that heavy. My younger sister could have lifted that shit np.

[–]Marokiii 40 points41 points42 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

3-4 women who get a trailer to themselves complaining to the 20 guys who share one of equal size is just laughable.

[–]tornreddit3 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Same thing in the military when deployed. Lower enlisted men would be squeezed into 8-12 man rooms, while women were two to a room or the entire room to herself depending on rank. This is because the women complained that they got too "cat-y" when around other females.

[–]MindlessElectrons 43 points44 points45 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is one of those moments where I actually got mad reading a comment. What the fuck.

[–]DallasTruther 24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I even heard them bitching saying that they should be supervisors because women are better supervisors than men.

Sorry to hop on, but drunk, and this reminded me of a couple of work situations.

  • Elderly manager and 18yo female employees bitching about men. "Why don't they just listen? We're always right!" I point out how that's sexist. 18yo: "But for real, women ARE smarter than men." Older manager backs her up (recently divorced, cheated on, bitter, always biting at the chomp to talk shit about men in general) "You might not think that way but it's true!"

  • Had to call the cops on a couple fighting in our parking lot last week. When told that we saw the woman hit the guy, the male officer said "I wonder what he did to deserve it?!" The 18yo and another female employee laughed, as did the officer. I couldn't believe it.

Plus the hatefest against men whenever the divorced one gets together with another divorced manager (who is a doll, I swear, she is sweet as sugar-infused honey; she is a listener and not a talker in these convos but she is too sweet to disagree)...

"All men are pigs, they just are!"

"You can't ever trust a man, never! You never know if he's hiding something!"

"I swear, I'll never trust a man. He could bring me the Moon, but I know that he'd cheat at the slightest chance!"

[–]Faliceer 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I love showing feminists the Irwing and APA gender and IQ studies and watching them call it invalid. Women are smarter when there's no proof and when statistics don't actually show up.

[–]PANTSONMIXTAPE 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Until finally, ya call her a cunt

[–]magnetflavoredwater 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My man!

[–]meepmeepmeepmeepmeed 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can i get a link please?

[–]splodgenessabounds 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

None of what you report surprises me. If it were up to me I'd issue a blanket ban on women working at the coal face: not because I'm Miss Soggy Mist, but because:

1) what you said about physical capability. Yes, there are women who are definitely able and willing to work a full shift and lug all their gear down and back up. But they're the exception, not the rule. Why does this matter? Because:

2) Working in a mine (or as a forester, or in heavy construction or similar) is by its nature hard and noisy and filthy and, more often than not, fucking dangerous. When push comes to shove and something nasty happens, blokes have a way with each other. Those at the sharp end will do all they can (and then some) to get their workmates out of trouble and their workmates trust them to do that. If there are more women in these places (if only the capable ones), I suspect a lot of that mutual understanding and trust might be tested. Even if the women working in these places are told (and they themselves accept) they'll be treated like "one of the lads", it's only natural for a bloke to put a woman's life ahead of his own, if not his male workmates.

In these sorts of circumstances, women working at the actual coalface in a mine (or in a forest as a logger, or on a major construction site as a welder or rigger) is the same as women in front-line combat, and I'm not the only bloke who has serious reservations about that.

Maybe I'm just too old-school, but I'd much rather women worked anywhere in a mining/ forestry/ construction operation than right at the sharp end.

[–]chocoboat 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

There is no reason to ban people because of what kind of equipment they pee out of.

What they do seem to need are stricter standards about hiring fit and capable people. A short, weak man who can't do most of the tasks assigned and who complains and asks for special treatment, he shouldn't be tolerated... and neither should a similar woman.

[+]Frankly_George 10 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

There is no reason to ban people because of what kind of equipment they pee out of.

Why not? Considering their physical limitations the equipment they pee out of practically was these women's job description. Do you really think they were hired for any other reason than to fulfill a quota?

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm saying don't ban, don't have quotas, don't discriminate ever. The jobs isn't about boobs or penises, it's about who can get the work done. Hire whoever is capable, regardless of their body shape.

[–]Bascome 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

No one is saying anything about plumbing. Do you really think that's the only difference.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not who you responded to, but if strength and mental fortitude are the concerns, then his point stands. Just have standards for hiring that include strength and crisis response aspects, don't "ban women" because some women will be better than some men.

[–]Bascome 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

My point is as long as you have slightly above average male standards only female Olympic lifters will qualify. Even average male strength standards eliminates 98 percent of all women.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So? Just have the standards and let them eliminate whom they eliminate. Companies should hire people based on their productive potential, not external standards.

[–]Bascome1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sounds good, real world implementation in todays political climate would be suicide I fear though.

Women want equal results not equal opportunity.

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo13372 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Probably, but less so than the person we were responding to who was saying: "I'd issue a blanket ban on women working at the coal face"

[–]chocoboat1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women want equal results not equal opportunity.

Who gives a crap. Stupidity should be ignored, not catered to.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The difference is strength, fitness, and willingness to do hard work. While men tend to do better at those things than women, it is not something that belongs only to men.

Banning women makes as much sense as banning white people, because black people tend to be a little more muscular and athletic.

[–]splodgenessabounds 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Again, no - this isn't what I hoped to point out. Of course some women are stronger and fitter than some men. Bu it's not about strength or fitness or willingness. My point (I may have unwittingly obscured it) is about the often unspoken understanding between those men who work in these occupations have with each other (a "bond" if you like), and how the presence of even one woman can affect that bond. I'm not talking about trivial considerations, I'm referring to how blokes behave in a crisis.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Men don't need to (and shouldn't) change their behavior if a woman is working with them.

[–]splodgenessabounds1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And we do, nonetheless.

Whaddaya gunna do about it?

[–]chocoboat1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm going to ignore complaints of "we don't want women around because we choose to act differently around them".

[–]splodgenessabounds 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The point I was making was that the presence of women in occupations that have (until fairly recently) been 100% male invariably alters how the blokes doing the job relate to each other. This is true in mundane day-to-day behaviour in relatively safe jobs, but is especially relevant in the sorts of dangerous jobs (like at the coalface in a mine) that men have always done. Karen Straughan talked about something along this line in one of her vids (can't recall which one but if I find it I'll post a link) - I'm taking her line of reasoning a step further.

Blokes who've worked in dirty, noisy and dangerous jobs most of their working lives will, when pushed, admit to being unhappy about having women down the pit or halfway up a mountain in a pine plantation. Not because they're sexist arseholes (though some may be) but because they will always put a woman's life ahead of their own, regardless of that woman's obvious physical strength (though I wonder about stamina) and how well she fits into a male-dominated job. How do I know this? I've been working since I was 18, most of those 37+ years in male-dominated occupations and sometimes in dirty, noisy and dangerous conditions. I admit this is solely my personal experience (YMMV), but I've read and heard of many with similar stories, and I can't help but believe that most blokes who work in such demanding jobs would much rather women stayed out of harm's way. There's a way blokes have with each other in these jobs: nearly all of it is unspoken, but nearly everybody understands.

If you'd asked me as recently as a decade ago if I thought banning women from working in obviously dangerous conditions was discriminatory, I'd have agreed. But I've changed my mind: these days, knowing what I know now, I really do think there are some occupations that are no place for a woman. If that makes me sexist and discriminatory, so be it, but I'd much rather that unspoken yet understood agreement between those men who work in such lethal conditions prevailed.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

but because they will always put a woman's life ahead of their own

Well... they should stop doing that. If the hiring practices are fair, there shouldn't be any women there who aren't able to do the job well and take care of themselves.

knowing what I know now, I really do think there are some occupations that are no place for a woman

Because the men don't handle it correctly? I don't think that's a good reason. I mean, suppose it was common for male schoolteachers to be a distraction to the female teachers, and they aren't doing their job as well because... they're all fawning over him or something, whatever. The solution wouldn't be to ban men from teaching, it would be to train the women to treat him like any other teacher.

[–]splodgenessabounds 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hiring practices, HR regulations and EO laws are all - in the case of a critical situation - irrelevant. Comparing how blokes react in an emergency several hundred feet below ground with what goes on in a school staff room is... is... well I don't what the word is. Bizarre will do.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's not how analogies work. They compare one similar aspect about two different scenarios. They do not claim "these scenarios are completely identical".

Here's another example: it's common in this sub for men to take anti-male hate speech written by women and replace "men" with "black people" to make it easier to see how hateful and discriminatory the statements are.

When men do this, they are not comparing men to black people in ALL ways. The comparison does not imply "I think men have it as bad as black people did during the slavery years" or any other nonsense claiming that men and black people are identical in all ways. It's only about the one specific aspect being compared - which is that there is hate speech against them.

My point of "everyone should be treated the same, don't make special rules favoring one type of person, don't prioritize one type of person over another, don't treat one type of person differently" still stands. There should be no difference between a emergency situation with all men, and an emergency situation with mostly men and a couple of women. Gender should not matter.

[–]RubixCubeDonut 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Not sure why you're being upvoted considering you completely failed to address any of the points that were actually made and instead constructed some very blatant straw men.

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

How exactly did I fail to address the points and construct strawmen (multiple ones in a 3 sentence post, apparently) by saying "hire people who can do the job, ignore what's between their legs"?

[–]RubixCubeDonut 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Because his point wasn't about what's between the legs and the average physical capabilities (that was an obvious lead in to the real point if you'd bothered reading the whole post, moron) but rather the social power imbalance and the effect that would have in life or death situations in the form of putting male workers in more danger.

Not that I think it's correct, but it's half his fucking post and the rest of it is clearly structured to make that main point. That is very clearly the main thing he was trying to say and instead like the little piece of shit you are you decided to address the thoughts around it instead of the main point itself. Absolutely nothing you said came anywhere near addressing it. Hell, you could have even re-read his post after mine and realized you blatantly missed half of it.

(And if my language seems personal... it is. Because I'm sick and tired of how you'll echo MRA talking points as if you understand why they're said until some sort of edge condition gets triggered, you shit all of those concepts out as well as any semblance of logic, and go absolutely 200% "team women".)

[–]splodgenessabounds 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because his point wasn't about what's between the legs and the average physical capabilities ...but rather the social power imbalance and the effect that would have in life or death situations in the form of putting male workers in more danger.

This is more or less what I was hoping to get across. When push comes to shove in a real crisis, most of the men are likely to spend most of their time and effort looking after the one or two women who are with them, rather than 95 of their male workmates. That's how us blokes are wired. Whether I'm (politically) correct or not, I'd much rather that minor proportion of women who would qualify physically were kept out of the way.

[–]chocoboat -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

but rather the social power imbalance and the effect that would have in life or death situations in the form of putting male workers in more danger

Why should male workers be put in more danger? Why should there be a social power imbalance of some kind?

Not that I think it's correct, but it's half his fucking post and the rest of it is clearly structured to make that main point. That is very clearly the main thing he was trying to say and instead like the little piece of shit you are you decided to address the thoughts around it instead of the main point itself.

He's talking about how things ARE, and I'm talking about how they SHOULD BE. Those are two very different things. He's saying "I'd rather have a ban on women then then have the current bullshit situation", which is a pretty reasonable view. But my response is "it's even better if you have no discrimination at all".

When I explain why ignoring gender completely is the best way to go (because gender has nothing to do with the work), I am not ignoring his point, I am explaining mine. Sorry if that pisses you off so much.

I am not on Team Women, I am on Team Equality. Set standards for the job, and hire whoever can pass them. Gender and color and sexual preferences etc. have fuck all to do with with whether an individual is capable of doing the job or not. And discriminating against groups because of irrelevant physical characteristics instead of each person's individual ability is bullshit, and only serves to make people more racist and sexist.

[–]RubixCubeDonut1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why should male workers be put in more danger? Why should there be a social power imbalance of some kind?

Why should I bother reading anything else you replied to me when I already addressed that I wasn't claiming it to be accurate, merely accusing you of ignoring their main point.

The correct answer here should have been to apologize for your idiocy, not to cement it further.

[–]chocoboat0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"I can't use facts or logic to respond to anything you say, I'm just going to call you an idiot and tell you to apologize."

Go back to /r/feminism.

[–]RubixCubeDonut1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm absolutely boggled by how completely stupid you are. For starters, the point I'm arguing that you've failed to address is completely the opposite of anything any feminist has ever argued for. In fact, if anybody here has argued in a more feminist fashion it's you with your "duuuuuh how are women more socially powerful" garbage.

For fucks sake, I was very fucking explicit about not reading your fucking response because I already fucking said that I wasn't fucking arguing for the fucking point that you fucking ignored. DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT IT YOU SCUMBAG. You talk to the original post about it you fucking moron. You apologize to me for being a complete piece of shit human being and continuing to blatantly ignore inconvenient portions of posts.

[–]chocoboat0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

somebody got triggered

[–]PANTSONMIXTAPE -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Also something to keep in mind (especially on the armed forces issue), plenty of women can outperform the average man in physical fitness tests. But when they can, why would they waste that ability in the armed forces when there are many more lucrative options available?

Its just a smaller pool to pick from because of the incentives, honestly

[–]99639 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lol what 'physical tests'?

[–]off_the_grid_dream 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Clearly all of them. That's why we have separate Olympic Categories. So the women don't dominate on all the physical aspects...

[–]PANTSONMIXTAPE -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nothing crazy, just a certain amount of pullups, situps, laps, etc.

But once they hit the point of being able to do that theyre already so far ahead of other women they could be competitive athletes or fitness models or something

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women are not given the same physical fitness tests that men are.

[–]PANTSONMIXTAPE -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Im aware, but there ARE women that can meet the same physical requirements as men, theyre just exceptional and once they hit that point, why not make a shitload more money as a fitness model or professional athlete. And yknow, not having to die maybe

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I've known Marines who ran Olympics qualifying times. They chose the path they chose for the reasons they chose them. Why? Only they will ever truly know.

[–]PANTSONMIXTAPE 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but theres a much smaller pool of those type of physically high achieving women. Most men that athletic dont choose to go into the armed forces so why would women be any different? As far as incentives are concerned, they wouldnt be, except they dont have a society that forces them to register when they turn 18. So theres less expectancy that they would

[–]bufedad1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Most men that athletic dont choose to go into the armed forces so why would women be any different?

And some men do, so why would women be any different?

[–]PANTSONMIXTAPE1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thats my point, theyre not. Theres just a smaller pool of them to choose from. The ratio is the similar

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is very common in any physically demanding job. The worst part is that supervisors hold women to a lower standard of work than men for fear of looking sexist.

[–]satpin2 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Females in the military is basically the same exact thing.

[–]bastion72 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some. I served with some great ones, and some not so great ones. I also served with some great men and not so great men. I was aviation, so there wasn't much heavy lifting.

[–]25russianbear25 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they want to be place at the pedestal SIMPLY because they have a hole between their legs

disgusting and pathetic

[–]SpankWhoWithWhatNow 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, uh... why are they miners?

[–]ColonelVirus 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Last one sounds reasonable, as long as the men get the same, or a communal one is built w.e.

[–]SCROTAL-SACK 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

should get paid more for doing the same work They want their own building built for a dry because the contractor trailer they're in isn't good enough. It's too cold and the hot water takes forever and the lockers are too small. They should have first choice over the operator jobs because they're jobs that don't require heavy lifting. aying that they should be supervisors because women are better supervisors than men.

Holy hell. How does this gain any other response other than "FUCK the fuck off". Thats insane.

[–]tehDemonseye 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Please, tell us, that could be very interesting

[–]ICantReadThis 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's not fair, though. Using the correct definition of rape (forced sex without consent) rather than the feminist definition (penetration by a male that's done without consent or merely regretted afterwards) will leave you with a far higher percentage of male miners than male rapists.

[–]thebattlefish 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a horrible joke here about blackface, I just know it.

[–]baskandpurr 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thief: a person, usually black, who steals

My apologies for the implication, I'm making a point of how unnecessarily offensive this is

[–]not_shadowbanned_yet 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure at some point the definition was "a man who works in a mine" but that would be politically incorrect.

[–]chavelah 170 points171 points172 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

When I was young, the dictionary definition was more like "a man who forces himself upon a woman." Unbelievably, this is progress.

[–]chaos122345 71 points72 points73 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Up until recently, the law didn't even recognize women as rapists so, progress is progress

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 53 points54 points55 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Still don't - needs more progress.

[–]25russianbear25 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any time this type of stuff gets brought up. OMG YOU SHITLORD STOP TRYING TO BELITTLE WOMENS PROBLEMS! MEN HAVE TON OF PRIVILEGE ALREADY!! YOU SEXIST MISOGYNIST!

[–]sigh_riss 76 points77 points78 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Infanticide: the act of murdering an infant, usually committed by the mother.

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Suicide: the act of taking ones life, usually committed by a man.

[–]SirSkeptic 222 points223 points224 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Wow! The feminist backlash against this will be enormous. There'll be rallys, protests hashtag campaigns. Feminists hate gendered language and have pushed for lots of legislation and publishing guidelines to prevent it.

crickets: ~ chirp chirp ~ ~ chirp chirp ~

[–]cablebent1988 268 points269 points270 points 10 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Obesity:

A person, typically a woman, who over eats and blames other for, usually her, problems.

Edit: check your up vote privilege!

[–]aDAMNPATRIOT 39 points40 points41 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

eRekt

[–]TutkuGulzar 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

eFukt

[–]Princess_Cherry 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ಠ_ಠ

[–]aRVAthrowaway 28 points29 points30 points 10 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Just an FYI, this isn't necessarily Apple's fault. They pull they Dictionary data from the New Oxford American Dictionary.

Edit: you can contact Oxford Dictionaries here to request they change the definition here.

Edit 2: We did it...sort of!

Edit 3: Apparently not. When browsing in private mode, the definition returns. Odd.

[–]bastion72 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done.

[–]tokenmetalhead 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done. Please do this everyone, nothing can happen if no one cares enough to say something.

[–]nabbable 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The cambridge dictionary definition is much worse:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rapist

[–]aRVAthrowaway 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Um no it's not

[–]DildoFire 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done and fuck Oxford dictionaries

[–]letsgetrandy 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Everyone please upvote this guy's comment for visibility.

[–]shawnnix610 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done! Thank you for making that easy for the rest of us.

Here is what I sent to them, but please no one copy paste my response as most everyone in the world is going to have some kind of spam detection for this. Make something honest, unique, and respectful.

rape and rapist:

This definition should not include the phrase, "typically a man".

First of all, this is sexist (see thief: "typically blacks"). Secondly, this is irrelevant to the definition (see firefighter, "typically a man"). I hope you change this ASAP, and when done, we can chalk it up to an oversight due to the large number of words you track. Thanks.

[–]Volatileprojects 69 points70 points71 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

TIL Siri has a Tumblr

[+]Jaeryth 10 years ago* [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

Duh, women can't rape men. How would he get hard? Obviously men control their dong erectness with the Force and wouldn't get a hardon unless he WANTED it. /s

[+]Cduns112 -41 points-40 points-39 points 10 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Hope you're kidding

[–]Dongslinger420 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

You're in fucking /r/MensRights, what do you think people here advocate? With /s-tags nonetheless.

[+]Cduns112 -15 points-14 points-13 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Brought here by Reddit pics app...wasn't even aware of what sub I'm in. No idea what /s-tag means. ......I'll see myself out

[–]Dongslinger420 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It's basically a sarcasm tag. Exactly that.

[+]Cduns112 -18 points-17 points-16 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Exactly, basically.

[–]Yawz7z7 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Its well known to indicate sarcasm. How's life been under that rock?

[+]Cduns112 -22 points-21 points-20 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Well known? Maybe amongst the virgin neck beards such as yourself.

Edit: to answer your question, better than my moms basement.

[–]Yawz7z7 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

http://m.imgur.com/U3j1UN5

[+]Cduns112 -12 points-11 points-10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So although your imugr might be construed as you denying your virgin status, you don't seem to deny you have a neck beard (and are probably an obese blob living in parents house playing video games all day) : /

[–]RadicaLarry 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you being intentionally daft?

It's well known to indicate sarcasm

It really is. That wasn't an opinion, that was a fact. They, apparently, haven't taught you that in 3rd period yet.

[+]Cduns112 -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'll choose to ignore your wrongful assumption that I'm attending any kind of an institution that has "periods" (i.e. High school), and go on to say that calling something "well known" is in fact an opinion unless the person who made the claim has conducted quantitative research into the knowledge of what /s-tag means. For someone relatively new to Reddit and not a frequent user, this is not a well-known fact. Even if I conceded it's a well known fact, there is no reason to assert I've lived under a rock because of my lack of knowledge on Reddit terminology. Notting I've said would indicate I am being daft, I encourage you to research the definition of the word so you may use it properly in the future.

[–]RadicaLarry2 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I encourage you to research the definition of the word so you may use it properly in the future.

If you don't understand how I was using it, you are, in fact, being daft.

Also,

Well known? Maybe amongst the virgin neck beards such as yourself.

For someone relatively new to reddit and not a frequent user, you sure seem to have the reddit insults down.

And the main problem I, along with everyone else reading your smarmy, snarky bullshit replies have is how condescending you are. Don't expect anyone to pull punches when you lead off acting like an asshole.

[–]Gentleman_Redditor -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Sorry dude. Not everybody here is an asshole.

[–]Cduns112 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. I'm honestly surprised at how aggressively and rudely people responded because I'm not familiar with what /s means. Not very "community" oriented.

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people are, some people aren't.

Some people have been hurt by feminists and are really angry.

Some people aren't.

Some people have been hurt by women and are blaming all women.

Some people aren't.

There are a wide variety of people in this sub. Don't make your decision about this sub be based on one user.

[–]link5057 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Youre the ome acting like a piece of shit after the fact

[–]Cduns112 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I responded in the manner in which I was responded to.

[–]link5057 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

As far as im aware common etiquette goes both ways, and both parties took the low road

[–]Cduns112 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And was calling me a piece of shit your idea of common etiquette?

[–]link50571 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I never said I dont take the low road. But you had so many opportunities to just cut it out, im only taking the low road just this once to make my point

[–]Cduns1121 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First and only time taking the low road?! Thank you for your hypocritical and self righteous point.

[–]link50571 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

*only time in this interaction

EDIT: because i will take the low road more, but I'm not ashamed to admit myself an asshole

[–]Cduns1120 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you are by your own admittance an asshole, what business do you have lecturing others on common etiquette?

[–]sianfrogman 26 points27 points28 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Would just like to point out that the UK legal definition of rape is penetration by the penis. So that's why.

Edit: spacing

[–]oorakhhye 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just tried it with my iPhone. Same thing. I live in Los Angeles.

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are many places where that is the law.

[–]ukreview 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

yes, I agree. although the language in the dictionary sounds sexist, you can't blame it. The blame is of course with the people who wrote the law (Parliament) and those who enforce it (the police, CPS) for not lobbying the government to change it so it's gender-neutral and includes female rape situations. My question: does anyone know of a campaign or any attempt whatsoever at changing the law? Anything going in in parliamentary sub-committees or the House of Lords?

[–]Riktenkay 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree. Whilst the law is at fault, there is still no reason for the dictionary to say "typically a man". In fact if it was going by the legal definition it would say "always a man", so...

[–]sianfrogman 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

👌🏻

[–]MustacheBus 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What the actual... That is so messed up.

[–]38B0DE 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I thought it was an English thing because it sounds so drastically ridiculous.

Here's the definition of rape (vergewaltigen, verb) in my German dictionary. "To use violence to force intercourse"

BUT in German when you make a noun out of a verb it can be Maskulinum (masculine) or Femininum (feminine) when it refers to a person. For example to dance is "tanzen" and so a male dancer is "Tänzer" while a female dancer is "Tänzerin". You can see the German language in comparison with English is extremely sexist (/s). They recently had the words in the traffic regulation laws "gender neutralized" because the standard plural forms are traditionally since the inception of the language Maskulinum. So when Germans want to say drivers they say Fahrzeugführer and not Fahrzeugführerinnen. The plural involves everyone male or female but because it the same as the Maskulinum it's supposed to be "non-inclusive". Literally 99,99% of the people don't have a problem with it, or even notice it at all. But obviously when women hear it it subconsciously indoctrinates patriarchy in their brains so they become slaves to men. But I digress.

However there is not a Femininum noun out of the verb rape (Vergewaltiger) in German. It only has a Maskulinum form. "A male person who rapes someone". So the existence of the word for female rapist is not officially recognized.

If anyone is interested it's the "Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch" 8th edition from 2006. The dictionary does not omit Femininums of all nouns that have them and has them all additionally wirten down.

[–]MyNameIsSushi -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There is Vergewaltigerin.

[–]38B0DE 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Not in a dictionary. Hence the "the existence of the word for female rapist is not officially recognized".

[–]MyNameIsSushi -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Check duden.de

[–]38B0DE 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the third time: the point is not that the word does not exist it does it's the fact that it is not included in the dictionary. I even posted photos of it.

[–]blueoak9 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Why? Because they are trying to cover for all the women who rape. They are trying to say women who rape are a tiny percentage of rapists to deflect attention away from them. They are trying to smear men as a category as rapists as a way to get more support for their carceral agenda. They have lots of reasons.

[–]soalone34 30 points31 points32 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wonder how many female rapists get away with it because of this perspective. And how many more rapists this creates as a result. I imagine lots of rapists are that way because of sexual abuse they faced as kids, man or woman.

[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Almost all. In many places it isn't even illegal for a woman to rape a man, heck the FBI didn't even consider it illegal under a couple of years ago.

[–]shawnnix610 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

well, even now the DOJ's definition change (FBI usage) still doesn't even affect arrest rates and prosecutions. It only affects the way the DOJ tracks statistics. Rape laws are passed on a state level, and need to be changed state by state in the USA.

[–]greenpotato 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Just out of curiosity, what are the statistics? (i.e. What percentage of rapists are female?)

(I'm not trying to minimize it, I'd just like to know what the actual facts are.)

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

When rape is defined as a crime committed by a penetrator, then any women must use an object, or fingers. Otherwise the statistics show up as sexual assult or the new "discovery" of made to penetrate.

So very few are recorded.

Edit: ie this is why the MRM wants the definition to change - as do I.

[–]Markus148 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

According to the study done by the CDC, about 40%, if you want to believe it.

http://i.imgur.com/eUKIiFq.jpg

[–]blueoak9 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

(I'm not trying to minimize it, I'd just like to know what the actual facts are.)

Just for the record, asking for concrete information about a problem is the opposite of minimizing it.

[–]ukreview 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

stats mean nothing. In UK a woman can't physically rape. Not because of biology, but because of the definition being too narrow. Police don't keep stats on male victims, or rarely do as female rape isn't a crime. A woman can't be charged, prosecuted or convicted for a crime which doesn't exist on the statute books. However, the question 'how many women actually rape?' is the question I always get from a feminist when I debate this issue. For the reasons stated it's impossible to answer. The line from police will be 'most people who report rape are female.'

[–]meeu 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What would you guess the ratio of male:female rapists in the world, out of curiousity?

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From the data I've seen, 60% of rapes are perpetrated by men, 40% by women. That doesn't say anything about the ratio of male:female rapists (one gender could have more repeat offenders and therefor a lower number of rapists).

As victims though, it's close to 50:50 (men are more likely to be victim of rape by a man than women are to be victim of rape by a women).

(based on NCVS study in the US, but I'm not sure which one)

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

maybe 50/50? Well victims according to the DOJ (2008 -USA) Male rape male in prison - 216,000 est. Sexual abuse is about double, which may also include a % by female guards. More women inmates complain of being assulted by inmates - ie SA, not rape? and men slightly higher by guards, some again are women, esp in Juvenile facilities (9% conviction rate). outside prison - male (gay)+ female victims= 90,479. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims

Rainn uses the NCVS statistics- 213,000 outside prision is sexual victimisation ie not rape or less well defined - 9/10 female.

Prevalance found in the CDC study, male rape victims (ie m-m) lifetime 1.7%, but "made to penetrate" was 7% or virtually equal with the female rape catergory. Males also 1/3 of the sexual coersion stats.
http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers

Add prision to the community and made to penetrate and males suddenly become the prime victims of rape, including 2/3 of the prepubessent victims.

So is "made to penetrate" = rape? There is the claim that an offender forces someone by threat to rape a third party is included, and it is, but I haven't seen a breakdown suggesting there was even one case of this in the US (but often happens in war- fathers forced to violate children or watch them die).

But the lead researchers own statement focuses on the consequential harms. She declares that the experience of being made to penetrate is wholy different from the experience of a female being raped. Convieniently forgetting the preferance is also different for individuals and those forced to participate outside their own sexual preferances. Thus she is defining not on the action of intercourse, but the legal requirement of penetration, nor is the lack of consent (the social definition) considered, but has left the rest of the world wondering just how she "knows" men do not get (as) harmed by rape from a female.

Although she has stuck to this line, she has also been troubled by her own responce, describing it as worthy of further consideration, so hopefully the next CDC survey and others will shine more light in the future.

Also lesbian rape, often described as digital penetration, but often not is very hard to get a handle on, some gay rights/gay social clubs deny its existance, and some claim a prevalance similar to straight women. It is much less likely to be reported and believed though.

But heres one (8 years) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fake-penis-woman-jailed-8-6816766

[–]Kinbaku_enthusiast 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So is "made to penetrate" = rape?

Of course. If a woman holds a gun to a man's head and forces him to engage in sexual acts, that is rape.

Would it be less rape if her method of forcing him is a different form of violence than a gun? Of course not.

Historically and I'm sure at some deep level, biologically, there is the understanding that penetration can lead to pregnancy. That fact is in biological and historic sense, at no cost for the man, but at huge and potentially life threatening cost to the woman.

In our current age though, there is a huge financial risk for men to (be forced to) impregnate a woman.

But this is leaving out the important factor of the mental anguish and damage that rape can cause on both male and female victims. To pretend like this somehow mentally harms women more than men is just sexist.

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What you appear to be arguing is between the legal definition, which you say does not match the social definition. 100% right, and skewing both stats and convictions, and the label we place on those convicted.

I did however post this clarrification.

I held the position that the legal definition of rape could not include a woman unless via fingers or objects, thus this skewed the stats.

I have since found out that the FBI intends to prosecute "made to penetrate" as rape, since it involves penetration. I have also heard that there is a woman in Norway convicted of the crime of rape - oral sex on a sleeping man. https://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/fbi-clarifies-definition-of-rape https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3px7uy/made_to_penetrate_included_in_fbi_uniform_crime

So It appears that made to penetrate and other assults are classified wildly differently depending on the jurisdiction, and stats from one country to another may not be comparable in the way that rape of a female are.

However the CDC has not followed the FBI clarrification, and so does not count a male as raped except when penetrated by genitals/fingers/objects. Most other researchers use local definitions.

[–]KaonPlus 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Who is "they" in this scenario?

[–]NoGardE 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, it's the dictionary, which is just based on common parlance. So... Society in general?

[+]ThisMachineKILLS -16 points-15 points-14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha what the hell. I stumbled upon this post from /r/all and find stuff like this. This is hilarious

[–]Supportive_Guy 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Charge your phone bud

[–]syzmcs 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Interesting fact...In the UK, the offence of rape requires the offender to have a penis.

S1 Sexual Offences Act 2003

  1. Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

Also you can't be raped in the ear.

[–]2_ofSpades 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I recently saw a commercial that said, "Violence Against Women Is Wrong."

Really bugged me.

[–]wazza6904 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Current Australian government ad "violence against women, Australia says NO."

[–]BAM_BAM_BAM 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

lead·er ˈlēdər noun 1. the person (typically a man) who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.

... if it's ok to say negative things "statistically" about men then it's ok to say positive things, too, right?

[–]KingGoogley 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Siri don't watch law & order svu, if she did the latest episode would slap that thing in the face. Teacher trades grades for dick, one wanted to do it, the other she forced herself onto him and had to do it or his bad grades would get him kicked off the wrestling team. She also got off leaving 4 other schools because rumors spread she was sleeping with students. She even met 'her husband' on her first year of teaching when he was a senior.

I know svu always indulges itself in the details of sex crimes, but it was nice to see it the other way around.

[–]salacio 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I honestly can't think of a good scenario where a definition should include the word typically. Shouldn't definitions be timeless and anything referred to as typically could change at some point in the future.

[–]MagicalPowerfulEvil 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Crack Dealer: a person, typically black, who deals crack.

Holy shit, a little switch-a-roo and I feel dirty for typing that.

[–]secv808 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No advice animals or other low-effort image or text posts. Mods may remove these at their discretion.

Who is they?

[–]MrRedditUser420 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oxford had a similar defeniton for rape. Screenshot; link

[–]AnnArchist[M] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Me, This one is pretty low effort. I kinda wanna remove it. But its better than most memes. Ill leave it unless another mod takes it down

[–]Noodle36 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Infanticide: the crime of murdering an infant, typically committed by a woman.

[–]DillyG101 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

Man this subs quality went downhill FAST. What used to be a breath of fresh air is now just shit posts like this and people showing us how well they argued with a feminist on facebook. No wonder no one takes MRA seriously, you guys are as nitpicky and easily offended as the SJW's you complain about all day.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

His post two years ago got 9 upvotes though, and this one has over 2,000. That kind of backs up his original statement.

[+]regularfreakinguser -15 points-14 points-13 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Shitpost. I wasted my time reading both your comments.

[+]DillyG101 -40 points-39 points-38 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Hahahaha yeah man i better go back in time to tell 18 year old me to not say something stupid on the internet. I must be the first person ever to regret something I posted on the internet. I'm probably a pioneer in the ways of changing one's mind as to what's important and what's not.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]The_Durmstrangler 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I like you.

[–]S-Legend-P 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Rekt so hard.

[+]DillyG101 -20 points-19 points-18 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wish they would've told me i was being nit picky, then i wouldve realized how pointless that post was.

[–]hashtagDeadRaccoonTO 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm here to tell you 20 year old you is a whiny nit-picking ass.

[+]DillyG101 -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

thnx bby

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

20 year old you does sort of have a point though, despite the snarkiness and the ensuing downvotes.

[–]DillyG101 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Haha thanks. Just because i contributed to the shit posting at literally one point doesnt make shit posting suddenly ok. Its all good tho, ive unsubbed anyways. Ill just have to stick to Milo Yiannopolous' twitter for my MRA circle jerking.

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

The other thing I noticed, that I pointed out to the other guy is that your post from two years ago had 9 upvotes, and this one has over 2,000.

Still, I think the MRA circle jerk is something to avoid. I remember another thing that used to be present here is that women's issues were also allowed in the discussion when it was relevant, which is no longer the case. Yesterday, I got called a feminazi troll just for saying some feminists were alright. In reality, I'm a man who's admittedly a little bitter towards women. I think you're spot on about where this sub has headed.

[–]DillyG101 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Oh yeah good point! I didnt even make a good shitpost lol but yeah i feel exactly the way you do. As you can tell ive been here awhile, and imo this sub has gone from equality to "no woman is to be trusted". I'll just reiterate that this sub makes me feel like a movement focused on just one gender just can't be about equality.

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, there's still some good articles and some good points here though. Men still get shit on in divorces, and the wage 23% wage gap is still a myth, and mattress girl is still completely full of shit.

But more and more this sub just wants to focus on hot teachers who have sex with students and microagressions in dictionary definitions.

[–]DillyG101 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Wait, you mean MRA's are ignoring huge problems to argue about wording and media???

Sounds an awful like the feminists they talk shit about all day.

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Dude, you're not gonna believe this... But that's exactly what I was getting at! It's like you just read my mind.

[–]DillyG1010 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Great minds think alike ;D

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Alright, we'd better wrap this up before we get banned. Maybe we'll have a beer some time.

[–]DillyG1010 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For sure friend. Idk if you play video games or use social media, but if you look up DillyG101 on pretty much any platform or game you'll find me! Feel free to bug me anytime fellow like-minded individual.

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nice. Play any of the blizzard games?

[–]DillyG1010 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Almost all of em! HotS WoW and a bit of hearthstone. I'll PM you my battle.net thing when i get to a computer, i can never remember the last 4 digits lol

[–]not_AtWorkRightNow0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sure thing! I'm pretty into hots right now. Also play diablo and a little HS and wow.

[+]Xer0day -39 points-38 points-37 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wewlad. No real counterpoint so you search his post history. Fuck off.

[–]DillyG101 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha couldn't have said it better, no one's disagreed with me, just tried to attack me. Oh well!

[–]mrminibagel 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How is this just a shit post? It represents how many people (probably a majority) believe that women can't be rapists, only men can rape, men can't be raped, etc.

Even though the post itself isn't too important of an issue, the attitude it reflects certainly is.

Imagine if the definition of child abuser was

Child Abuser

Somebody who harms or abuses a child, usually a woman.

[–]memorableZebra 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

/u/DillyG101 is right though, this is just meme-like garbage suited only for an echo chamber of indignant outrage. This is the kind of content you find on Jezebel, just from a different perspective.

My problem is the (lack of) analysis of the content: It's a screen cap of an unidentified dictionary. I don't know who wrote this definition, where it comes from, how old it is, etc.

I checked a dictionary aggregator: https://www.wordnik.com/words/rapist

Nothing. Fair definitions. After some more searching I found out that it's from the Oxford Dictionaries: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/rapist

Additionally, I found a pitifully ignored change.org petition requesting it be changed from what it used to be: https://www.change.org/p/ask-the-oxford-dictionary-change-the-definition-of-rape

The petition cites the definition of rape as:

the crime, committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with him without their consent and against their will, esp. by the threat or use of violence against them

Interestingly, it seems the Oxford dictionary, in the last 5 years since the petition was filed, made the definition slightly less sexist by including the word "typically". This also renders it defensible as "true", even if the charge of blatant sexism still applies.

Wondering when this happened, I checked the way back machine and found the latest ultra-sexist definition they used:

http://web.archive.org/web/20131112181541/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rapist

Apparently around Nov 2013 they change the definition to what it is now. Progress, I suppose. Interestingly, the FBI changed their definition at the beginning of 2013, so I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that this change is in response to that. Likewise, their change in definition doesn't track the way the FBI changed their definition, since the FBI kept the sexist man-only-ness and just decided to include that men can be victims too.

Also, the learner dictionary (apparently they have multiple dictionaries, English vs Learn vs others) is different and contains a fair definition: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/rapist

They have a FAQ for the learners dictionary that says:

The entries in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary and the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary are chosen on the basis of their frequency and usefulness for learners of English.

[...]

The size of the English language means that, unfortunately, the OALD and OAAD cannot include every word. Some words are excluded because they are rare or specialized.

If you are interested in more unusual or more specialized words, we recommend that you also consult a dictionary that is not designed specifically for learners of English, for example, the Oxford Dictionary of English, or the New Oxford American Dictionary. For information on these and other non-learners' dictionaries, please go to www.oxforddictionaries.com.

So it seems like the learner dictionaries are for international audiences and are probably subject to less pressure from native English speakers that tend to lean more feminist and probably pressured them to make changes. Then doubtless someone pressured them to make changes back in the other direction.

That said, there's probably still more story under this. Instead of looking into this more, OP just posting a stupid screen cap from his phone and everyone responds with "omg fuck feminism".

[–]RhoBautRawk 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So the word typically now means always? It's typically men who rape, saying that doesn't mean it's impossible for women to rape.

Oh but I'm going to get downvoted because this sub is ultrasensitive to wording. I'd probably get downvoted for asking if anyone knew statistics (citing a reliable source) regarding who commits rape more often, too. Smh

[–]DillyG101 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Careful, this sub hates negative truths about men more than they hate feminists.

[+]DillyG101 -7 points-6 points-5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because it's been posted a bajillion times?

[–]GoldenGonzo -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. I am really close to unsubbing. This sub has just become the mirror of /r/Feminism. Just an outrage echo-chamber where exactly zero shit gets done. What all is everyone doing to change anything? Nothing, they're just here to complain in a "safe place" where no one disagrees with them.

[–]RyanAlready 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i'm here educating myself, and refining both my knowledge and opinions of the issues at hand. and i'm finally getting to the point where i'll be ready to drive a well-informed discussion with someone who still believes we live in a rape culture.

[–]TamidMT 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For what it's worth, I would have considered myself a feminist at this time last year, but after the rhetoric fell apart and I walked away from it, places like this showed me just how much I had got wrong. Every time I come here, I'm amazed at the stories and viewpoints I would have never heard because they are almost never discussed in mainstream media or social circles. I, like RyanAlready, have learned so much from places like this that I can now call out feminists in conversation with facts and evidence that contradict the very feminist lies that I used to believe.

I commented to someone on here recently that "men in particular have so much to lose if they speak out against the popular rhetoric". A lot of feminists are able to make a living in activism because they've made a business of it, appealing to the masses by relying on the pathos mode of persuasion and thought-terminating cliches ("Because it's 2015.") above all else. I wouldn't want that for men's issues.

Speaking up for men's issues in wider society is a swim upstream, but the tide is subsiding just a little bit. There have been big news stories about sexism in Australia in the last couple of days, and I've been pleasantly surprised by the public's response which is calling out the double standard much louder than years before. Even one of our popular TV chat shows are asking questions today like "Is there a double standard in sexism?", which is a big deal for our feminist media. Changes like this happen very slowly, though, and there isn't a whole lot we can do to speed up the process. Until then, I'm going to keep reading the links and comments on here, checking my facts and not my privilege, so that I can join the real-life conversation with a bold and influential voice.

[+]Xer0day -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. I've stopped posting here since people told me posts like this were activism.

[+]DillyG101 -12 points-11 points-10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice to see someone agrees. I'm starting to think that any movement that has one gender at the center is almost automatically incapable of achieving equality, because when a group starts focusing on one gender, the other gender becomes an enemy.

[–]chaos122345 -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's been that way since I joined it years ago though. Nothing has really changed. There are good articles and stories every now and again that make up for the shit posting

[–]cassie1992 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thank you! This sub really is just the male version of SJWs

[–]DillyG101 -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Their downvotes are only further proof lol oh well ¯\(ツ)/¯

[–]fridanordh 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you remember when a women held a robber hostage and used him as a sexslave for 3 days? And everyone was "hell yeah! She got him good highfive he got what he deserved!!" Imagine it in reverse. Man holds women as a sexslave for 3 days? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013870/Robber-broke-hair-salon-beaten-black-belt-owner-kept-sex-slave-days-fed-Viagra.html /woman

[–]pseudosocialist 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

uhh because statistically it is?

[–]t0rchic 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd write out a lengthy explanation but thankfully this was posted higher up so here you go! https://i.imgur.com/eUKIiFq.jpg

[–]sagashiteiru1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ah, thats the stat I was looking for.

I am all for saying "typically men" if its true. But I think that would need to be 90% or more of men being perpetrators.

[–]spondgbob 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well as she explained in my sociology class, "it's stated that way because it's true, but the need for mentioning it is peculiar". (Spoken by a white cis male scum)

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Considering the CDC has provided statistics showing that women for men to penetrate at similar rates that men force women to be penetrated, that would seem inaccurate.

[–]NetRickyAZ7688 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is how it is on Oxford website. I actually don't like this...usually I am just kind of meh but this is annoying!

[–]Pezto 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not Apple. They use Oxford Dictionaries.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/rapist

[–]falsfield 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

L

[–]falsfield 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

P

[–]matthewhale 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reference to when it happened in 2014

[–]NewAeon 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy circle jerk batperson!

[–]fightlikeacunt 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because men have important jobs and don't write dictionaries.

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

A clarrification for my other posts.

I held the position that the legal definition of rape could not include a woman unless via fingers or objects, thus this skewed the stats.

I have since found out that the FBI intends to prosecute "made to penetrate" as rape, since it involves penetration. I have also heard that there is a woman in Norway convicted of the crime of rape - oral sex on a sleeping man. https://tamenwrote.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/fbi-clarifies-definition-of-rape https://np.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3px7uy/made_to_penetrate_included_in_fbi_uniform_crime

So It appears that made to penetrate and other assults are classified wildly differently depending on the jurisdiction, and stats from one country to another may not be comparable in the way that rape of a female are.

However the CDC has not followed the FBI clarrification, and so does not count a male as raped except when penetrated by genitals/fingers/objects. Most other researchers use local definitions.

[–]nabbable 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The cambridge dictionary definition is much worse:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/rapist

Although it does draw a distinction between the definition in American vs British English.

[–]Mocha2007 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

More importantly, you really need to charge your phone!

[–]RacelessSexlessName -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right? That made me cringe!

[–]55McCoy 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Apple just said fuck gender equality. This is how far PC has come people.

[–]Weir99 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Apple doesn't make the definitions.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ThisMachineKILLS -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hahaha what a loser

[–]Stephen1985 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Haha thanks for the insight bro, Much appreciated

[–]ThisMachineKILLS -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here's some insight: If you want "Men's Rights" to be taken seriously, maybe you should stop acting like a parody

[–]Stephen1985 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them;

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816

[–]Not_my_foreskin 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I heard that a lot of the programmers that work at Apple are feminists. I wouldn't put it past them to put this in there intentionally. I don't care that men statistically commit more rape than women. Saying that would be like saying that because blacks are arrested for more crimes than whites that it means blacks are more violent and reddit is too damn liberal to have an opinion like that. Women rape, too.

[–]Umbra_Wolf 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's like saying.

Robbery : A violent act of theft, usually perpetrated by a black person.

It's just wrong.

[–]ulpisen 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"thief: a person, typically an immigrant, who commits theft" is this really how we should be doing definitions?

[–]sagashiteiru0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Anyone know the stats/sources off the top of their head? I get so many conflicting stats on this one.

I would say that to use "typically men" appropriately, it should be 90% or more of men being rapists. Yay, ney?

[–]FeminismRules90 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because it's always you cis white privileged men who rape women and oppress them

[–]Specter242-1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Guys please tell me this is not real and just photoshopped

[–]colucci -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Let's be real here though, statistically most rapists are men.

[–]off_the_grid_dream 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Yes. In the US more rapists per capita are black men. Should the definition be changed to say black men? India has a lot of rapes. Should it say typically Indian men? Just because there is a stat does not mean you shou make assumptions about groups based on those numbers.

[–]colucci 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fair enough. I was just thinking that the same way you'd consider a nurse to be female statistically, you can consider a rapist to be male statistically. But I guess you do have a point.

[–]RhoBautRawk -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you want that dictionary to read "statistically by men," and that would make you feel better? Jesus Christ get over yourself.

[–]off_the_grid_dream 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. I was pointing out that even if it is statistically true it doesn't make it right to single out a group. Get over yourself.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]memorableZebra 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He's not saying that statistics aren't true. He's saying the inclusion of the clause "typically by a man" is wildly sexist, which it is.

Imagine the definition:

CEO n.

the corporate executive, usually a man, responsible for the operations of the firm; reports to a board of directors; may appoint other managers (including a president)

Or another:

lumberjack n.

One, typically a man, who fells trees and transports the timber to a mill; a logger

It's idiocy. And when it's used in such a mind-bogglingly negative context, it's insulting.

Indeed, the CEO definition would make allies of feminists and men's rights activists for an evening. So why shouldn't this definition of rape do the same?

[+]Mikesapien -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Should the definition be changed to say black men?

That's a poor comparison. Rapists are overwhelmingly men (like 99%), whereas black men are not the majority. "Rapists" as a group cannot be described racially, but definitely can in terms of sex.

[–]SegregationForever 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

99%

That depends on your definition of the term. In certain jurisdictions women are legally incapable of raping a man so obviously those numbers would be heavily skewed. The 99% figure, cited from the Official Department of /u/Mikesapien's Ass, is wildly inaccurate and I recommend reading a bit more about made to penetrate rape. In addition female on female rape is shockingly common where, according to one telephone survey (AKA how the majority of data on rape is gathered), 43.8% of lesbians report having been raped by an intimate partner (http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_FactSheet_LBG-a.pdf), with 67% of the perpetrators in these cases being exclusively women.

[–]garglemesh42 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not really. If you consider "made to penetrate" to be rape ( and you should, even if Mary Koss and the CDC don't), then women rape men about as often as men rape women.

[–]Lhtfoot 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My phone says the same thing... This is fucked up.

[–]not_shadowbanned_yet 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully the new editions will contain further adjectives, like "african" and "muslim".

[–]DIARRHEARAMA 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

because it's kind of true? i mean, i know sexual violence against men (especially by women) is under-reported and that is definitely an issue, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the vast majority of rapists aren't men.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DIARRHEARAMA 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Generally sources aren't needed for common knowledge. Maybe if they made a more explicit one like "98% of rapes are committed by men" they would want to cite some sources. While there will be variation in the actual number from study to study based on the population studied, variations in the definition of rape, and correction for underreporting, the tendency is still pretty clear and I've yet to see a study which hasn't found that a majority of rapes are committed by men.

Specifying that rapists are "typically men" isn't sexist, it's both true and relevant. The way boys are brought up, the way they're taught about sex and consent contributes to that tendency for most rapes to be committed by men. By acknowledging that rapists are typically men, we're acknowledging that we need to change the way we're raising our kids, particularly our boys, so they can develop healthier attitudes towards masculinity and sexuality.

Anyway, if you want sources:

Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Sedgwick, J. L. (2006). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2005 Statistical tables: National crime victimization survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 215244

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DIARRHEARAMA 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

and when you include the data on victims who were made to penetrate, which the first study describes, you still end up with a majority of rapes being committed by males.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The way boys are brought up, the way they're taught about sex and consent contributes to that tendency for most rapes to be committed by men. By acknowledging that rapists are typically men, we're acknowledging that we need to change the way we're raising our kids, particularly our boys, so they can develop healthier attitudes towards masculinity and sexuality.

Oh give me a break. You act as if everyone is training boys to be sex fiends from the day they were born.

If you want to go that route, how about we train our girls not to assault or abuse boys and thinking they can get away with it. Because we seem to be so obsessed with teaching boys this and that without an equivalent towards the girls.

You also want to go down the culture argument? Look at movies these days and female protagonists: without flaws, always right, never gets put through challenges and they fucking get away with berating and abusing the supporting cast of males when it isn't deserved or warranted. What do you think this teaches girls? Why isn't anyone listening when people like me point it out? Dismiss it as "Well, there weren't many female protagonists so..."

So can you blame men for getting riled up with the "Typically a man" inclusion in the definition of rape?

[–]DIARRHEARAMA 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh give me a break. You act as if everyone is training boys to be sex fiends from the day they were born.

It's more subtle than that, and not so deliberate. That's what makes it so challenging to change it.

If you want to go that route, how about we train our girls not to assault or abuse boys and thinking they can get away with it. Because we seem to be so obsessed with teaching boys this and that without an equivalent towards the girls.

I said we should be teaching our children healthy attitudes about sex and consent, and that the message needs to sink in for boys in particular. Which makes sense to me, given the statistics. Everyone needs to understand what consent is, though, and nobody is saying "round up all the boys and train them all not to rape while the girls sit around eating cheesecake and watching movies in another room." These are changes that need to be made consciously by parents and educators alike in all aspects of children's upbringing, and needs to be undertaken by society at large if we're to actually effect meaningful change.

You also want to go down the culture argument? Look at movies these days and female protagonists: without flaws, always right, never gets put through challenges and they fucking get away with berating and abusing the supporting cast of males when it isn't deserved or warranted. What do you think this teaches girls? Why isn't anyone listening when people like me point it out? Dismiss it as "Well, there weren't many female protagonists so..."

Can you actually name like 10 major movie titles made in the last 5 or so years where that kind of behaviour featured prominently? I'm not going to argue that this kind of trope doesn't exist, because I've seen it myself in a few TV shows and movies (albeit not as exaggerated as how you just described it), I just don't think it's as widespread as you're making it out to be.

So can you blame men for getting riled up with the "Typically a man" inclusion in the definition of rape?

Well, kinda. I'm not all that riled up over it. It's true and fairly relevant to the definition.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I said we should be teaching our children healthy attitudes about sex and consent, and that the message needs to sink in for boys in particular. Which makes sense to me, given the statistics.

Oh no you don't.

I'm not going down this statistics route with you.

Fuck your "boys in particular" and fuck your "given the statistics".

Girls are just as capable of harming boys. They should be taught in equal measure about boundaries and respect.

Unless you intend to erase the existence of boys who were/are harmed.

[+]atred -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is it not accurate?

[–]47853lll -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Probably because it's statistically true? It doesn't make it ok but seriously dude?

[–]Cduns112 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's statistically true most CEOs of successful companies are men. Should the definition of CEO read a person, typically a man, who is the chief executive of a company?

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Only statistically true when your catergory is biased by the definition used.

[–]RhoBautRawk 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The people in this thread need to get over themselves.

[–]banananuttt -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

duuuude... this is a little far man. Sounds like you're going out of the way to let things bother you. honestly if men generally rape more, that's not an untrue statement. get over it.

[+]Allblacksworldchamps -13 points-12 points-11 points 10 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Technically they are correct though, BY DEFINITION. Rapists are usually men, apart from that woman in the UK who was pretending to be a man and used prothetics, the charge of rape requires one party to penetrate the other. Even with children where women admit sexual intercourse it is still a sexual assualt rather than rape.

This simply highlights the problem that MRA's have with the law/Dr Koss definition.

Edit: ie this is why the MRM wants the definition to change - as do I.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]The_Durmstrangler 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He's getting downvotes because his argument is all wrong. Just because something is accepted socially, that doesn't change its definition. A rapist is anyone who rapes. That's the definition. Just because society has a hard time accepting that women can rape too, that doesn't change the fact that a rapist is someone who rapes.

[–]Allblacksworldchamps -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell me agian I am wrong, mentioned society or implied that it is a socially acceptable definition?

Rape is a crime - the law, in all English speaking countries states that one must use penetration, by genitals/digits or objects. If you do not penetrate, but use force to be pentrated then the definition does not apply, and you will be charged with sexual assult

maybe you didn't get as far as reading "This simply highlights the problem that MRA's have with the law"

"that doesn't change its definition" It's you and me the entire MRM and a large chunk of society that wants to change the definition, but that has not yet changed the definition.

"a rapist is someone who rapes" Bad form to use a word to define itself - perhaps we could agree on "a rapist is someone who forces someone else to have sexual intercourse against their will/without their consent.

[–]Allblacksworldchamps 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I guess some confused explaining with endorsing - hence the edit.

[–]yakayasub -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Godamn that is fucked

[+]eatredmeat -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because "typically" men rape women? (Rather than say; "a women rapes a man"

[–]conspirized -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So when do we stop just posting this shit on Reddit and bitching about it and start taking action? Who is the provider for this dictionary program? If they refuse to fix the definition at what point can we file a lawsuit for sexism?

[–]agdzietam -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's a dictionary. It says how words are used not how they are supposed to be used or how we would like them to be used. And the fact is that for the majority of the population the definition of the word rapist includes the "most likely man" component.

[–]whydidimakeausername -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ITT Bunched panties

[–]KaonPlus -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Siri is hardly a paragon of virtue.

http://phoebeholmes.com/2013/11/21/your-dictionary-is-crap/

[–]Heisencock -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You guys sure do get mad over stupid shit.

[–]MrBogard -4 points-3 points-2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

hahaha... /r/mensrights/

[–]yuckyuck13 -5 points-4 points-3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Typically is better than always

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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