TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

192873982 Archive

View 13 posts and 1,624 comments by 192873982 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,624 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

You can certainly not know that they are not telling the truth. So which would be better if they were telling the truth?
/r/MensRights06/10/16 08:40 PM
1

What the fuck.... No sources. They write men and women under the first bars, but then they write it again at the bottom because the audience is not smart enough to understand? Also since when is 100% - 2% = 99.8%? The only thing right at the first graph is that we need to practice healthy masculinity, because apparently it's not allowed in todays world. Also it's not a coincidence it's always men and boys committing mass shootings. Firstly men get fucked over by our society, and secondly most wo…
/r/MensRights17/04/16 09:55 AM
3

I'm sure it wasn't rare for both sexes in the past. But since men have been blamed for ages for a crime that goes both ways, I assume that it's now much more common for female teachers and male students. It's probably just reported much more often these days, that's why we see an increase. The same is most likely true for domestic violence. I'm quite sure women do it more often, since men have been exclusively blamed for it.
/r/MensRights02/04/16 10:58 AM
1

I know. Don't take it too seriously. Was just funny that it became racist though the internet, and then when learning was disabled, it became feminist. Sounds funny to me and the comments are funny too.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 07:36 PM
1

I wasn't serious, it's just a famous quote.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 11:52 AM
1

It wasn't supposed to be serious, it's just a famous quote who somehow matched a little with what you wrote. But I do believe that many women are "attention-whores" for some reason and that's why they do many of the things they do. Wearing makeup and coloring their hair are examples, but so are nagging and sometimes even domestic abuse of their boyfriends. Women just seem to be way worse at being alone than men.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:49 AM
0

Feminism is the integration of ugly women into society
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:56 AM
4

True. But you're not dependent on them, which you would be as a straight man. You can always just say "fuck that shit" and turn to men instead, if they aren't treating you good enough. Straight men can't do that.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:49 AM
22

Sometimes I think, women just want to own everything around them. And since they can't sexually own gay men, they want them as accessory.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:26 AM
5

Of course they can't. It's supposed to be challanging for men and if women could pass often, it would be too easy for men.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 01:22 AM
1

Yes, you're right of course. I messed things up here. I actually wanted to write about disproving the statement first, instead of about invalidating the study. Of course even the study being complete shit does not invalidate the statement made, but the study is invalidated by it.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 07:14 PM
2

Despite the downvotes, I believe this guys answer was appropriate. Invalidating studies just by questioning the one who made it is actually the negative equivalent of argumentum ad vericundiam, and therefore no argument at all. The only way to invalidate such a study is by providing another study (or multiple other studies) that is done very scientific and that contradicts this study.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:36 PM
1

People still don't get the free market. You get as much as people are willing to pay for. If that's less than you have to invest, you don't provide. Male tennis players earn the companies much more than female ones, therefore they get much more money. It's as easy as that. You can't just take money out of the air, someone has to pay for it.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 04:06 PM
2

TV does obviously promote strange gender roles. Look at super heroes. Female superheroes are proud to be stronger than men and they show it in their actions and dialogues. Male superheroes on the other hand are proud to help creating a better society for all humans. TV shows womens insecurity, and that's why they try to appear strong, it's just like insecure people who appear self-confident at first.
/r/MensRights11/03/16 12:04 PM
3

Just as with the race thing, they look at statistics and conclude that boys already know more about coding than girls, that's why they implements female-only courses to get them to the same level. The problem with that is that boys without any knowledge about coding are the ones who come out on the bottom in the end. For the same reason, white poor boys are the most disadvantaged group when it come to education. Because they assume from a statistics that because boys at everae are much less poor…
/r/MensRights11/03/16 11:52 AM
3

What the hell... At this point, I can't even understand why he didn't beat her to death.
/r/MensRights10/03/16 12:15 PM
14

Venn diagram with four circles? Also some fields are empty? Someone failed horribly in set theory. So sunbaked crybabies that are rapist are just nothing. Also fun, everyone who's not a rapist or sun-baked or a crybaby can claim to be no MRA with that. "hey girl the wage gap isn't real" - "fucking mra" - "no, i'm not sun-baked, therefore i can't be an mra"
/r/MensRights10/03/16 12:09 PM
1

XD Statistically that would work with high precision, if you test not only one but many properties like that, where black people are statistically different. But anyway, there are even more features where you can see that he's no albino. He is pale, but too dark for an albino, also his hair is too dark. But honestly, the nose is one of the easiest things to identify afroamerican albinos, it works just that good. Also different nose is in no way degrading, there's no reason to think that way.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 09:08 PM
2

Education should not be about fairness, it should about optimality. But since optimality is not achieveable, we should enforce a little fairness on how much money is spent on education for the different kids. But this fairly provided money should then be used as optimal as possible. There is lot of research to on what's optimal in education, and much research is just not done out of a sense of political correctness. There are many examples I can think about. If black people perform better in lif…
/r/MensRights09/03/16 04:25 PM
1

If you think so... I just google "black people" and there was not even a single one with "white-shaped" nose in the first 200, after that I stopped searching. There's more to black people than just skin color, there are probably hundreds of differences. Also the term "black people" is probably not that smart, since there are multiple groups of black people that are very distinct from each other.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 03:24 PM
8

Nope, nose is wrong for a black kid.
/r/MensRights09/03/16 01:50 PM
1

If you hit someone, be prepared that he fights back. All men know that, but many women seem oblivious to this concept-
/r/MensRights07/03/16 04:51 PM
0

In the past, marriage was a contract that benefitted both spouses. Today, it's a contract that only benefits one spouse, the wife. That's why people today will tell you that the only reason to marry is love, because no rational argument could lead to such an irrational contract. So yes, you are a slave in marriage. It's as if you signed a contract with an employer that only benefits the employer, pure slavery. Also, just like slavery, your obligation to provide for your wife and her children (ev…
/r/MensRights01/03/16 11:13 PM
1

Which means that mandatory would still be better, right?
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:53 PM
1

But wouldn't that conflict with the right of the children to know their biological parents?
/r/MensRights29/02/16 03:22 PM
1

Then why default and not mandatory?
/r/MensRights29/02/16 02:22 PM
1

In which case would a paternity test be wrong?
/r/MensRights29/02/16 01:20 PM
1

That doesn't mean the cause is not religious. Your parents circumcised you because it's usual in the US, and it's usual in the US because some religious nutjobs wanted to prevent people from masturbating.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:59 PM
2

Sue them.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:39 PM
1

I think /u/mikesteane was talking about mandatory paternity tests. That's not as easy to achieve as just testing your kids.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:35 PM
5

As far as I know, the answer to all these questions is no. The mother decides, the real father and alleged father (most often the same person) have no rights. Even if the child is of age and she decides to do a paternity test and the outcome is that the alleged father (who paid) is not her real father, the mother can't be sued for fraud.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:33 PM
8

And if the mother doesn't need any support? Isn't it fair then that she can rob the father of his parental rights? I think paternity testing should be mandatory for two reason. 1) The father should have the right to know that his alleged child is actually his and also the father should have the right to not be withheld the information that he has a child. 2) The child should have the right to know who his real father is.
/r/MensRights29/02/16 12:29 PM
1

Oh... and I forgot that men work more hours because they work slower. /s
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:44 PM
2

Yes, and men die more at the workplace, because women make workplaces safer and men are just too dumb to do so. /s
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:43 PM
1

Except that this competition wasn't about intelligence, but about creativity. I believe women equally (or at least almost equally) intelligent, but less creative, but I might be wrong, who knows.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:39 PM
3

It's not a problem for western culture, it's a problem for western politicians.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:31 PM
1

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, just saying.
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:11 PM
3

Make an anonymous study. Chose a statistically representative group that is big enough, give them a questionaire, assume they don't lie to you, if possible get a 100% response rate. You can optimize it by not asking the ambiguous question wether they were raped, but instead asked them what exactly happend to them. This has not only the advantage to be more objective, but you can also use an arbitrary definition of rape or even multiple definitions. Also ask questions wether they went to the poli…
/r/MensRights27/02/16 12:10 PM
3

If women wouldn't need men anymore, men would have no benefit pandering women.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 10:30 PM
4

who's going to write the ladies their child support checks every month for those kids they don't need a man to raise? Usually the answer to all financial feminist question is: The government, financed by hardworking men who pay the majority of taxes.
/r/MensRights26/02/16 10:26 PM
1

Okay, well they are a fetus which means they are not technically human but a fetus. False argument. First, because that's just a point of definition and the definition is arbitrary, and second because "human" is actually defined by the DNA, so every single cell of a human is human. A fetus looks like a human but it's still an embryo developing. Fetus and embryo are actually different phases of development, therefore neither is a fetus a embryo, nor an embryo is a fetus. The difference between ch…
/r/MensRights26/02/16 02:33 AM
1

What kind of school is this? Schoulnd't schools allow for any idea to be expressed?
/r/MensRights25/02/16 09:53 PM
2

Do you actually have to watch out for other peoples "safe spaces" and about trigger warnings? Or was that sarcasm?
/r/MensRights25/02/16 09:40 PM
3

Because the misogynists usually don't call themselves MRAs, but the misandrists ALWAYS call themselves feminists.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 09:30 PM
3

That's because the allied made Germans feel guilty for a century now (since after WW1), no wonder they're like this now. Setting the borders wrong has led to many conflicts in eastern Europe, but the governments still don't get that it's a bad idea to force multiculturalism on the people. There's a reason why borders exist in the first place, it's because different kinds of people with different languages and different cultures wanted self-determination. All wars in Europe broke out, because the…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 06:15 PM
1

That's true but all the same a fetus who isn't completely aware of the world and isn't even a fully formed human being is different from a fully developed and aware human being Again the assumption that that's what matters. No assumption is universal and your current assumption is faulty anyway, since children are also not fully developed compared to grown up humans. Yes, but you can prove that cannibalism and rape are harmful. Can you prove that being gay is anything other than non-conformist o…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 06:07 PM
3

The solution that was come up with back in the 1990's was "multiculturalism" or mass import of foreign cultures/people. I know, that's a stupid "solution", because it assumes that people exist for the country and not that the country exists for the people. The governments job is to protect their people and it's possession, but the current governments just give the possession to other people to "save it from decay".
/r/MensRights25/02/16 04:56 PM
2

I am the last to defend islam, but we should be fair to both sexes even in the flow of migrants. Rejecting all male migrants, but letting women in is bullshit. If we can't handle the men, we can't handle the migrants. Then we should just stop or limit migration drastically, at least enough so that we can handle it. Migrant women will probably do less crime, but their children will. Second generation foreigners are often even more radical than their parents.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 04:11 PM
1

That's exactly an example of you assuming stuff to justify your opinion. Who defined that the ability to feel pain is relevant? If I lose the ability to feel pain, can you legally kill me? Of course you could just invent other "explanations", but in the end that just means you assume something different. Being "natural" is an often used argument, and I have even used it in the past, but it's basically shit. Rape is also natural, so is canibalism, and probably even being pedophile is natural and …
/r/MensRights25/02/16 11:36 AM
9

I'm not familiar with the details. But if she got raped only once, she should have gone to the police. Accusations years later are just ruining his reputation without any evidence at all. If she got raped repeatedly, she could have collected evidence, e.g. by audio recording it with her smartphone. Also Swift gave her 250k, which could have helped 100s of people instead. It's a publicity stunt most likely. I don't say she made it up, since I can't know, but she's definitely not very plausible.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 01:42 PM
2

Except that I am in favour of CHS.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 12:46 PM
1

There are mens rights organizations that advocate for our issues, you may support them if you like. The other thing is that we create awareness. I think this is actually the most important thing, since that's what society lacks the most, empathy towards men.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 12:40 AM
4

Sex acts in porn are not demeaning, they simply follow the fetishes that exist in the minds of the people. You could also call it demand and supply. That means that the porn industry mirrors the actual society, that's all.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 12:36 AM
1

How many men live close to poverty? How many men do have to pay alimony? Do a bit of statistics and you can guess how many men could apply for that situation. But that's not really relevant, I just noted that it might invalidate the statistics, which is a true statement. How much influence that has, I can't know that. It just means they should make a better statistics, instead of ignoring important factors.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 12:27 AM
1

3. Both female and male circumcision are usually done when young, and both are equally "forced". By forced I mean the child is forced, the parents are usually chosing to do so (even in undeveloped countries), because they are indoctrinated. 5. The reason why gender roles exist is because of biology, it's just an optimization of the "performance" of the whole society, nothing less and nothing more. You could say gender roles are directed at fairness, while the abolishment of gender roles is direc…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 12:20 AM
2

How about equal education for EVERYONE, not just girls? I'd love it if no religion existed at all, but we shouldn't force our opinions on other people. I do however believe that reducing the spread of religion by migration must be stopped, since it will lead to a shitty world, but that's just my opinion. Abolish all circumcision for all people under 18. If they are older, they should be able to do whatever they want if it doesn't affect anyone else. Illusory... If you could just "deal with it", …
/r/MensRights22/02/16 10:42 PM
5

But lesbians are entitled to all the womens support programs in schools and better wellfare programs.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:57 PM
3

Well, to be fair, he did say that men who live in poverty because of alimony are not counted in the poverty statistics, because they earn too much, if I remember the video correctly. So that would mean the statistics is bullshit. But on the other hand, I can't see how someone is a bad person for being misinformed in one topic (if that's even the case). CHS does advocate for men and she's always been open to debate, if I remember correctly. That's all I can wish for.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 01:00 PM
18

The real reason is that the fight for "closing the wage gap" has actually created a wage gap. A study has shown that women are more likely to be hired in STEM jobs, and these pay well. There're not many studies about this, but it's realistic that this exists on high paid jobs other than in the stem field too. Also the education system favours girls now, quite heavily to be honest. This advantage and the absence of the privilege to birth children makes lesbians get higher wages. Non-lesbian women…
/r/MensRights22/02/16 12:55 PM
5

I like her videos, and I think she's a good person. Overanalyzing her words doesn't lead to anything good.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 09:58 AM
2

YOU BROKE YOUR PATRIARCHICAL CRYSTAL BALL?!?!?!? SHAME!
/r/MensRights21/02/16 11:29 AM
7

Feminism can't represent any men or men's rights, because they don't even try. Of course they claim they do. The MRM is no black mens movement either, because we don't care about color here, we care for all mens problems equally. Most if not all problems that affect black men affect all other men too, but sometimes much less often. Examples would be poverty, homelessness and parental rights, all very popular topics here that affect black men probably the most.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 11:35 PM
1

That's why I wrote my post: NOW: We reject the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support This is actually for equality, and I don't mean feminism "equality" of today.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 12:01 PM
3

Are you accusing me of something? I merely stated that cultures who need a high supply of children would value womens lifes over mens, I don't see it as appropriate today. And yes, in the same situation, infertile men and women would not be without value (they still provide for society), but they would have significantly less value than anyone else, which would make them the last one on the sinking ship, at least logically. What "should be" is dependent on the circumstances and dependent on the …
/r/MensRights19/02/16 01:06 AM
6

Societies that require much fertility to compete in wars with other nations would benefit from such rules, because one man and 10 women can repopulate much faster than one woman and 10 men.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 12:51 AM
3

Does it? And even if it does, do we care? Usually trolls get downvoted and called out, to my knowledge.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 11:57 PM
1

They are? Why?
/r/MensRights18/02/16 11:23 PM
18

My experience agrees with you, but there's also often the notion that feminism has never been for equality. This quote proves that feminist organisations (or at least NOW) actually once had opinions (in some topics at least) we could (and would) support. That of course doesn't exclude that some man-haters participated in early feminism.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 10:21 PM
3

Actually dying during childbirth. 1 in 10'000 women dies during childbirth in the developed world. There are probably more men dying while working, then women while giving birth. We're note in 18th century anymore. Social pressure if she is low-income or single/unmarried mother. How isn't the same social pressure on the father, if he has a low income or is not married to the mother of his child? You exaggerate womens downsides and diminish mens. E.g. "may be required by state to pay child suppor…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 10:13 PM
4

What you all tell is my experience too, but that doesn't really address all the questions. If someone claims to have been banned from here, wouldn't it be nice to have a place where I can find out why this person has been banned? Like a post that contains the actually content that lead to a ban, or a subreddit, or whatever. But it's probably too time-consuming? Or would it be little effort, because only very few people are banned? My problem is that it was the second time for me, someone claimed…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:53 PM
35

That actually sounds like equality, well done feminism of the 60s.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:46 PM
0

Not true. With good enough work of the intelligence agencies, a small country that has nukes can be prevented from launching them. Also if anger gets big enough, some people would rather anhilate earth than to remain silent, as sad as it is.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 02:34 PM
4

mwobuddy basically says, "The only way I can humanize women and not see them as objects is if I pretend they are men", and then goes on some screed about how women who reject men are cunts. I don't want to defend /u/mwobuddy, but that's your interpreation and factually wrong in this case. mwobuddy said that he either treats women like men (=equality) if they are just friends, or that it's also fun to be with them if they are more than just friends. The leap from that to "see them as object" is a…
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:25 AM
2

I don't think it's fair criticism at all, from the first few enlisted posts I checked, but I'll check the rest later. The reason is that he posts things out of context that are by far not as bad as he makes them. Also he complains about a handful of upvotes in a sub with 100k substribers. He also completely ignores that some things might be exaggerated and that people here don't have all the same opinions.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 09:05 AM
3

It gives women a reproductive advantage to chose the more powerful man in any situation. That's why there will always be many women supporting the enemy, when an invasion happens. Happend in France, when the Germans walked in, happend in China, when the Japanese walked in, happend in Germany, when the Allied walked in. Not all women do it, but probably only because there are not enough invaders.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 07:24 AM
11

I like it, it clearle uncovers the double standard women lived for so many years in disfavour of men.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 07:01 AM
3

It should cover biology (of men and women) STDs (how to detect them and what to do to prevent them) birth control the laws about sexual topics and reproduction probably also marriage and what advantages and disadvantages it brings The goal should be that all children can do informed choices about their own lifes. Maybe if that's not enough, one could also teach sociological stuff, e.g. that people have different tastes and that this is perfectly fine that way. Lots of girls believe that men gene…
/r/MensRights17/02/16 09:06 PM
3

Would he? I've seen comments in /r/mensrights, saying that the topic is not about mens rights, because women are equally affected.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 08:58 PM
4

Yes, learning how to interact with women is possible. In a classroom? I don't know, it needs practice between the lessons. Of course many guys won't need this at all, but some boys are really scared of interacting with girl and everything they do seems to be wrong to them.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 02:25 PM
1

Students urged to call police if they experience "discomfort"
/r/MensRights16/02/16 03:25 PM
4

source Microaggression is a term ... to describe insults and dismissals he said he had regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflict on African Americans In 1973, MIT economist Mary Rowe extended the term to include similar aggressions directed at women; eventually, the term came to encompass the casual degradation of any socially marginalized group, such as the poor and the disabled. So TLDR: Not being nice to anyone except to white straight men is a microaggression apparently. It tells a lot…
/r/MensRights16/02/16 03:05 PM
2

How can this be okay, without a due process? How do law-people justify that shit?
/r/MensRights16/02/16 12:26 PM
1

How would you make a statistics to show that number? If it was obvious, wouldn't judges judge differently? But I agree that many of the TROs are probably spurious.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 11:58 AM
1

And where's the question in that?
/r/MensRights16/02/16 11:28 AM
4

Hello, The easiest way to find out if your friend is an MRA, is to let her/him discuss with us here. Either she will mostly agree with us, or she won't. BUT if she does then identify as a MRA, she might stop associating with the label feminist. The problem with feminism is that everybody thinks it's something different. A lot of feminist theories are incompatible with the MRA, but not all feminists know that those theories even exist. Also I can understand that you don't want this in your histor…
/r/MensRights16/02/16 10:55 AM
13

According to George and Yarwood (2004), police have threatened 47% of male victims of intimate partner violence with arrest. George and Yarwood also found that the police ignored 35% of male victims and 21% were actually arrested instead of the female perpetrators from this source.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 10:40 AM
0

Wait... they claim it's a myth, when there is lots of evidence against it, and then they complain that it fits someones agenda? It doesn't matter wether it fits someones agenda, only truth matters.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 01:33 AM
6

You shouldn't call the police if there was no crime, and there is no immediate danger. Microagressions are none of them. People who call the police for such shit, should pay the costs for it.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 01:29 AM
0

Dress codes can be fine, gender-specificness about them is not. I think it is. If society is built in a way that make some clothing only irritating on men or only irritating on women, that makes non-gender-neutral dresscodes okay for me. I don't think your opinion on this is naturally wrong, but I think the one who should decide such a thing is the community in a democratic way. Requiring short hair and no jewelry for men for no reason than it being a norm is just stupid I agree with you on this…
/r/MensRights15/02/16 04:16 PM
1

The most important thing I had to learn is probably: "Don't set goals you can't achieve on your own". An example is, your goal should not be to get a date (this is not in your hands), but to have a nice fun chat with some girl and then manage to ask her out. Whenever you manage that, you should be proud of yourself, even if she said no, because you played your part.
/r/MensRights15/02/16 12:47 PM
9

What a bunch of shit you talk... School dresscodes usually apply to men and women, most often they are more strict to men. So why would being okay with dresscodes be misogynic. Dresscodes limit freedom. Schools wouldn't limit freedom, if there was no problem in the first place. And yes, most MRAs and also most men don't want to wear a dress, why is that wrong? Also we are not "too busy yelling about how every woman who accuses someone of rape is just lying to get attention", because that's not w…
/r/MensRights15/02/16 11:16 AM
1

May be locally different, but I'm guessing you just lack confidence and skill to pick up women. Try to learn it in small steps, starting with just talking to some random women and then increasing the difficulty.
/r/MensRights15/02/16 02:41 AM
1

It shows mutual respect, not unilateral respect like our society.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 03:10 PM
6

"Feminism is the radical notion that only women are people." - me, right now
/r/MensRights14/02/16 01:02 PM
1

We should have it like Japan, the women give men chocolate on valentines day.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 12:47 PM
4

Which is only to be expected, because much more men program. If you take the best 0.1% of women and let them program, and at the same time take the best 1% of men, it's only logical that women would be better if we assume that they are naturally equal. So that wouldn't imply any kind of superiority at all, it's just stupid.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 12:40 PM
1

Why can't we let people be whatever-phobic? It doesn't hurt us.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 10:48 AM
1

Can't find your post, has it been deleted?
/r/MensRights13/02/16 11:14 PM
1

Tell me when you find out.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 08:38 PM
1

I may be wrong, but I believe they are feminist-indoctrinated. This means they will believe you are a misogynist, and they will probably delete your post or ban you.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 08:23 PM
10

Makes no sense at all. If she really thought that women should not register for the draft because they bear children, then wouldn't it be the logical conclusion that women should register for the draft, but are allowed to unregister when they have given birth?
/r/MensRights13/02/16 06:08 PM
2

People get defensive here sometimes, when they believe someone wants to frame us as being a bunch of conservatives, which we aren't. I guess people here may not really understand your decision since it's very different from the norm, but I believe they do not have much of a problem with you chosing your lifestyle. But still, you are in the wrong sub for this question, most people here aren't aas conservative as you and therefore they don't have more knowledge than you about where to meet such wo…
/r/MensRights13/02/16 12:39 PM
1

Which is your opinion, he may believe otherwise.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 12:25 PM
5

This would be a perfect question for AskHistorians, but I also believe you would be banned for it.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 12:02 PM
3

By bringing an article about a mentally ill man and a female "hero"? I think it fits perfectly well with their agenda. But that of course doesn't mean it's not good what she has done, because it was good. Helping people is a good thing, at least as long as it doesn't affect yourself too much in a negative way.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:29 PM
7

Oh my.... that was the dumbest shit I've read this weak... Dear women, Your orgasm is not mens responsibility, it's yours. If you want your guy to do something in particular in some particular way, tell him to do so. If he refuses, you can decide wether you want to continue either way or stop, if he tags along guide him if needed, teach him. It's just the same the other way around. If a man really wants you to do something he likes in particular, he'll tell tell you. If he doesn't tell and doesn…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 06:26 PM
2

Another apology? honestly? You should probably work on your confidence.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:49 PM
1

I wasn't forgiving you, because I can't forgive you when I'm not even mad at you.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:44 PM
19

You can get banned there just for having /r/MensRights in your post history. It's basically a form of argumentum ad hominem, they do it all the time.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:42 PM
5

No need to apologize.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:36 PM
4

You could call it unfair if you have some weird definition of fairness. But reality is, a market doesn't care about any definition of fairness, it just works like markets work. If you want fairness according to some definition, you'd have to live in a planned economy, because that's the only way to enforce fairness. In capitalism (and any light-version of capitalism we know), fairness is determined by the market and therefore by definition never unfair.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:35 PM
27

What's ICP? Also, it's not nothing, it's cheating to make their "point", which they do often.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 04:30 PM
3

At least he realized he fucked up, some people never realize it in similar cases.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 01:31 PM
7

Does that matter? If a man is a victim of feminism and he comes here telling his story, we won't say it's "not all feminists", even though it would be correct. We'll even understand if he hates feminism for that, because it's a normal reaction. Why do we apply different standards to immigrants and rape? Lot's of people seem to be attacked or raped by refugees recently, the crime rate has quadrupeled. Now if a person was attacked or raped by a refugee, wouldn't we expect him/her to have some degr…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 01:14 PM
1

I wanted to answer, but I don't really want to create an account there...
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:47 PM
1

Did you answer that in the comments of the article? I can translate it to proper German for you if you want to.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:43 PM
2

I haven't ever heard someone IRL use this word, so there's that. I would explain things to women and men alike if I feel it's needed, and if that person calls me out for mansplaining, I will be offended because of the implication that I only do it to women and because I am a man.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:24 AM
1

No one can really say that objectively, neither me, nor your daughter. But it should be clear that your daughter only experiences the frequency towards herself. But it's only frequent in relation to others. So how would your daughter know that men "mansplain" more often to her, than to other men? Also it's apparently hated. But does that imply that it's condolescending? Maybe men just want to be helpful and considerate towards women, which is why men explain things without women asking. That is …
/r/MensRights12/02/16 09:36 AM
6

To quote OPs quote: They felt that it was a much needed word and it was a clever coinage which captured neatly the concept of the patronising explanation offered only too frequently by some men to women. Which means they didn't chose this word because it was used, but because they think people should use this (imho very sexist) word. This makes the dictionary people clearly sexist. Also it's neither a clever coinage, nor is it offered too frequently by some men to women. edit: Also manspread was…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 08:34 AM
1

Even if only 10% love this day, why emotionally attack them? Why not just chose another day?
/r/MensRights12/02/16 01:28 AM
3

The MRA is about mens rights, that one should be obvious. We can divide mens disadvantages into the categories legal and societal, of couse the legal one is more important here, but societal disadvantages are also a topic here. So what are some legal issues? And how does feminism oppose the solution of these issues? 1) Fathers rights The fathers are usually at the mercy of the mother, when it comes to his own children. In case of a divorce, she gets the children. This means men can't file a divo…
/r/MensRights12/02/16 01:04 AM
7

What I wanted to say is that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to statistics. Or with an example: If 50% of all rape cases are "no reasonable cause" and false accusations are part of "no reasonable cause", it should not imply that false accusations are 0% because of "innocent until proven guilty". Does that make more sense?
/r/MensRights11/02/16 10:30 PM
5

Yeah, but innocent until proven guilty applies to specific cases, not to percentages. We can certainly assume that quite a relevant portion of the 50% are in fact false accusations, we just don't know how many and it would be stupid to assume something without information.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 10:01 PM
2

True, but what's the reason? Killing a man is easy if he is unsuspecting, accusing a person of a crime is also easy, both don't require a physical advantage over the other person. BUT locking a person up in your basement does require the strength advantage in most cases, that's why men probably do that much more often. So stating that men keep prisoners in their basements more often is like saying men pee more often while standing. It's true, but only because it's much easier for them to accompl…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 09:17 PM
2

I like that song, so motivating.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:57 PM
22

Can someone explain what "reasonable cause" and "no reasonable cause" in this context mean? Is "we don't have evidence" in the category "no reasonable cause"? If so, is there a number stating how many cases are false accusations for sure?
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:35 PM
2

Which only means they are at first neutral, then they do a very simple pre-investigation where they try to find out if a further investigation is reasonable, then they decide wether they investigate. The "degree of belief" you talk about is not given, but dependent on the evaluation of some evidence. It's just a common optimization technique to use a shitty but fast algorith to avoid wasting computation time for a good but slow algorithm.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 08:09 PM
3

Which is, amazingly, not even a feminist only concept. If you have physical forces, you can calculate different forces that influence an object, and then just add up the vectors, amazingly simple. That's why we can look at the different forces as independent of each other. BUT it's not guaranteed that you can always look at all aspects of something individually. Mathematically speaking, independent things can be calculated individually and then combined with a very simple operation, e.g. h(x,y) …
/r/MensRights11/02/16 07:57 PM
2

That's wrong. Rename Valentines Day to False Rape Case Day is attacking criminals AND taking away Valentines Day. First would be okay, second is not okay. Women love Valentines Day and taking it will make many, many women react emotionally against you. I don't see why you would do that. If you want a "false rape day", chose another day, because it will eventually help more.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:52 PM
8

Attacking women on the emotional level is not gonna help anyone.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:15 PM
3

True, but to be honest, many simple things have been overcomplicated by many people. Often, overcomplicated things are created by mixing two completely unrelated topics together. An example is poverty and racism. As long as people don't see that not all problems black (and other) people face is automatically due to racism but instead often due to poverty, they will never be able to solve any of those problem. Same for sexism and womens problems. If you can't split mixed problems into their compo…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:06 PM
1

I know, youtube should create a feature to allow two sound-tracks and the ability to selectively regulate the volumes.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 12:03 PM
20

They should neither believe nor disbelieve, they should be neutral and investigate it.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 11:47 AM
6

I agree actually. Sex with a minor should be illegal, but it's not the same as rape. If a person rapes a minor, he/she should be convicted of both crimes, rape and sex with a minor.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 11:43 AM
2

Because it brings us into the comfortable situation that any person who tries to find out if Roosh is a MRA, will find the answer, either here or at his places. That means a medium writing he is an MRA is either showing that they didn't investigate it at all, or that they deliberately lie to the people.
/r/MensRights11/02/16 10:45 AM
2

I absolutely agree. That's why I tried to formulate it in a way that doesn't judge that part, but even under the worst case assumption of "giving up a career" entirely for the man, shows that even then alimony is not fair at all. Of course a woman simply wouldn't interrupt her career for a man, if it wasn't worth it. Which only makes the argument against alimony stronger.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 10:57 PM
2

You're confusing things. PUA is part of the manosphere, but not part of the MRA. Roosh is a PUA, not an MRA, but since many people now claim Roosh is an MRA (and also they mean to accuse MRAs of beeing a bunch of Rooshes), we have to correct them, because they can't discriminate the different parts of the manosphere. But of course there's another logical mistake the feminists (and media) made, by using inverted implication. They don't like Roosh, Roosh is a PUA, why would that imply that they sh…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 09:40 AM
9

Alimony is never fair. Let's assume a woman gives up her carreer (or a few years of it) for a man. Does that justify that he has to compensate her for the difference between what she earns and what she would have earned? Obviously not, since equality would mean that the difference is split into two and the man only pays half of it (losing the same amount as she has lost). But even if that's okay in the beginning, why should a man continue to pay that? Shouldn't the amount he has to pay decrease …
/r/MensRights10/02/16 09:16 AM
12

As long as we keep the quote MRA's were the first to throw me under the bus in the meetup outrage. To piss them off I'm going to start calling myself an MRA. we can prove that he's in fact not an MRA, no mather what he calls himself.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 08:56 AM
2

disgusting
/r/MensRights09/02/16 09:23 PM
3

Actually enjoyed that video.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 09:33 PM
8

I never thought about sexism as some kind of corruption, but it does make sense.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 09:23 PM
1

I understand, "Gloria Steinem 'apologizes' for being 'misinterpreted' over 'criticism' of young, female Bernie Sanders supporters" would have been a bit too much.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 11:53 AM
2

If there are women who avoid telling their male friends that nothing more than just friendship will ever happen, the friend zone exists. All that white knight wimps male feminists who believe they have a chance with a specific feminist which knows what the white knight feels, but decides to expoit the feelings instead, those are in the friend zone. But I don't blame the women for this one, the man has to either demand a clear answer or stop complaining. If you apply for a job, but don't hear any…
/r/MensRights08/02/16 11:45 AM
0

Is this some kind of campaign? There are a lot "eastern culture"-flavoured posts by OP right now, but they're too long that I would bother to watch them all.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 09:59 AM
3

First, admit that you are the least objective person when it comes to judging her. Therefore it would be best, if you had a very trusted person that is also a friend of her, that you could talk to. As many people wrote, cheaters will likely cheat again, that's a fact. But likely doesn't mean always, so it's good to investigate it further, since she is important to you. She's slept with that guy in the past and is still friends with him. That's a bad thing, but doesn't neccessarily mean much. He …
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:41 AM
1

Wait... was that even an apology? I didn't seem so to me...
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:13 AM
1

Which would be great, since some bigger mens rights group with the needed financial capabilities could sue them for defamation, which would mean even more publicity.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 08:00 AM
2

Which has no connection to my post at all... Also vasectomies don't give men more reproductive rights at all. If men are responsible for impregnating women, then women are responsible too, since they have ALL options men have for contraception and many more.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 07:58 AM
3

The second, it's an inadequate argument for that control. Should they have these reproductive rights? I don't care either way. But they should have the same reproductive rights as men.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 11:09 PM
5

I am neither for nor against it. People should do whatever they want, but I don't think abortion is a good thing. But that's not really relevant in this discussion. My point was that the good argument of "control over your own body" is abused by women to get more reproductive rights. Women cry for the right to "have control over their body" explicitly to gain reproductive rights. This can easily be observed if you ask women who want to abort for the reason. 99% will say they got accidentally pre…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 10:53 PM
10

Because every other argument would make their opinions obviously against equality, since men don't have the same rights regarding family planning. That's why they cherrypicked the only argument that supports their privilege.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 09:05 PM
2

At least if it is a big medium, we should have an official representative of this subreddit e-mailing them, with prove that he is not an MRA. This should contain a link proving he doesn't identify as MRA (e.g. this) a link proving the MRM does not think he is an MRA (e.g. this sticky post) a demand to publish an article correcting) their mistake If I remember correctly, in some countries there are laws demanding that corrections have to be as prominent as the original article. If that is the cas…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 08:59 PM
-7

The latter is just an excuse such that they can claim the first without giving men the same option.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 06:57 PM
2

For example when there's rape stats showing mass sexual assault on campus you vehemently claim the stats are fake without a second thought. When there's fake rape stats about muslims in sweden, you take them as gospel and ignore the fact they've been debunked. The point is, when your experience tells you that the media is very pro-migration and pro-multiculturalism, you assume that it must be at least as bad as the media tells. That's the situation in Germany and other European countries. But of…
/r/MensRights07/02/16 04:48 PM
53

To which many feminists and even non-feminist women will argue that it's about control over their own body, which is silly, because women usually have abortion as a form of family planning, not because they want to decide over their body.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 04:36 PM
29

George Orwell was seriously wise.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 01:11 PM
32

26 Lessons so you sons future spouse will never exist.
/r/MensRights07/02/16 01:10 PM
2

Society tells us "girls mature earlier" (which isn't true btw, they usually just act), but at the same time they tell us that a 30 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old boy is not worth prison, while the inverse would mean 20 years of prison ass rape. I kind of strange how that contradicts itself.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 10:09 PM
3

I agree with many things you said, but not with your conclusion and logic. But let me explain. Should feminists be banned from teaching boys? No! No one should be banned from doing a job, unless they have proven that they can't do the job, for whatever reason. What you propose is like banning men from teaching children, because male pedophiles exist. With your logic, no one would be allowed to teach children. But I do agree that most feminists are in fact unfit for the job of a teacher for boys.…
/r/MensRights06/02/16 06:37 PM
1

Thanks for the data. I'm quite a bit on the right side, but I don't have problems with agreeing with left wing people. In fact I find some of the left wing stuff extremely interesting(such as the UBI), but also a lot of it seem not thought-out enough to me. E.g. the concept of no countries (no borders) seems very contradicting to a free society to me, since it creates an unquestionable system, a monopoly.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 04:30 PM
10

That's because a lot of feminists think that literally every issue women face is due to discrimination by men, even when men are equally affected (e.g. domestic violence), or sometimes even when men are much more affected (e.g. violence in general). I suspect that they don't even look at statistics that compare men and women. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a feminists who genuinely had the opinion that men are responsible for women having periods.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 04:21 PM
1

Okay, nice. I don't think the political leaning is important anyway, important is how you justify your opinions.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 02:42 PM
1

I didn't know. Seems I was wrong in my believe. But the argument would still apply, if many conservative MRAs believed that most MRAs are conservative. Am I correct to assume that the distribution of the MRAs is a gaussian that leans more to the right side politically? So the majority would be on the middle, but slightly to the right? Or am I dead wrong?
/r/MensRights06/02/16 02:30 PM
2

It was actually a rhetorical question, or whatever that is called. It should have been understood as "she's funny and smart".
/r/MensRights06/02/16 02:18 PM
-3

That's true, it's a inversion of an implication. Just because most MRAs are rightists, doesn't mean most right wing people are MRAs.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 01:22 PM
3

I don't even disagree with that. And even if they feel they have lost something, they most likely don't need mental support, but financial support to pay for foreskin restauration or something.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 09:49 AM
1

Who said women can't be funny and smart?
/r/MensRights06/02/16 09:47 AM
9

But there's also FGM that's much less invasive or harmfull than MGM. Why would women who are victims of the less invasive options get support, while men don't?
/r/MensRights06/02/16 09:37 AM
1

Which is about homicide, which you said is wrong just before...
/r/MensRights06/02/16 08:10 AM
2

Well, sorry, not everyone is English native. But you still haven't posted your sources and I assume that you don't even have sources.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 09:45 PM
3

Why "seriously"? It should be obviously that you'd have to provide sources. Also: Males were convicted of the vast majority of homicides in the United States, representing 90.5% of the total number of offenders. wiki source If that is your source, then just remember that conviction is not the same as murdering. Maybe women are more successfull in avoiding conviction? Or maybe the police does not investigate potential female murderers equally well? Or maybe women often manage to convince men to d…
/r/MensRights05/02/16 09:27 PM
3

citation for: white men have a much higher crimerate than white women (what factor? study?) white men commit 10 times more murders than white women (where does this number 10 come from?)
/r/MensRights05/02/16 09:08 PM
33

That's because some people seem to be blind to how the world and social interaction works. Teach both boys and girls social skills, because they are important. Saying no is only one of them, it's a part of conflict management. Another skill that should be taught is how to claim your rights in a multitude of situations. What should a woman or man do, when raped? What should they do when defrauded? What should they do when they got beaten up? How does a boy know he can kiss a girl (and other thing…
/r/MensRights05/02/16 04:16 PM
2

Exactly! There are too many people on this world who have opinions without having thought about it at all. They just built their opinions to please their surroundings. That kind of shit is the sole reason why Nazi Germany was possible.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 03:54 PM
2

Yes, because then people would have had the oportunity to do something with that knowledge. Honest shitty opinion is better than dishonest shitty opinion, but of course honest understandable opinion would be best.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 08:36 PM
8

No one should criticize you for living the life you believe to be the most happy for yourself. These feminists just try to force their way of life onto other people, just ignore them, there's nothing wrong with your life. Also Roosh is not a MRA. We had a lot of post here lately about how the media portrayed this guy as MRA completely ignoring that he specifically wrote that he isn't.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 01:38 PM
1

Harm yes, but not everything that harms you is violence. As the name suggests, paternity fraud is just some kind of fraud, and people wouldn't declare fraud as violence.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 11:14 AM
1

No, namie is also a character in one piece that has nothing to do with namie amuro. My bad.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 11:05 AM
2

You're a fan of namie from one piece?
/r/MensRights04/02/16 10:47 AM
14

A lot of people here are pro gay rights, as far as I know. But that dosn't make the MRM an advocacy group for gays. It's literally a MENS rights group, and we care about men-specific or men-majority problems. It doesn't matter about what kind of men that problems are.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 10:30 AM
1

Abuse, maybe. Violence, no.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 10:21 AM
6

People tend to decouple external features from internal ones. But that's bullshit, since many external features are consequences of the persons character.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 07:00 AM
1

Specific is a good thing and if you think it's wron, tell me what your definition is. I think we shoulnd't include things in "domestic violence" that aren't violence by any definition.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 05:35 AM
1

Let's not do the same mistakes. It's a fact that people usually don't understand economy, especially feminists, but OP also doesn't understand it. The cost for producing a product has many factors, which is what you are discussing. But the prize of a product is entirely determined by how much people are willing to pay. If the prize is lower than the cost, it will not be produced. Women pay more for their products, because they are willing to pay more, for whatever reason. But companies often nee…
/r/MensRights04/02/16 04:09 AM
1

I wouldn't say that it's domestic violence. Violence of any form requires that the victims physical or mental health is negatively affected by it. Paternity Fraud only affects your health negatively, if you know it. That doesn't fit the definition. It's a fraud, and it often means you lose much money, but even more important, it mean someone denies your reproductive rights. I don't know if the latter is prosecutable, but it definitely should be.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:50 AM
3

archive please!
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:43 AM
1

Nope. Refugees would have to apply in the first EU country they enter, but they don't. Instead they mostly go to Germany to apply there. Whatever process you're describing is not happening.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:37 AM
1

Can they actually refuse, though? Refusing under duress is not refusing. They should have the ability to refuse and leave. If they do, it's just their choice. But if there is someone chasing me with a gun and you say I have to give you my watch to enter your house, that is stealing, because I was forced to "agree" to whatever you asked for while under duress. That's true, but if the one chaising you with a gun is miles away and has no way to get where you are, then it still is. You can only argu…
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:19 AM
1

Yeah, it would be immoral in this situation, but that's not reality. It's more like there's a gunfight in your house, therefore you left the house, and now you're asking to enter mine, which is a mile away from the gunfight. Denmark, Germany and others aren't neighboring countries of syria.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 03:16 AM
1

If you can refuse it, it's not stealing. If you come to my place and I say you have to give me your watch to enter my house, that's not stealing, since you have the choice to just leave.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 11:12 PM
1

I don't think that proves anything. Men do "slutshame", but women do too, probably more.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 10:37 PM
1

No refugee can pay what they cost. You assume regugees have hundreds of thousands of dollars? Also they have the choice, to say no and go, so you can't really call it stealing.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 10:13 PM
2

Even if she didn't care about judgement at all, she'd have no competition.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 10:11 PM
2

Well... don't take it too literal. Humans are not logical, not even men. The pleasure she felt during the rape was most likely a coping mechanism provided to her by evolution. A cave dweller would most likely have a bigger chance of reproduction, if she was able to cope with men raping her. It may be that much of her behaviour was influenced by that coping mechanism, it's like stockholm syndrome. But regarding your depression, it's good to seek help.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 04:56 PM
2

I agree, but not because of the marksmanship. Women lack body strength and also they are emotionally not as stable as men, which leads to problems, but they can shoot.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 04:46 PM
1

Depending on how surprised you are and how the fight goes, it's not always easily possible to shoot the guy while ensuring they don't hit you. You need to at least be able to get enough distance for others to shoot.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 04:45 PM
1

I agree, but why then give the men who do the same a gun? Also basic gun/rifle training can't hurt. Even positions who don't usually fight could get into a fighting situation with some bad luck.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 03:12 PM
4

You're in this sub...
/r/MensRights03/02/16 03:11 PM
1

Actually women don't shoot that bad. That's probably the thing they lack the least for a infantry position.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 03:10 PM
2

Hand-to-hand combat can happen and does happen. Soldiers will often have to check houses for enemy fighters. If there is one and you can shoot him, that's good, but it will also happen that someone will attack you with a knife, because he lacks access to other weapons at that specific instant.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 03:09 PM
1

In our army, they give you a rifle after half a week and you'll take that rifle home with you. Why wouldn't they allow your sister to have a gun? Carrying a gun requires a responsible person. They have to teach their soldiers to be responsible people, if they aren't already. I don't see a reason why your sister shouldn't have a gun.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 02:49 PM
1

Well... I don't search for philippine women, I'm not even into them, I like other kinds of women. edit: Also I am in anonymous more most of the time, and I am on a public internet connection right now.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 01:08 PM
2

your human rights are entirely more negotiable there than those in America I agree. But at least our laws don't tell us we can't drink alcohol in public. Also we are not screwd if we have an accident or illness. Breaking bad wouldn't have been possible in Europe. Europe's relative freedom has been more the result of their economic prosperity than anything else. I agree too. Well, except where I live. Direct Democracy guarantees that people have influence on freedom, so we can chose how much free…
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:31 PM
2

hahahahahahahahaha! I scroll down this article and guess what add is at the bottom? Wanna Date Hot Philippine Women Online? As if the add predicted that people would say "fuck these local women" after reading this article...
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:22 PM
3

Both the US and the European countries are not really great, and both have advantages the other doesn't have. I truly believe that we should have freedom of speech in Europe just like in the US, but we don't. A good society must be able to cope with some people saying or thinking in ways that the government or the society is disgusted about. I think that's one of the only think I'm envious about the USA.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:15 PM
1

EDIT: On a side note, Denmark is about to pass legislation that would allow them to confiscate valuables from immigrants. I think that's pretty immoral. You should look into it. They're providing a service for the refugees, which costs a lot. It's only natural to require them to pay for it, unless they don't have anything to pay with. I don't think it's immoral to confiscate it, when they get much more in return.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:11 PM
3

In Switzerland, the system is similar. Women don't get a letter, but men do. Men have a "wehrpflicht" (duty to protect) just as in Denmark. There's no word for women, it's just mandatory which means they can do the military service if they want to. A few years ago, military service was required to become a policeman, so that would be a reason for many women to do it, but that has been lifted now. Now women have to pass the same requirements, as far as I know, but I am not 100% sure, since there …
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:10 PM
7

All while telling you that ONLY feminism is about real equality.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:29 PM
1

I would argue that the level of fear should not be relevant, but the actual threat level is. Irrational fear is something people have to deal with.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 08:50 PM
12

Women don't attempt it more, it's just that womens suicide attempts that usually need medical attention are counted, while mens attempts are not counted. Swallowing pills with a high chance to not die isn't more of a suicide attempt than a man pointing a gun at his own head, but backs off.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 08:05 PM
4

But I guess that what /r/mensrants is for.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 07:15 PM
6

Great news!
/r/MensRights02/02/16 06:47 PM
4

I think it just comes from hip hop.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 01:17 PM
1

the result of thousands of years of hard lessons is the one that wins of the two I hope you are kidding. Such cases have in history usually been "solved" by some form of genocide. Definitely not what I want to see in the future of Europe.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 01:13 PM
1

And you're suggesting that people pissed about the pool not discriminating more is going to lead to full societal collapse. Discriminate or fail? What a load of shit. No, of course not. I assumed that you would decide against the happiness of the people in other similar cases and added up, over man years, it would lead to the destruction of the system. The issues in Europe are mostly a result of flawed policy and geography. To suggest that they weren't avoidable because the citizenry loves their…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 01:08 PM
1

Principle? No. Fundamental right? Yes. It's way beyond principle. Maybe they should have vetted them and avoided taking nearly 1 million people all at once. That is the real problem, not an unwillingness to institute discriminatory and regressive policy. I actually agree. And that's my point, you can only chose two from the options (keep citizens reasonbly happy, take in a shitload of refugees, preserve basic rights). Now the German government has already taken in a shitload of refugees, that me…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 12:57 PM
0

The thing you fail to understand about fundamental rights it's that you can't just skirt or infringe upon them to appease people A democratic society values the opinions of it's citizens above all, even abote the human rights. The human rights apply in democratic societies only, because the majority of the people believe in human rights. Ensuring rights is always more important than keeping people happy, but you evidently disagree. Yes, because making people too unhappy leads to the destruction …
/r/MensRights02/02/16 12:42 PM
1

If the only alternative is tearing down the pool, so be it. You can't infringe on basic rights to solve problems, that's why they're considered fundamental rights. If I was a swimmer and the pool where I trained for years is torn down, because of a few hundreds of migrants, I would probably tear down the migrants housing with my own hands. There's one rule that is above all other rules: "Rules can only be untouchable, if it's possible to make a system work with those rules under all circumstance…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 12:38 PM
0

And you expect locals not to be pissed, when you close the pool or make them pay much more?
/r/MensRights02/02/16 12:23 PM
0

Ha what? We've gone from bad acts at a single pool to deporting, illegally no less, the entire refugee population of Germany? You're nuts. No, you have dismissed all solutions that discriminate. The only solutions left are very expensive systems, or security guards, which both lead to the public being seriously mad. I can't understand how you would piss of your citizens just for the principle. This will not help the refugees, this will make them target of attacks in the long term. Maybe not beca…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 12:21 PM
0

That's not how this works for starters. I don't have to solve the Israel Palestine conflict to be critical of the actions of Israel or Palestine. Not really. Proposing a possible solution or even multiple possible solutions for the israel palestine conflict is fucking easy. That's why you can complain. The problem is that they won't accept any of the solutions. As for this specific issue I don't particularly care if it was a convenient solution. And I was not talking about convenient, but about …
/r/MensRights02/02/16 12:14 PM
0

But you haven't proposed a better solution. Checking too many people becomes infeasible, so what then? Close the pool for everyone? Will cause outrage! Close the pool for all migrants? The same flaw as banning migrant men. That leaves us with the only option of deporting those responsible migrants out of Germany. But would people be okay with that, just for harrassing and annoying some people a little? Which means you can't do anything, which means public dissatisfaction with the situation incre…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 11:59 AM
0

It doesn't matter what you accept or don't accept. There is a problem, they had to solve it. Propose a better solution and you are allowed to complain. Also refugees are not part of society, just as some friend that sleeps at your place, because his parents kicked him out is not your cohabitee, since they don't pay.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 11:50 AM
0

I don't think you have learned the lesson from history yourself. The lesson is to not let problems escalate, since that makes it easy for crazy people to take advantage of the public discontent. Not doing anything would be exactly against those lesson and would eventually lead to violent attacks targetted at refugees, just like in Stockholm recently.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 11:42 AM
1

Not in a scientific way, so don't count on it to be true, for I am but a human being. I compared it to the domestic violence issue. We all know from various articles and studies, that male dv-victims are often forced out of their houses or even sent to prison, just because they're men. (googled a little: result and result) The same could theoretically apply to non-molestations orders. Theoretically doesn't neccessarily mean it's true, but if it is, it would imply that the prejudice of society is…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 10:46 AM
3

Because of societies attitudes towards men, men are not applying for non-molestations orders in the same number as women I disagree with that. Society could think whatever they want, if a man would actually get help from the law enforcement, they would probably use it. Men don't apply for non-molestation orders out of a rational decision, which is that you'll more likely be seen as the molester than the molested. So, while society does influence it, the biggest hurdle is for the law enforcement …
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:58 AM
0

That's not what I was talking about. When you want to ban 100 people, you can't expect that the pool supervisor checks the images of 100 people everytime someone enters the building. That's where they will try to find a cheaper (but worse) solution. That is, they will try to find a group that optimally contains all of these 100 people and as few as possible other people, and is easier to check. That's probably how they came up with "male migrants". You can ask yourself the question, why the fema…
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:50 AM
0

In many cases I agree with you, but not in this one. They couldn't ban all men permanently from the pool, society would be outraged. But they can ban male migrants. Makes kind of sense, since male migrants apparently made problems and also migrants don't pay taxes.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 09:20 AM
0

I agree that they should first ban specific people that don't behave. But if they already did that, and it didn't reduce the complaints, or if they had to ban too many people to be feasible, solving the problem by banning a specific group is okay. Of course the group should be as small as possible, but big enough such that the problem can be solved.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 07:53 AM
1

You know what the pool ban didn't have any connection to the cologne attack at all. They behaved bad in this public pool, leading to complaints, leading to the ban. Also you comlain about the left and right wing generalizing, while at the same time generalizing the left and right wing. Not really smart draw, if you ask me.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 07:27 AM
4

Because they had tons of complaints that male refugees behaved bad, groped women, spitted everywhere, were rude, ignored the rules (got in the way of people wanting to swim), and so on. This is not misandry, this is not racism, this is consequences for their actions. Also, as far as I know, the ban has been lifted after just a few days.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 06:42 AM
6

Look at the graphs for the employment rates for men and women atg age 30 by parental income. Isn't it revealing that men are dignificantly more affected by the parents being married or not? I mean, wouldn't that imply that a significant (or significantly bigger) portion of parents who is not married treats men much worse?
/r/MensRights02/02/16 06:37 AM
-2

Shoe0nHead is cute imho.
/r/MensRights02/02/16 06:29 AM
6

Who's disgusted with periods? I am not...
/r/MensRights02/02/16 03:47 AM
3

non-conformist, sexually liberated thinker So exactlly what they aren't?
/r/MensRights01/02/16 06:42 PM
38

That some feminists want to have womens feels above the law, while they practically dismiss the notion that men have any feelings at all.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 04:09 PM
1

I agree
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:44 PM
2

Someone should really make a detailed blog searching and analyzing how feminism hurts comics.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 11:46 AM
1

300 Million people in the USA, and they didn't find a single worthy candidate for the job of the president. But inbetween all those candidates that are all unworthy in my opinion, she's definitely the worst.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 03:15 AM
2

We aren't, any such issue has copycats. I'm sure many women were assaulted in NYE in Germany, and of course that will attract liers too.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:30 AM
2

What the fuck...
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:28 AM
1

Haha^ there's actually a real Felix Leitner that has a very popular German blog.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 01:01 AM
1

Yes they are. And they are not the only ones.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 12:55 AM
13

There's a high probability you can't do much, because equality is only for women apparently. Document you stuff, all that is relevant. Children are easy to influence, but one day they'll hopefully realize. When they're old enough to think on their own, it will be easier if you can give them detailed documents if they ask why you "left them" or "took their money" or whatever. However, for now you can only be nice to them. They are victims too, just like you. They are emotionally abused by your ex…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:27 PM
1

I think objectification of anyone and anything is okay, but I don't think that feminists should demand not to be objectified while at the same time objectifying others.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:18 PM
1

I'm not in a hurry. Thank you very much.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:17 PM
1

I wanted to answer, but you already said everything relevant.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:16 PM
2

It would be cool if you actually posted here how she reacted, if it's okay.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:08 PM
2

How do you feel about egalitarianism, or the "equalist"/"humanist" movement? Do you think that they are inherently MRA's for believing what they believe, or do you respect their their label/movement as it's own "thing" apart from the MRM, and recognize the fact that they have different goals that are not necessarily detrimental to you, or anyone else who fights for equality. Ideally, feminism, the MRM and humanism would never disagree, since it shouldn't happen conceptually. But it does happen, …
/r/MensRights31/01/16 10:50 PM
2

I never even thought about the criminality issue that way. SJWs and leftists downplay crime from non straight white people. That makes some groups (such as blacks) look better, but it doesn't really help them. Since black people are mostly the victim of black peoples crimes, they'll also suffer the most from silencing criticism. They would profit the most from handling this issue. I don't know if Trump is the right guy to handle it thou, but will the alternatives do anything? I guess there is ac…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 10:13 PM
6

People will do many things to lie at themselves. They'll fight the truth as long as they can and they are even capable of believing two contradicting things at once. We all do that from time to time, it's human. BUT feminists are rather stubborn and try to save what they believe in, by inventing additional bullshit. Your knowledge is like a bridge. If it looks unstable, you try to safe it by building additional stuff. At some point, you just have to admit that your bridge was unstable from the b…
/r/MensRights31/01/16 09:39 PM
1

I'm abslutely okay with that. That's what a company is supposed to do, optimize their products according to what people will buy, which is equal to what people want. Of course they can only guess, and maybe little girls will like the new dolls, but it doesn't really matter for me. I'm okay as long as companies are not forced into producing unneccessary shit by SJW and similar clowns.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 09:06 PM
28

I really can't understand how anyone could support this. Shouldn't teacher be intelligent people to some degree? I mean, children don't even earn money. Even if the wage gap was real, what if the boy had a single mother? She'd have to pay the higher price with lower wages. That shit is even stupid for feminists standards.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:02 PM
3

It's not a rape hysterics in Cologne at all, it's organized crime. But it should be obvious that such cases will always be used by copycats to get attention. This shouldn't be unexpected.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 05:45 PM
75

Sue for discrimination => profit
/r/MensRights31/01/16 05:41 PM
1

She seems actually kinda nice how you describe her.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 02:52 PM
2

Well, she has you in her hands, so be nice to her (or she will bite). If she agrees, you can have a paternity test. Do you want the child? It doesn't matter, since she want the child. She wont abort, you have to accept that. Do you want to be part of you childs life, when she is born? If yes, it would be best to talk about that with her.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:32 AM
1

Only if you stab him with the handle first ;-)
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:23 AM
0

That with the name makes no sense, but at least they explained why she's called Thor now.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:17 AM
2

I don't get why that would make her a female thor. Thor is just the name of this guy, and if she picked up his powers, she would still have the same name as before.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:15 AM
1

I don't think she shouldn't be able to get such a doll, we just shouldn't force companies to produce them. If the demand is high enough, someone will produce them anyway.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:11 AM
2

She does? That's horrible...
/r/MensRights31/01/16 11:10 AM
1

Funded by the jewish community? Or by the industry that uses foreskin? I can't think of another reason why they would make up such complete bullshit.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 01:15 AM
6

This is just ridiculous. I mean female Thor is actually even worse. Making Thor female is like making a movie about female Jesus or Transexual Mohammad, absolutely bullshit. I'm actually an Atheist, but I can actually understand if religious people are offended by these stupid alteration of people just to pander some asshole. I'm offended too, when they want to make James Bond black or Ghandi white or Martin Luther King white.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 12:07 AM
2

You can't rely on companies to do the right thing That's absolutely correct. BUT you can rely on companies to do the right thing, if it's at the same time the best way for them to make money. response to a world-wide body image crisis for kids and teens That crisis is not really serious where I live, almost no problems here. But let's assume there is this body image crisis. Anorexia and Bulimia numbers don't lie. Now that's where I want to have sources from you. I don't need numbers for anorexia…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 10:42 PM
4

but that's not how the world works. Actually that's exactly how the world works. Barbie is the biggest brand of children's doll ... Those are the dolls that little girls will ask for. And maybe it has become the biggest brand exactly because it is the way it is. Wouldn't it be very unfair to demand that they change? Wouldn't that be like forcing coca cola to change their recipe? The only reason to force coca cola to change their recipe would be, if it was somehow dangerous. The same should apply…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 10:08 PM
4

It's not stupid to want them to look like real people, it's stupid to demand it. There are a lot of puppets who don't have real human proportions, I'm even tempted to say most. If the customers like dolls with real proportions, the company that produces them will succeed. If the customers like unrealistic dolls, realistic dolls won't succeed. I see no need to complain.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 09:34 PM
9

I fail to see the problem. Because we haven't perfected the cybernetic eyes yet.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 07:44 PM
3

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I agree with you that the petition would be some kind of equality, but it's honestly unneccessary here. The fat barby dolls will not sell and therefore they will stop creating them. But if I'm wrong and they do sell well, the manufacturer might think "hey, maybe a fat ken would sell too" and actually try it out. That means such an action wouldn't have any positive effect on you. Actually it would make us look like children reacting angry and stubbo…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 06:13 PM
77

We shouldn't mimic feminists stupid actions, that won't help us.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 06:06 PM
7

I wonder if there is a video on youtube where people actually defend a man that is victim of violence by a woman. And I don't mean defend in the comments, but actually helping. Does not really have a connection to that video, but I just wondered.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 03:47 PM
4

The that men are forced to draft. Or that men have much less rights on their children, then women do. There are some others depending on where you live. Where I live, the retirement age for women is 5 years earlier, even thou they live 5 years longer, which means 10 more year getting retirement money. edit: I forgot, legal equality is not only equality in the law books, but also equality in how the law is applied. Apparently, men face 60% longer prison sentences for similar crimes, if I recall t…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 03:39 PM
2

Well, feminist claimed, from the beginning, to be for equal rights. Equal rights means they would have to work for the (legal) equalisation of the bad things too, to make men and women legally equal. They haven't done that implies they have never been for equal rights, which would have been okay (I think) if they didn't claim to be for equal rights, since that would have allowed a mens rights movement to flourish much earlier to do the mens part towards legal equality. The result could have been…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 03:13 PM
2

It's true what you write. But that doesn't mean that feminism was all nice before, but I agree that it managed to get some good things done. The problem we have here is just that feminists in the past fought for women getting the good stuff that men already had (which is not a bad thing), but at the same time fought against women getting the bad things and responsibilities that men had. Nowadays, feminists have become much worse and they deserve the bad reputation imho, because they fight for wo…
/r/MensRights30/01/16 12:34 PM
1

It's actually accurate, but the description is wrong. It's not how hate works, but how manipulation works. Also it is done very often by media of all kinds, it's definitely not feminist exclusive. Also "feminism is a hate movement" has nothing to do with the rest, since not only hate movements to manipulation like that.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 12:25 PM
-1

That's nov even a woman thing. Look at any media coverage about any study and it will do game-changing simplification like the one in the middle. It's almost guaranteed. Also people, doesn't matter wich sex, are likely to believe the simplified but different meaning of studies.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 12:22 PM
2

correct
/r/MensRights30/01/16 12:19 PM
7

What percentage of feminists actually act like this? Depends. Acting like the one in the middle? Only a few. Acting like the one on the right side, believing the manipulated facts? 95% of humanity, not only feminists.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 12:12 PM
0

How about the old melody with the following feminist-approved text: Oh Canada, We don't care about men, Misogyny, Is all that we perceive. We will pander, any womans feels. The true noth is feminine From far and wide, oh Canada, we stomp on men for thee. Feminism is god, censored and cozy! O Canada, we stomp on men for thee. O Canada, we stomp on men for thee.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 10:15 AM
4

Many downvotes but almost only positive comments...Someone should create a really well done comment under this youtube video, to tell people what's wrong.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 09:51 AM
1

I can decide about (vote on) political topics (initiative,referendum). This means I can have influence without being involved in committees.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 09:16 AM
1

No need, I have direct democracy.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 01:18 AM
1

I agree that elections are not really important, since they just don't change much. I'm glad I can actually vote on topics where I live.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 11:45 PM
2

Voting shouldn't be a right one group can give to another. That's why refugees and tourists and some other groups are not allowed to vote? ALL rights are either gained by fighting for it, or by getting them by humans (other humans or by a group you are part of). There's literally no exception for this. It should be inherent in society. Which is true from our point of view, but it wasn't self-evident back then. You can't devalue an action in one context by proving it to be wrong in another contex…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 11:06 PM
1

honestly, I still just say "normal" and I will keep doing it.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:10 PM
4

They could have taken it by force, theoretically, but we both know that this wouldn't have worked at all. So yes, no one could have given them the right to vote. BUT I've never heard of any older attempt of women to get the right to vote. So one try, one success, how can they blame men for denying them suffrage, when no big scale attempt of women to gain suffrage was ever denied by men?
/r/MensRights29/01/16 09:26 PM
5

I'm pretty sure it was actually seen as a hassle, because suffrage was coupled with some responsibilities towards the state, e.g. mandatory military service. But of course some wanted to have that right. Also probably many didn't even think about that.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 09:21 PM
2

Agreed. But I'm doubting my own sources here. Not all of it was really literature, and maybe it would have been better to look at another souce that only contains literature.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 08:16 PM
2

It's quite simple. The governments job is to act in the best interest of its own population. The best interest of (the rest of) humanity should not be their concern. One part of that job is to keep the country safe (enough). Safety REQUIRES pessimistic approaches. In your computer, many inputs (of good programs who value security) are testet extensively for false inputs. Security means to rather deny valid inputs than to accept potentially harmful inputs. This means it doesn't matter if Syrian p…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 08:09 PM
4

How about you specifically search for feminists view about male feminists aka allies? That's one place where they attack feminists. Also they attack feminist transgenders.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 07:19 PM
1

Not my thing, sorry. But have fun if you like them.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 07:10 PM
2

TLDR also needs some paragraphs to be readable.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 06:25 PM
2

Harper Lee Damn, I searched almost all of them on wikipedia, even the ones that sounded very male. I'll correct it.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 05:59 PM
5

I didn't complain about it, I was just surprised, since I didn't know.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 05:58 PM
2

I agree, but it is just so obvious. Feminists usually try to lie to themselve, which means they will actively avoid contradictions that shine out too much. "Chauvinistic" and "it's your own fault" in the same sentence would cause serious cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 03:43 PM
1

Switzerland was also late with that, but because of the direct democracy, full societal support was guaranteed at the point in time when they got it, while in other countries it was decided by the government while society might have been still critical.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 03:22 PM
3

They should organize themselves to protest these classes and strictly refuse to do it. Univerities can punish men who refuse only, if there aren't enough men who refuse.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 03:19 PM
1

Only if you assume that gender study and similar things actually give you education. Women have more education diploma, not neccessarily more education.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 03:15 PM
19

But how many of the bestsellers are written by women? Let's hope amazon is not too biased. 1) Roger Priddy: Male 2) Marie Kondō: Female 3) Rob Elliott: Male 4) Johanna Basford: Female 5) Tom Rath: Male 6) Harper Lee: Female 7) Johanna Basford: Female 8) Anthony Doerr: Male 9) Paula Hawkins: Female 10) Blue Star Coloring: Female 11) Jeff Kinney: Male 12) Harper Lee: Male 13) Blue Star Coloring: Female 14) Coloring Books for Adults: No idea, let's assume female 15) Brandon Stanton: Male 16) Andy W…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 02:57 PM
105

Not only didn't feminists die for their right to vote, but the right to vote was given to them by men when they demanded it.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 01:58 PM
6

That would be bullshit. Imagine you take a woman home and don't know if anything will happen between you. You can't ask her for consent, since you don't know what will happen. But when you actually know it will go further, you woul have to disrupt the "flow" and the passion. Consent is not what feminists make you believe, consent is most often nonverbal and it isn't binary at all. Usually you make a tiny step and she answers in some non-verbal way. You repeat that procedure until you either go a…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 01:56 PM
3

Judging intelligence by education or inventions is not really intelligent. Intelligence is not the only thing you need to achieve things. Intelligence is never relevant on it's own (except in intelligence tests maybe, but certainly not in real applications), but always only in combination with other traits.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 01:39 PM
4

Whenever I use a men's room to avoid the women's room line, as I do whenever possible, the room always seems grungy in a uniquely men's room way. Why is she using the mens' restroom? Would a man also be allowed to enter a womens' restroom to avoid the queue? It would actually make more sense, since womens' restrooms are entirely cabins.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 12:06 PM
2

Upvote for you. But it is possible to consent to passed out sex before you passed out, if you specifically wish for it. There are people with weird fetishes out there. It's basically the same as giving you gf permission to wake you up with sex.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 11:09 AM
1

I think that's fake or a troll, even feminists would see that as stupidity.
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:58 AM
1

Feminism is a religion. I don't know if they have a god (Can't be women, since they hurt them often), but they definitely have a devil and it's called the patriarchy. They use the "you're not with us means you are against us" bullshit to brand you as an ally of the devil. Also note that the feminism cult has nothing to do with gender equality, just like islam has nothing to do with peace, yet that's what they say. Believing in gender equality wouldn't even make you a feminist, even if feminism w…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 10:55 AM
1

I don't know much about the history of the MRM either. But if you'd ask me, I would say that the MRM is just a bunch of people with the same opinions on a few things. Those are things like the refusal of the notion that men subdue women, the refusal of the notion that women are victims of our "patriarchical" society and some others. For all topics different than what makes the MRM, all opinions are most likely present here. You'll find right wing and left wing people here, you'll find transsexua…
/r/MensRights29/01/16 12:41 AM
31

So you're only allowed in a skeptics conference if you're not skeptic of feminism?
/r/MensRights28/01/16 11:46 PM
7

There's no need for that, it's already only loosely coupled. If someone from redpill or even from mensrights talks bullshit in public, we will just tell him that it is bullshit. We have no problem when people are telling us that we talk bullshit, but we'll argue. The manosphere is a group united by common opinions about some issues. The manosphere doesn't force anyone to bow down to some ideology, unlike feminism who does that. Therefore the manosphere can only be split by people changing their …
/r/MensRights28/01/16 11:00 PM
1

I know, but censorship of feminists already affects women. Would make more sense to use their weapons if it was the only way to let women realize. We don't need feminists to realize, we need people to realize.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 10:49 PM
1

I'm not so sure about that. Using their weapons against them is a short-sighted solution, since it will make the use of these weapons acceptable. But that they use these weapons is mostly the reason why we are against them. Let's not shoot at our own knees.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 10:23 PM
37

One bright spot in the survey results is the publishing industry’s gender composition, which leans heavily away from men/cis men and toward women/cis women (again, the overall number is 78%). Always nice when feminists unintentionally show their nazi-like attitudes.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 10:20 PM
1

But in the end, you'll still priorize you happiness a little more than other peoples happiness. Therefore a good model would probably be that you should optimize the sum of the happiness of people weighted by how close they are to you. So you wouldn't go for a profit, if it means a significantly bigger loss for another person, but you would go for a profit if the others loss is only slightly larger or even smaller.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 09:13 PM
4

To hear that in a class that is supposed to be scientific is more than wrong, it's on the level of saying that women aren't capable to do maths.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:57 PM
1

Your arguments are good, I'll reconsider my opinion. But then I am only responsible if I know, or am I expected to try to find out if she's engaged? And if yes, how much effort does release me from that responsibility?
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:36 PM
1

No need to edit, since you already wrote that it wasn't serious.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:25 PM
2

Don't do that too much, otherwise feminists will use your comments as "prove" that MRAs are bad.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:17 PM
3

troll
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:13 PM
2

Is that sarcasm?
/r/MensRights28/01/16 07:13 PM
0

Those are some good examples, but the difference is that cheating on your husband is not illegal, therefore you are not helping with a crime.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 06:49 PM
1

Martina Hingis started playing again, but only double. They're actually number 1 right now.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 05:32 PM
4

It seems we understand each other.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 03:05 PM
1

I hope that was sarcasm.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 02:48 PM
2

But not all of them. Some people genuinely regret what they have done and they would regret it even if they weren't caught. Hell, some people even turn themselves in, because they feel bad about it.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 02:47 PM
6

That was my first thought too. How can these self-proclaimed scientists ignore such obvious possibilities?
/r/MensRights28/01/16 02:11 PM
1

I could argue that her actions were the ones that harmed that stranger. She would have slept with another guy anyway.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 02:08 PM
2

Do these options even make logical sense, when ignoring biology?
/r/MensRights28/01/16 02:05 PM
1

Economy... How much it costs to make a product is based on the costs for materials, machines, other resources and the cost of human work. What price a product is sold for depends on what people are willing to pay. Any company want's to optimize how much money they get. That means the sum of sold pieces of a product and the price, of course. Now if women are willing to buy the same fucking product for a higher price (e.g. not willing to buy cheaper alternatives), they are responsible for the pric…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 01:30 PM
1

I see your point. The point were we have a distinction is that you believe that people have responsibility towards completely unkown people, while I said they don't. That means if I slept with a married woman, it would only be wrong in my view if I was friends with her husband, but it would be generally wrong in your view. Why do you believe I should be responsible towards strangers? Why isn't that solely the mans wife's responsibility?
/r/MensRights28/01/16 01:15 PM
1

Just like most Germans in WW2 weren't evil, just indoctrinated or knowledgeless, your parent's were indoctrinated too. Indoctrinated people are not evil, just indoctrinated. Don't hate the indoctrinated, but instead show a deep respect for all people who managed to break out of any form of indoctrination. Don't blame them, blame society or the one who made society this way. That of course doesn't means they shouldn't apologize to you, but to honestly apologize, they'd have to break out of indoct…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 01:07 PM
6

Do these options even make logical sense, when ignoring biology? Girl, tomboy, female, young woman are all the same to me, i can't really see any relation to gender. Same for boy, male, young man. So until now the gender is an element of the set {male, female}. Then we can increase the spectrum by defining the gender as an element of the set {male brain, female brain}x{male body, female body}, which makes four option now. I hope you know sets and the cross product to understand that. Then to add…
/r/MensRights28/01/16 12:44 PM
0

I didn't know that stuff. But imho she's only responsible for cheating on her bf, but that her affair was married and had children is the wrongdoing of that guy.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 12:01 PM
0

Where do you know all that movies from. I've never hear of clouds of sils maria, I only know sils maria the place, because it's in my country.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 10:56 AM
25

I don't know, I don't really care about celebs, they seem unimportant to me.
/r/MensRights28/01/16 01:18 AM
9

That's not only true for bratty, spoiled women, but also for many men. It used to be different.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:00 PM
185

Everybody hates her movies, but as a person she seems nice.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 10:20 PM
1

If ALL sex would lead to rape accusations, there would be no legal difference between rape and normal sex, but that's not the case. Also even if they were legally equal, why would you want to rape a woman? I consider it appealing if she is enthusiastic about sex, not the opposite. But I guess what you wanted to say is that "if all sex is rape, nothing is"?
/r/MensRights27/01/16 07:09 PM
121

To me, it seems she's not regretting what she did, but she regrets the consequences she faces right now.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 05:36 PM
1

You're neither offending nor insulting, so that is okay. But don't write "please" so many times, you don't have to beg for anything, you're degrading yourself if you do that often to people. But I still have to say that you are in the wrong place here. This is a place about mens rights, not about finding friends. If you're looking for homoromantic asexual mens rights activists, you should probably look for homoromantic asexual men on some dating/meetup platform until you meet one that fits your …
/r/MensRights27/01/16 05:30 PM
2

We don't. We post articles here about how feminism and the laws fuck up men, while feminists complain about male privilege, that doesn't really exist. Everything related to mens rights is welcome here. Also give us an example of the MRA attacking women because they're women.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 03:02 PM
1

I congratulate you for keeping cool, I would seriously rage in your situation. I'm normally calm, but when it comes to such things, I'm not a gentleman anymore. I would probably threaten her with serious violence if she continues the emotional and physical abuse. BUT I know that it's the wrong way. Don't do that. Instead there are two things you have to achieve: 1) Slowly make your brother change his mind and probably get help for him. 2) Defend yourself and your brother legally by documenting h…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:39 PM
2

If only it was that easy. Psychology is not that easy.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:35 PM
1

But check your local laws first, filming without her knowledge might be illegal.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:30 PM
-1

You can't say they are silent with a new article, since it's entirely possible that they just didn't create an ourtage yet. Without giving them time for reaction, how can you say their reation is wrong? We both know that they probably will be silent or they will blame it on all men and they have shown that often in the past, but doesn't mean they will do the same here. A reaction of a feminist to this article would be an article for mens rights, but this article isn't.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:15 PM
5

r/stormfront is about weather...
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:07 PM
0

I disagree that this is about white supremacy, but I agree that it doesn't belong here. This is an article about immigration problems, it would fit into an immigration critics subreddit or in a right-wing subreddit, with the purpose to rant about how leftists ignore real problems.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 01:59 PM
3

Was she also in a TED talk? If yes, I might have seen that on youtube.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 01:50 PM
3

If you are indoctrinated enough, you stop thinking about the topic you are indoctrinated about freely. That doesn't make her dumb, just indoctrinated. She could be the smartest person normally, but just completeley ignorant in this one topic.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:37 AM
1

I agree with the first one about sentence, but the second (about police brutality) could also have some other causes that could explain at least a part of it. E.g. because of the history of the US, black people could be raised to fear cops more, which makes them behave differently, which makes policemen shoot more often, which makes black people fear the police more, and so on. The reason I believe that this explains most of the cases is, because even the most racist cop doesn't want to ruin his…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 03:19 AM
6

It's okay. You didn't expect her to start thinking anyway, right? Your words have hopefully influenced some listeners into a good direction. She was hopeless to begin with.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 03:12 AM
4

Who wants to answer to these stupid questions? I'll type down the questions for you to make it easier and provide some answers that you can expand on. 1) How does it feels to be the same sex as Donald Trump? Great. How does it feel to be the same sex as Sarah Palin? 2) Why do you hate Rom-Coms? I do because they are often boring and most of them are literally identical. Also why do you assume that all men hate them? 3) Or do you just feel like you need to hate them? Everybody likes the notebook.…
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:47 AM
2

they need special accommodations like ramps to achieve equality I wouldn't call it equality, it's definitely a privilege for them to have ramps, which are only built for them. But it's okay to have some privileges from time to time to compensate for "unfair" nature. But that will be resolved in the future anyway, since artificial limbs, eyes and stuff like that will make ramps (almost?) irrelevant. But do you believe that it's the duty of the law/government to compensate for any "unfairness" of …
/r/MensRights26/01/16 10:13 PM
3

It didn't benefit them equally, it just benefited both. Nowadays, the risk of getting all your money taken away in a divorce is immensely high, and you litterally have no chance as a man in such a case. The benefits of marrying (as a man) were the rights on your children and the support of your wife. That's it mostly. The benefits of marrying (as a woman) were a stable support for you and your children. Also you didn't have to work, except house keeping. Now the benefits for men are gone. Practi…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 04:47 PM
11

Feminism doesn't need rebranding, it needs self-monitoring. I see almost no feminists with the ability to judge objectively where the actual issues are and also where feminism has gone too far. There's almost no criticism of feminism from feminists, everything is always great and who says otherwise is wrong. Feminism has become a bad word not because all feminists are bad, but because the politically active are mostly and the normal ones give them power. To us MRAs it seems that feminist actuall…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 03:54 PM
1

Humans are good at denying reality, that's all.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 02:48 PM
2

European males are less manginas then canadian men or US men, as far as my experience goes.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:00 PM
6

She was drunk, therefore the 11 year old son raped her and shoud go to jail! /s
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:58 PM
2

I didn't know. I usually translate such words with an online disctionary once, and it turned out to be the translation of a word that is used in other countries too, but that's how you lose information with online dictionaries.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:45 PM
2

If I could decide, yesterday. But I can't decide and I have no information about it. Also you didn't say in which country.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:36 PM
2

I don't understand how the legal disparities you mentioned haven't been successfully challenged The retirement age could have been resolved decades ago, since feminists have had power for a long time now, and society would probably support it. But it didn't happend, for whatever reason. Who knows why. About the draft, I hear strange reasoning against it from men and women. The one reasoning I like the least is that it's only fair that only men have to serve, since women bear children. I don' see…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 11:35 AM
1

So it's like some gay people use the stereotype for signalling and if the stereotype for gay people would be different, they would use a different behavious?
/r/MensRights26/01/16 11:12 AM
4

omg I am so mad, I wrote a ton and hit the freaking back thingie. There's actually a simple solution to this, write your post in any text editor and in the end copy&paste it to reddit. Then you can go back if something bad happens. But actually I don't do that, since I am too lazy and it doesn't happen enough. Just wanted to mention it in case you didn't know already. Can be helpful for long posts. That said, her wrongness DID get a conversation going That's actually true, but only because the g…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 02:15 AM
5

Be welcome here then :) But let me come straight to the discussion: I suspect many of you believe the extremes are more the norm than they are I see where you are coming from, but I believe many people here know that most feminists are not that extreme. BUT people here believe that the feminists organisations are often quite extreme and very much against mens rights. So the problem people here have with feminists in general is not the extreme believe (most are not that crazy), but the fact that …
/r/MensRights26/01/16 01:10 AM
2

Do you believe our view of feminism is biased? Do you think the criticism against feminism is invalid? I believe we wouldn't have problems with feminism in the first place, if they would support equal custody and things like that. So how do we find the feminists (like you) that are not against us?
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:27 AM
3

The problem is that people confuse things. Are the problems gay men face neccessarily mens rights issues? No, only some are. If gay men have some problems that they share with gay women, then that's a gay peoples issue and shouldn't be discussed in the mens rights. That of course doesn't mean that most people here wouldn't support that issue, it's just not the right platform. Same for black mens problem, or any two intermixed problems. If black men face more violence than any other group, but th…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:04 AM
11

They always try to interpret all kind of stuff into this decline, but the answer would be so simple. Marriage is a contract. This contract used to benefit both participants in some way, therefore people married. Now it doesn't benefit men anymore, therefore any smart man would refuse marriage. The reason why not all men refuse to marry is, because society has successfully attached some romantic kitsch to marriage.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:41 PM
2

Strange, I read that many times in articles from the US and it always referred to circumcision.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:37 PM
7

It shouldn't even matter. A law professor should tell them that they should switch fields if they can't handle law.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:13 PM
4

Actually, we should bring that up more into this discussion. Kellog was responsible for the spread of circumcision in the US, so his reasons are relevant. Also he had strange views on what to do with girls' vaginas to reduce "self-abuse". Would feminists be okay if the US would still manipulate girls' vaginas with phenol?
/r/MensRights25/01/16 11:11 PM
3

Ah... destructive conditioning doesn't mean that men are conditioned to be destructive (aggressive), but instead the conditioning itself is destructive towards men. I kinda misunderstood that.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 10:31 PM
2

and those who were willing to unlearn some of their destructive conditioning. Really? Sounds like a male feminist group to me.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 10:06 PM
16

If you're triggered by the topics you have to hear at your university courses, you don't belong at a university, or at leas not in the field you chose.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 10:02 PM
1

A sorry, my bad. I usually don't look at the post history, because the only thing it can achieve is an unneccessary bias. Also I've seem some posts here with non-MRA topics. It seems I jumped to conclusions, I apologize.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 10:01 PM
1

It's nice to hear that even gay people can find something too gay. It's always kinda weird to me, when some gay people speak in a gayish (how would you call that?) tone and also act that way. I don't really get the relation between liking dick as a man, and acting weird (different than all non-gays). I always thought that would be just normal for gay people and only weird to me.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 08:28 PM
1

If such laws exist or not may depend on the place you look. Read legal codes if you want to find such laws. Search for minority. It has a high chance to discriminate against non-minorities, but it's not 100%. Equality wouldn't allow special minority-laws, unless the law doesn't do anything (e.g. like "minorities are to be treated equally"). There are also a lot of minority bursaries, where minorities get taxmoney that non-minorities have no access to and no equivalent. I don't know why you need …
/r/MensRights25/01/16 08:10 PM
1

There is no way to quantify privilege, UNLESS somebody is privileged in all aspects (=pareto optimal). The laws are almost never in favour of white people, and white men don't get any of the minority bonuses most other people can get. That means white men are actually quantifiable underprivileged in regards to the law and aids by taxmoney, just as well as men are quantifiable underprivileged in regards to the law and application of the law and aids by taxmoney and society. But white people might…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 07:39 PM
7

I hate that americans call it "get snipped". We may as well call it "get snipped", when a female circumcision takes place. I dislike both, but the only non-double standard choices are disliking both or none. Why don't they realize this? Also where does the circumcision practice in america come from? I don't remember that being a widespread practice in europe in the last century at least?
/r/MensRights25/01/16 07:16 PM
2

Yes, that's true. Also people forget that not pissing off the minority too much helps the majority too.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 07:03 PM
2

Well, keep the options open is not wrong, but ignoring the probabilities is stupid. If we raised all the children gender neutral and wait for them to decide what they want, they may be less happy. Result: we have not 99% children that are less happy and 1% that are a little happier. And that is ignoring societal component that would probably also add to the unhappiness of the 99%. The majority is the most important, no matter what leftists dream about. If we want to optimize the sum of happiness…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 05:59 PM
4

Men are not shamed for sleeping around because WOMEN are actually favouring men with experience. They could shame men who are "male sluts" if they wanted to, they just don't do it. I think sleeping around isn't a good behaviour, because it spreads deseases and destroys families (which I perceive as important). I won't stop you from doing it, but I know no argument in favour of it. People are not happier now because it is alowed. Since I think sleeping around is bad behaviour, it's actually good …
/r/MensRights25/01/16 04:39 PM
4

Or, you could just bet on the 98$ (actually I am sure it's more like 99.5%, but it doesn't matter) and then later try to detect if the child doesn't like it. Children are honest, they will tell you.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 04:16 PM
17

The worst is, even in such situations they just don't realize their irrational hatred. She literally has a relunctance towards her unborn child. This is just sick.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 02:16 PM
39

Damn these stupid women in the comments. Most of them actually tell her it's normal to be irritated by just not having a girl.
/r/MensRights25/01/16 01:58 PM
6

another troll...
/r/MensRights24/01/16 11:25 PM
4

There are a lot of trolls lately.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 07:52 PM
3

I think the point is that bill cosby, whatever he has done or hasn't done, is the one person with the lowest chance for a fair trial.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 04:03 PM
3

Read the homepage
/r/MensRights24/01/16 11:30 AM
1

She's mad, but even worse are the comments on youtube defending her.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 11:15 AM
1

Also what you forgot is that this also means women being oversexualized in the media is bullshit but men on the other hand are oversexualized in the media (or you could call it objectified). I come to this conclusion because a healthy view on the other sex should be reflected in a perfect bell-curve, which is acually he case for men rating women. It could mean that men are just immune to the media indoctrination, or that the media doesn't portraits women as wrong as feminists claim.
/r/MensRights24/01/16 10:29 AM
5

Yes, the "inner" values.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 09:56 PM
10

Women rate 80% of men as looking below average. source
/r/MensRights23/01/16 09:55 PM
1

If such studies were widely known, gender studies would be proven so wrong, that any university would shut the departement down. At least that's what I believe, but I may be wrong. That would imply that there is no such widely known study pointing out the common traits of one sex, since it would be considered not politically correct.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 09:45 PM
1

Not sure how that is related to a feminists magazine, looks more like all women magazines, specifically feminists or not.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 12:57 PM
2

That's a damn long and fucking useless conversation. She's trapped in an echo chamber. She's indoctrinated to the core. You could have noticed that as early as "You're disgusting and proved that even if I did...", since she uses ad hominem and uses the word proved, when it doesn't logically fit. Indoctrinated people can only be "healed" by slowly confronting them with truth, in a pace slow enough to not make them oppose you.
/r/MensRights23/01/16 12:33 PM
5

How can people come up with such stupid arguments. Of course the job isn't yours when you don't get the job, but that's not relevant. If quotas lead to someone other getting the job, the one who would have gotten the job without the quotas has every right to complain about that. Becaues then, government intervention didn't make him lose the job, but prevented him from winning the job in an unfair manner, which is basically the same.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 11:07 PM
1

Another troll?
/r/MensRights22/01/16 11:02 PM
2

Since nobody seems to answer the question OP actually asked, I'll give it a shot. As far as I know, there is no scientific survey asking women about that. Feminist organizations haven't done any survey too, as far as I know. Even if they did, they would have probably asked only their own members, which would be very biased. So the public opinion about family law is actually unknown and most people (here or at any feminist site) are just guessing and they will all guess what they imagine the worl…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 10:58 PM
1

He didn't write he did want her to stop, so he might have nad no problem with that part. Just an assumption, but yours is an assumption too. He should report her, if he was abused.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 02:23 PM
3

Strange story. So what do you dislike on all women specifically? I mean there are lots of women I don't respect because of how they behave, but definitely not all of them and also definitely not because they are women. But hating and not respecting are also two different things. I hate very few types of women, don't respect some women and respect the others. Also the same goes for men, there are types of men I hate, some that I don't respect and some tha I respect. The difference is probably the…
/r/MensRights22/01/16 01:59 PM
2

I think one comment of youtube I read was something like: "So women in a patriarchy are treated like goddesses and men in a mariarchy are treated like slaves."
/r/MensRights22/01/16 01:50 PM
1

This is actually an own goal because of the bit about being only for whites because that will add a front, an additional front that we needn't fight. That's on purpose. It will create more outrage this way, and black people already do have minority bursaries. It's not against black people, it's about the communication that white poor people are the most disadvantaged of them all, yet they don't get anything.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 12:23 PM
2

Isn't that the best situation you can have? Shock people => people demand explanation => explain => ? => profit
/r/MensRights22/01/16 12:17 PM
2

Not really... Yahoo was in a crisis before, but they still had lots of good people and good ideas. What Marissa did was driving away the knowhow out of her company, then buying some startups and driving away the knowhow agaiin. She's really the worst kind of CEO you can imagine.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 12:13 PM
3

That's the guy from game of thrones, right? Nice video, it really creates awareness for a problem that has been silenced for centuries.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 09:18 PM
3

Young girls are the people who can most easily be influenced and that for two reasons. First reason is that young people are easier to influence than old people, second reason is that women/girls are easier to influence than men/boys. That's why so many ads are targeted at women. That's why fashion is mostly targeted at young people and women. That means they are also the most indoctrinated with ideological views, both by religions and other religion-like groups, like feminism. Hopefully, realit…
/r/MensRights21/01/16 09:11 PM
2

I think /r/legaladvice would be of more help to you.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 06:31 PM
1

So? What does she say is the objective measurement? I do feel like men are discouraged from being teachers, but I don't know how to objectively prove that.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 06:01 PM
6

I think it's funny. Not because of the abuse, actually that part adds nothing to the joke. They should have just paint her as offended instead.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 05:58 PM
1

I think the point of the post was that the same could be said for women in STEM. Is it the governments job to create an environment that is equally attractive to men and women? How do we know that a environment is not male/female friendly? Is there an objective way to investigate it?
/r/MensRights21/01/16 05:56 PM
3

This is a legit question and indeed not that wrong. But one could argue that women earn less based on thier own life choices, while boys in school have a disadvantage because of other mens life choices, since they can't chose their teachers. Women who chose to have a career that pays well, get as much money as men in the same job (actually irrelevan of their choice they get as much as men in the same job), while boys in school independent of their choices (or even their parents choices) get a di…
/r/MensRights21/01/16 05:00 PM
1

You forgo the /s after the second line.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 04:03 PM
3

That would actually be a good compromise, if you can store it somewhere else.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 04:00 PM
2

The point is that most women and even a big portion of men have a irrational fear of firearms. I have a sig550 here at home and no ammunition and the clasp isn't even in the rifle. Women still fear it, but they don't say anything mostly. That means your question should be, how do I take her fear. The answer is, go shooting with her and decide together on rules for the gun. Show her how the gun works, deassemble it with her, show her what it means to load a gun, and all the other theory women usu…
/r/MensRights21/01/16 03:58 PM
2

But they do allow deletion if you justify you stuff, that's why I ask.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 03:41 PM
1

That's sad, what specific change do we talk about exactly?
/r/MensRights21/01/16 02:55 PM
1

You mean this or this?
/r/MensRights21/01/16 12:41 PM
2

Sometimes, I think we should (just for a short time) have a segregated society, where women are only allowed to use services provided by women and men are only allowed to use services provided by men. How fast would women realize what men do for them... They'd have no clean water, the food would be very expensive, they couldn't even live in a house, unless built by women and when they called the police or an ambulance because of some emergency, they'd have to wait for a very long time, because m…
/r/MensRights21/01/16 12:28 PM
1

Another one of these? It seems the creators of this video never took a look at the youtube comments about it. This is literally the new Hitler youth imho.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 12:02 PM
6

Don't do what OP says. 1) While the person who originaly added will not realize it, other people from wikipedia do and that would be even worse. 2) You don't just modify wiki-pages usually, but you justify why you changed things. That means if you delete feminist bullshit from wiki, justify why it's wrong very well. 3) In some cases, deleting may be wrong even with justification, better would be to add criticism with legit sources.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 11:49 AM
6

It's valid if tax money is wasted inefficiently. Also while invalid, it's still true for other money sources. Let's say you could save 10000 people from breast cancer with your money, but 50000 people from lung cancer (or some other illness, it doesn't really matter). Wouldn't it be wrong to spend the money this way? I mean even for women it would be bad, because most likely more than 10000 of these 50000 would be women.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 11:44 AM
1

Hey guys and girls in the comments, stop making sarcastic comments, it could be taken seriously by people who dig out that post later. This is a troll post, but for a change it's not a feminist that trolls here, but more like some red piller or something like that.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 11:39 AM
1

I didn't even tell you what I think about the topic, I just explained to you, why it's a mens rights issue, which is what you asked. It should be obvious that, given that we want equality, any double standard in the law or application of the law is a issue that needs to be resolved. The solution can be to lower the rights of the group with more rights, or to increase the rights of the other group. Which solution is preferable depends on your opinion and on the specific case.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 02:03 AM
1

While that is definitely true (just as many other illnesses men have more often), it's not relevant in the context of peak performance.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 01:59 AM
-1

Fun fact: the word "Gift" is also a German word that means poison in English.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 10:31 PM
3

The point is that women are not held accountable for their crimes, while men usualy are.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 09:27 PM
1

If you are still locked into the bedroom, call the police and tell them your wife has locked you into the bedroom. And without consideration how you came out of the room in the end, leave the house and go somewhere else without telling her where you'll live. She will probably call you a lot. If that happens, good, get a restraining order. At that point, you are actually in a legal advantage. If you have an explosive temper, you may be better at telling her your view via a letter where you explai…
/r/MensRights20/01/16 06:20 PM
2

Everything is sexist
/r/MensRights20/01/16 04:48 PM
2

This is the wiki page he talks about.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:29 PM
3

"innocent until proven guily" has never been practiced by the media, because they are fucking idiots.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 10:56 AM
6

False logic. It's still quite likely that he has done something, but it's also quite likely that more than one woman is just making up shit. Those two don't exclude each other. But hey, let's not judge without the knowledge to judge him.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 10:28 AM
4

Some of them could be just seeking publicity, but who knows. There's many reasons to accuse someone of something.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 10:26 AM
1

Perhaps, i would make sense, but I can't really remember anymore.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 10:14 AM
5

You know what also has not enough women? The swiss army members guarding the WEF with temperatures of -30° celsius in the middle of the night.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:52 AM
1

makes sense.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:48 AM
3

Also we have no idea how much of that is influenced by socialization, it's always an unknown factor. I also just wagely remembered that there was also some advantage and disadvantage in the hearing sense. I'm quite sure that men can detect better from where some noise comes and women have some other advantage that I forgot what it was.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:45 AM
1

I will one day, but I am a bit lazy...
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:44 AM
2

It's only a matter of time until they have to lower the standards.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:18 AM
3

Reading that made me actually think about wether female teacher for boys could actually be a bad idea.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:15 AM
5

Except that women are not better long distance swimmers, even with the increased fat. I'm actually a very good swimmer, so I know my stuff. Girls learn swimming easier, because their centre of mass is on another part then it is on boys, making it easier to keep their legs from sinking. But that advantage doesn't really help much for good swimmers. If you look at the performance of men and women in 1500 meters and 10000 meters, you'll see that the difference (in percentage) keeps constant. I actu…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 11:51 PM
5

that's what I found right now. I've never researched how good the study they talk about actually is.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 11:44 PM
6

while defending to the death the right to brag about the things women are better at. The funny thing is that most of that is even made up. I once tried to find out what women scienifically can do better (only regarding top performance). All answers that I found to this day is: giving birth to children (because men can't do that at all), they seem to have a better sense of smell, also there are very rare cases where women have the ability to perceive more than three different basic colors (Tetrac…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 10:56 PM
1

I know, and I don't disagree. But what I talked about was that feminist don't seem to be able to realize where the differences in prizes for womens and mens products come from, which has nothing to do with global economy. So feminists complaining about this difference as sexism doesn't imply any knowledge or absence of knowledge about global economy in feminists. But of course it's a bit hypocritical to complain constantly about minor differences, when bigger differences exist.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 09:45 PM
1

If the niche is big enough, it would probably work. But the problem would be that too many men would go there and it would often turn into an orgy.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 09:41 PM
4

Title is misleading. The obviously ban men who don't speak the native language, big difference. High risk reduces attractivity of a club, therefore they lose money. If the money lost through reduced attractivity is more than the money gained by non-native people, it's economically worth banning these people. Not banning women is also an economic decision obviously, I think I don't have to explain that. I see that it's discriminating to men, but it really isn't sexism, just economic thinking that…
/r/MensRights19/01/16 09:11 PM
1

That's actually not the problem, since feminists comare products for men to products for women. Both are probably produced under the same circumstances, so that global economics argument you wrote can be ignored in that context.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 08:56 PM
3

Thank you for this detailed answer. Btw. your 6th way to get zero point is redundant, since it's less than 7 lines of text.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 08:52 PM
3

More than anything, feminists don't understand economy. What does it cost to produce a product depends on the labour cost and the materials and other stuff. What that product is worth depends solely on what people are willing to pay for it. That means womens producs are not more expensive because of some conspiracy against women, but because women are willing to pay that much. Women are responsible that the products they buy are as expensive as they are.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 06:48 PM
14

Which is mostly irrelevant to us. What is relevant is that the intellectual comunity of gender study people becomes less delusional and therefore, in the long term, feminist theory becomes laughable
/r/MensRights19/01/16 05:13 PM
7

That's not the complete rule. The rule of life has always been: Whoever complains first is believed, unless this person is not trustworthy because it lied before.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 03:40 PM
133

That means they didn't just suck, but that means the brazilian intellectuals are less biased than we thought.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 03:36 PM
2

This feminists husband is really in one sad position. Maybe the new abuse story youtube video? I hope he'll one day break free from such an unhealthy relationship.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 11:13 AM
1

Why not link the youtube channels of janice fiamengo, CHS, karen?
/r/MensRights19/01/16 11:03 AM
2

Ah. They are concentric. We're just looking at the image from an obtuse angle. It's a matter of perspective. Like a lot of things. But if we change the angle, they are no circles anymore... Don't worry, I was not really serious with my post.
/r/MensRights19/01/16 11:00 AM
8

Who is outraged? Never heard that before, is there a source? Maybe I missed it. But all I can imagine are the following reasons that usually provoke outrage here: Some form of double standard (not allowing he same for men, no idea how that would apply in this case) Ignore reality (men are attracted to womens breasts. you can't change it, only accept it.)
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:35 AM
4

troll
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:32 AM
6

They.... are not concentric...
/r/MensRights19/01/16 12:29 AM
4

Of course, but the point is that black people are mostly disadvantaged because they are often poorer and at average poorer, which leads to more crime. Or to be more precise, more average poverty leads to higher crime rate leads to more bad experiences of people leads to biases and prejudice leads to worse treatment overall and more suspicion. Of course all black people suffer from that and the poor suffer from that and their poverty. But it's important that it's not neccessary racism that drives…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 11:59 PM
2

And guess what? The German speaking media already portayed migrants that are good, to swing the mood into the other direction. I can't even remember when the media has ever tried to portrait something that was wrong in public opinion as something good. It shows how biased and manipulating they really are.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 11:22 PM
10

You can be fucking sure that the cop would be much more frightened of will smith than of this guy. Class privilege is a real thing and while it might not work eaqually for black and white people, it still does work for both. If a black lawyer with a nice suit and car approached the cop, that would have also had much effect, so it's not limited to very famous black people.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 11:16 PM
1

They did develop it, then they tested it and assessed i as not good enough because it didn't work good enough for black people. It wasn't sold while not working for black people, it didn't work for black people at some time during the development of the technology. That's completely fine and I have no idea what you are complaining about.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 08:23 PM
2

And will always be a problem. Guys in tech try out technologies and then they test how well it works on people for a specific purpose. That's what they should do, and negative results aren't bad results, since they gained knowledge.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 07:45 PM
2

They can never win, and they don't even want to. If they win, they'd have to take care of things, which they can't. Therefore society would crush, get a reality check, and then resart. But they'll never come to that, since if they won, they'd have to give up victim status, which they wont.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 07:39 PM
2

I didn't say they didn't take it into account, hey just underestimated the problem. And no, they are definitely not idiots.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 07:36 PM
9

If the operation does more harm than good, we shouldn't practice it. Circumcision does more harm, so fuck that shit.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 06:24 PM
-1

I don't disagree that she's wrong with what she said, but that doesn't mean she's failing to support him in other aspects. Delusional people are not neccessarily delusional in all aspects, and neither are they bad people by definition.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 05:55 PM
1

Maybe, but that's probably exactly because they had problems in the beginning, so they changed some things.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 05:53 PM
-1

Some people who are delusional can still be fun to talk to about other topics, so why not? Also it's his mother, he should always try to support his family, just as he would like to have his family supporting him.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 04:54 PM
1

You forget the \s
/r/MensRights18/01/16 04:44 PM
3

Well, it was called project natale back then, so you can't really find much with googling kinnect. There are two problems that lead to that problem. One is that they probably had mostly white (or at least very few on the end of the darkness scale) developers developing kinnect, so they probably hadn't tested it much with black people, and the other is the factor of physics. In a dark environment, black people can't be detected as easy as white people, that's because black people are ninjas when …
/r/MensRights18/01/16 04:39 PM
10

Unless the race or gender is a qualifying attribute. Gender is definitely a qualifying attribute for the job of a prostitute. Race can rarely be a qualifying attribue, e.g. when microsoft had problem with kinnect on black people, they were probably hiring black people to test it (or they already had them hired). But most of the time I agree that it's irrelevant. But of course the consequences could be a qualifying attribute, e.g. the increased strength of men.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 03:49 PM
0

Nope. As EvilPundit said its determined by a combination of their IP address and User Agent string. The IP address is mosly constant but can change from time to time if you have a dynamic IP address. The user agent string is determined by what software you use. That may also change if you update or use more than one computer (e.g. at work) or use multiple internet browsers. It's reasonable that most people are couned a little more than once, since most people use a smartphone, a pc at home, and …
/r/MensRights18/01/16 02:29 PM
1

And now I look below and see a few "comments removed" - Unless they were from our 101 fellow, doxxing, or calling for violence they shouldn't have been removed and instead left to the community. Were the posts removed by the mods? How do I see if they removed the posts themselves or wether it was done by mods?
/r/MensRights18/01/16 02:20 PM
1

Where I live, 20 years ago, children who really fucked up (e.g. bullied) would get hit by their parents on the butt. Not hard, not damaging at all, but just enough that they feel emotional pain. That way, children were conditioned to think that bad behaviour actually had bad consequences for them. Today, beating is not allowed anymore, and there is no substitute for conditioning children to act good. That's the reason the world is fucked up, because assholes were raised to believe that bad behav…
/r/MensRights18/01/16 02:10 PM
-2

No reason to stay out of her way, it's unlikely his mother would accuse him of rape XD
/r/MensRights18/01/16 01:57 PM
2

When we're at the troll topic, can we please have a "troll" flavour? I think we shouldn't cencor trolls, but instead mark them as trolls if possible.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 01:42 PM
3

They define the wage gap, prove it scientifically, then they redefine wage gap and make it look like discrimination. The truth is, women do earn less than men at average. But it's also true that they work less than men at average, chose other jobs than men (that pay less) and often can't do some physically demanding jobs (therefore standards were made easier leading to less quality). If you attribute for all factors, women earn a little bit more for the same work.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 01:39 PM
3

Troll, number 5 or 6 this week.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 01:04 PM
3

You're welcome here. Actually any reasonable opinion is welcome here. Also don't let yourself be discouraged by some opinons here, since the opinions are very diverse. Discuss and have fun.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 11:40 AM
1

Could be, I'm not English native and I thought it wasn' be it seems your correct with that.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 11:30 AM
11

So the article states clearly that on mens laziest days, they are relaxing 10 percent more than women on their busiest days? Doesn't look good for women.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:49 AM
1

Then what exactly is your criticism? The "good" feminists (from our point of view) are oddballs, and they also are very rare. Also there are feminists that are critical about some feminist theories because they are religious. And of course some sane people from feminism are long dead. I don't really know about the last one, but whatever.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:47 AM
3

Isn't sunday supposed to be the lazy day?
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:43 AM
1

Interesting? Probably, but it'll will also most likely lead to another war. I hope the history books will at least blame her for what she did.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:32 AM
1

Calling them "oddball" is to attempt to dismiss the validity of their arguments. I disagree. Oddball doesn't mean wrong, but instead it means against the flow. They're definitely oddballs in the context of feminism.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:29 AM
1

I'm in computer science and they do everything to attract women, but it doesn't work too well. But the women who are in CS are by any definition great women.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:22 AM
2

I honestly never heard "I'm fine" from a woman when she actually ment it, so I think your friend is understandable.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 10:19 AM
1

She's not that ugly, there's definitely worse. But she has saggy tits, which aren't nice.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 09:58 AM
5

Best answer: "When I use women, I refer to genitalia too, so it's the same."
/r/MensRights18/01/16 09:55 AM
43

Any diversity proposal is discriminating, since it makes the company chose employees based on race (and stuff like that) instead of hiring them for quality. That's unfair and disgusting.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 09:53 AM
0

You have no idea how little people understand when they are frightened, honestly. So, it does not interfere with hearing, but with your ability to process what you just heard. Also I didn't say that the possibilities happend, I just said they are possibilities and since there are possibilities in any direction, we can't decide on one.
/r/MensRights18/01/16 09:51 AM
3

How can someone actually believe such stupid shit as in your quotes? Google and apple are successfull exactly because they didn't care about the skin color and hired the best people they could find, which were by accident mostly white and male people.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 10:14 PM
-1

I don't think so. The police shoots people mostly on the basis that they perceive a person as a threat. Men are stronger and can easily be seen as threats. Also black people may (just an assumption, nothing scientific) act different towards the police, which leads to them being seen as threats more often. I assume that because black people fear the police because of the shootings and the history, and people who fear are often perceived as threat. The other thing is stereotypes. Stereotypes make …
/r/MensRights17/01/16 10:07 PM
1

Your country is not the only one. Also why not think about situations that are improbable but not impossible?
/r/MensRights17/01/16 09:54 PM
1

Interesting theory
/r/MensRights17/01/16 11:06 AM
1

I can agree with that. Only fight if your country is invaded.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 11:05 AM
1

Ah sorry, misread that. But that doesn't change too much. Since I just read the first part of the article again, I must also say that the police is in some ways wrong for sure. Even if their judgement was understandable, shooting 10 times is not proportionate force. Even if you shoot, you shoot once, or probably twice, but then you check what's up and do first aid.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:52 PM
0

It's not about deserving. We all no he didn't deserve this at all. The point we are talking about is wether the mistake by the police is understandable to some degree. Was it possible to just misinterpret the situation without any racism involved? I was in the army and had training in acting correctly when attacked. The problem is that people need quite a big distance from you that you have time to react, let's say at least 20 meters. It's also to mistake random objects for weapons. And I had th…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:49 PM
1

It's very unfortunate. The guy was probably very shocked and nervous in this moment. Becuase of that he acted in a way that achieved the most attention, which was then again misinterpreted to be aggressive behaviour.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:41 PM
2

99% chance that this is correct, but that doesn't matter if the policemen believe (for whatever reason) that it's something else. Policemen in the USA don't seem to be trained well enough to act well in problematic situations. A policeman has to decide in a matter of seconds wether something is an attack or anything else, that's honestly not that easy. Simply holding anything in your hand can look like a gun if the lighting is not good.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:39 PM
1

Not that I disagree, but you can't control other people. If there are two people, only one needs the will to fight the other and there will be a fight. That's why countries should have armies, if only one country wants to wage ware, everyone needs an army.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:33 PM
0

You're nervous and already frightened because it's dark, someone has a slang which you are not used to. There're a lot of possibilities to not understand people even when they talk very clearly. Also most people wouldn't spend so much time satisfying their need for racism, why would anyone do that. And even if it was fully intentional racism by her, it would still be the job of the police to act according to the situation, without any bias.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:31 PM
12

Accusations of racism are critical anyway. It's entirely possible that black people act differently leading to different reaction of the police. The different treatment of the police on the other hand might change the behaviour of black people. This might as well be a circle of self-enhancement without racism involved. But we also can't exclude racism, since we don't know. Assuming one way or the other is wrong, we have no knowledge. But the white woman can't be guilty in this case, since it's t…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:29 PM
5

It's possible, but hard. She does not trust you, but instead trusts the feminist ideology as it seems. If you want to "talk her out of it" (it's actually the wrong wording, you don't want to talk her out of it, you want her to realize things herself), you have to do it slow. She will definitely stop listening to anything you say (and start praying her feminst BS), if you try to convince her too fast. You should always acknowledge the little truth that is in the false statements. "Women are treat…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:22 PM
3

Trolls are only trolls if they are trolling right now. If he adds something valid to the discussion, I will discuss without regard to how much he trolls otherwise.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 11:28 AM
0

Maybe we are slaves, but who's the slave owner? The answer is nature. If you are in nature, you must work hard enough for your own survival or you starve. In todays society, the amount of work to provide for one person is much smaller than before, but it's not zero. Therefore people who don't work enough for society to carry their own weight, should probably starve. But then again, there are many people who do useless jobs that don't help anyone, so called bullshit jobs. Since they don't carry t…
/r/MensRights16/01/16 10:59 AM
3

You can't always decide. When your country is invaded, you fight or die. When your country moves out to fight wars on foreign ground, there's no reason to tag along with that. I wouldn't do that. But then again, my country is neutral anyway, so why bother.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 10:46 AM
2

Looking at the history is shit. Don't judge people when discussing, it only leads to fallacies. Even if Hitler in person wrote here, he would have some moments where he's right, because even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you want to complain about the text you quoted, answer where he said that.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 10:38 AM
20

The question is, what are you talking about? Dazz316 assumed nothing in his first post. I can only explain your first answer with a language barrier?
/r/MensRights15/01/16 11:49 PM
7

Cultural clashed will appear whenever you mix cultures. Therefore the only way to preserve multiple cultures peacefully is to give each culture some room for itself. That is actually what we had, that's exactly what nations are. Of course, the mix of cultures is not a bad thing, as long as it isn't used to repress other cultures. We have the USA whose culture is basically the mix of culture. But what politics does right now is to define the preservation of your culture as evil, trying to repress…
/r/MensRights15/01/16 08:58 PM
21

Any kind of hobby group can and should ban people, if they conflict too much. You don't even need a reason for that, you can just say "we don't get along".
/r/MensRights15/01/16 08:12 PM
2

I don't disagree with the fact that women are extremely weak compared to men, but that doesn't mean they shouln't walk home alone at night. Where I live, a 100 year old woman with crutches could walk home alone, as long as she has a method to call for an ambulance when she has an accident. Your safety changes dependent on your surroundings, not just based on your strength.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 08:01 PM
2

Feminism doesn't make any fucking sense one half want one thing the other another. That's probably the only part of feminism that actually makes sense. Any group of people has diverse opinions. But you are right that even a single feminist usually contradicts himself/herself.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 07:56 PM
1

It's only rational to not walk home alone, if the risk is high enough. People don't and shouldn't have maximum safety as their goal, but good enough safety instead. Not being able to walk home alone takes life quality from you, and it's only worth if the safety you get by that is more valuable then what you pay. I don't think that's the case where I live.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 07:51 PM
3

Is that some kind of online hobby group? What is it, if it's okay to ask?
/r/MensRights15/01/16 07:29 PM
4

That's because they are mixing up things. Going home alone is irresponsible IF the danger is high enough. The danger is not high enough in western countries, therefore the ones telling them are just paranoid. That is usually driven by mothers who fear for the safety of their daughters, but rubs off on the whole society. That's why some women live in fear, because they are told it's dangerous, when it mostly isn't. Of course the media also adds to that feeling of unsafety. Not only safety from cr…
/r/MensRights15/01/16 07:25 PM
2

They should learn that we don't do posts like this. No self-glorifying attention-whore bullshit here, only material about mens rights and discussions. Also who would write a post in the name of mens rights, without ever having posted here? Couldn't be more obvious. I only fear that such shit will come up on google.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:58 PM
11

To be honest, I don't know a single non-gamer person that knows about gamer gate. Therefore my view is very biased. But since I think that only feminists and gamers know about gamer gate, we shouldn't care too much.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:55 PM
10

Another troll? There were already 3 troll posts like this yesterday, please go somewhere else asshole.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:33 PM
12

He didn't describe anything he could get a restraining order for, so no. Also it's not only his decision, the whole hobby group has to decide.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:29 PM
13

Neither is it dangerous for a woman to say no, nor for men. That they feel it is dangerous doesn't make it dangerous. Statistics says it's not dangerous, because only very few peope get killed in modern societies. Either women never say no (and that's why few women are killed), or it's not dangerous. But we all know we wouldn't kill a person, so it's the second option. Also feminists talk shit, nothing new here.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 04:22 PM
2

I don't think we should mime feminists. The good women are takens? So what? Men settled for women "below their level" for millenia. That was an essential part contributing to the longtime mixing of social classes. Women don't seem to do that, which actually makes them being more and more educated problematic. But anyway, it's their problem. But if you think good as non-feminists and non-sjws that are enraged by practically everything, then you are just wrong. Most women are normal and therefore …
/r/MensRights15/01/16 04:18 PM
28

True, but that doesn't matter. Most of society perceived the gamers as passionate and peaceful people defending their hobby, while the reputation of sjws ad feminists was severely damaged in this case.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 04:12 PM
1

I had also some unobjective teachers. I remember two right now. One was a female Language-teacher. She preferred girls and graded them much better for the same work. She also preferred one guy in our class, because he was her favourite. The difference could be more than a grade. Another teacher was a man, quite an old one for a teacher. He behaved very differently towards men and women. If a man slept in class, he wouldn't even notice it, but when a girl looked at the clock on her smartphone, he…
/r/MensRights15/01/16 02:29 PM
131

Complain to one of your friends in the hobby group how the mood has become very bad, since the other two joined. You will find out how others think about it. Then if you get enough allies, complain openly about them when you have the opportunity.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 02:15 PM
149

Gaming didn't go down any road, instead they fought back very successfully.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 02:13 PM
1

How can that even happen? I could kind of understand biases in language classes, where the grading is usually not objective, but physics tests usually have a clear answer that is either right or wrong.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 11:25 AM
1

You should probably talk to people on /r/depression. You are not what you chose to be, but you still have power over your life to some degree.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 10:55 AM
2

Reddit is quite diverse, you can still find nice people, but you have to avoid the assholes. It's basically like the real world.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 10:53 AM
1

They're not the only ones using the same methods. Some far left-wingers accuse any right-opinioned people to be racist. Since they are racist, their opinions are invalid and dangerous. The other way around it's probably the same, who knows. Same with communism vs capitalism, they accuse each other and claim the other is wrong because of that. I'm pretty sure there are numerous examples of groups having the same methodology, even when their positions could be valid if argued correctly.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 02:08 AM
27

We shouldn't assume anything. But reasearching violence to children by gender and by the relationship of the parents should be done anyway. Never be politically correct, always search for the truth instead.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 01:57 AM
1

Only if the situation allows people with a brain to judge it correctly, if it's impossible or very hard, you can't expect it.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 01:51 AM
1

What are shrinks?
/r/MensRights15/01/16 01:39 AM
1

But what we can say is that there are organised trolls from some feminist page. If we could find out where they come from, that would be great. edit: could it be this?
/r/MensRights15/01/16 01:36 AM
1

one, two, and the third is this one
/r/MensRights15/01/16 12:24 AM
1

That's the correct understanding, but since posts like that are never done by MRAs, or at least I've never seen it, it is a very obvious troll. The 3rd or 4th trollpicture for today. They don't get that we don't just post our opinions here like these, even if we had such opinions, which we don't.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 12:15 AM
1

Another troll poster... Must be organised from somewhere. While I have no problem with these weird trolls, I fear that these pictures will someday pop up first when someone googles for mens rights. That would actually hurt us.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 12:12 AM
0

So now you have to take hormones regularly? Question: If medicine invented a pill that would make you comfortable with the hormone level you have naturally (basically making you non-trans), would you want that? Or to word it more controversial, do you see transexualism as kind of an illness that you can't do anything about and therefore try to live with as good as possible through treatment, or do you see it as "normal"? I hope it's clear that this is not supposed to devalue you or anything like…
/r/MensRights15/01/16 12:09 AM
0

I can't really say I get it, but I'll give it a try. You say something happend during pregnancy of your mother that messed up hormones and therefore you don't feel comfortable with the hormone level you naturally have? Is that right?
/r/MensRights14/01/16 11:36 PM
2

My homework? I'm not in school
/r/MensRights14/01/16 10:51 PM
2

We don't care about cheating, we care about mens rights, and OP doing a great essay will help mens rights a little.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 10:49 PM
6

What's up with those stupid trollposts lately?
/r/MensRights14/01/16 10:21 PM
4

Obvious troll is obvious.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 07:20 PM
6

I would agree that feminism should be a topic in history, IF it was tought from a neutral point of view. But that's a pipe dream.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 06:04 PM
1

Thank you for your answer, it's adding a point of view to this discussion that has to be present. People like me don't understand what you describe. Why should there be a female brain in a male body or the other way around? Why aren't there people with male feet and female arms? The brain is part of the body, and I can't see a reason why there should be exceptions for it. Can you explain a little more what it was that bugged you before? You don't seem to be into all that girly stuff, so why woul…
/r/MensRights14/01/16 05:43 PM
1

In physics, if you measure the charge of an electron and get an unexecpected result (or any similar thing) you wan't to know why that happend. You'd never ever ignore that, because it could mean you found something amazing. Of course it isn't the same for all measurements in physics.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:55 PM
2

Who deletes the comments? The posters themselves or the mods? Because I wouldn't agree with deleting posts.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:42 PM
1

It depends. An outlier where there shouldn't be one is very meaningful, but that's not the case here, we're not in physics. Also don't trust your own objectivity. It's only an outlier if you scientifically prove it is one. Until then, accept that such cases do exist.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:12 PM
1

The sexes are biological and therefore they are objective, which you can't say for gender. Basically every cell in a human containing a Y gonosome (gonosome=sex-chromosome) is male, and evey other cell is female. Since the usual case usually doesn't get a special name, we have names for the unusual mutations. X is called turner woman, XXX is called triple-X-woman and so on. Y doesn't exist, since they die before birth, XXY is a klinefelter-man. Gender on the other hand is an invention of humans,…
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:06 PM
1

You are wrong. The existence of such a inversed imbalance should be acknowledged by us and it shows us that there are exceptions to the usual male-discrimination where it's inversed. Acknowledging such a case does not de-legitimise the discrimination against men in courts, but not acknowledging it makes you a person that denies fact, which makes you less trustworthy. Climate change deniers do not only acknowledge data that goes against the climate change narrative, but they additionally draw con…
/r/MensRights14/01/16 12:08 PM
1

You are a moron, honestly. I wouldn't sleep with a mentally incapacitated person if I have any way to know it. I just said I would not accept guilt if I had no way to do so, because then it's not my responsibility.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 11:58 AM
1

Hard question. For drugs other than alcohol I would propose that the drunk perpetrator is guilty by default, but he has the option to say that he was drugged without his knowledge. Then one can do a hair analysis to look at his drug use. If he used the same drug regularly, he's most likely lying, except if he can prove otherwise (video cameras). If the analysis shows that he never took such drugs, he's innocent, but the police still tries to find the one who drugged him. That's probably as close…
/r/MensRights14/01/16 11:56 AM
1

Bold interpretation. Also not really a MRM issue. But since we are in this discussion I tag along and ask for other movies/animes that could be interpretet in such a matter, either pro mrm or against mrm. I suggest fight club as a movie and prison school as an anime. Fight club is basically MGTOW the movie, with a lot of crazy mixed in. Prison school is feminism vs mrm.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 02:43 AM
2

People never learn... If ever a dictatorial regime comes into power and gets its hand at these lists of feminists, they may be done for. Data privacy has it's purpose. Nazi Germany had lists of homosexuals (no english version, sorry) that were created by the regime before the nazis... guess what happend.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 02:34 AM
2

If I can't tell someone is unconscious, I assume he/she is conscious. That's all there is. If he wasn't conscious, it's not my problem. I wont carry a portable brain scanner around because people have the delusional belief that I should be able to detect all kinds of things that are basically undetectable.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 02:30 AM
3

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger" is valid for ideas even more than for humans.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 02:26 AM
1

I agree mostly except the "Someone needs to be held accountable". If that was the case, convicting someone guilty would be more important than not convicting someone innocent, therefore we would have "guilty until proven innocent", which would be really bad. Not convicting a innocent person should be way more important than holding someone accountable.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:11 AM
16

That's the kind of comment I like. People like you will help the MRM not to become like feminism.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:08 AM
1

Except that I didn't write that... I didn't propose a extremist view, I proposed that people should be sceptical.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 11:39 PM
1

I don't know where you live, but where I live, the media is HEAVILY in favour of immigration, multiculturalism and all other kind of leftist ideas. And since I know close to Germany, and sometimes read German news, I know that German media is even more in favour of all that stuff. So fuck off with your judgement of German media based on your consumption of US media.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 11:37 PM
9

Did someone delete the feminist comment here, or was it deleted by the poster? Because if a mod deleted it, since when do we delete posts that go against our opinions?
/r/MensRights13/01/16 11:33 PM
5

The strange thing is that they always tell people how much they work to keep house, but at the same time men can run a household with a fraction of their effort to a reasonable standard.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 10:17 PM
6

The US circumcises men, so there's that.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 09:33 PM
2

I have no idea about US laws and therefore I can't help you, but may I request that you post here what her problem was, when you find it out? I'm genuinely interested, because it seems there were no signs.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 08:32 PM
0

Maybe they are biases, but maybe not. I will just wait if what I think is true, but most likely we will never hear about this again, so it's useless to discuss anyway. I don't know if I am biased here, but I am sceptic about myself if I don't have overwhelming evidence, so there is no problem.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 06:30 PM
0

I think a initiation by German leftists is very likely. And don't get me wrong. I think this is completely independent on the opinions of Syrian people. I don't think Syrians are bad people or anything, it's just that my experience tells me that this is too unusual and therefore I believe that the likelihood of leftist initiation is higher than the likelihood of self-initiation. Whenever a group apologized in the media for anything, it had a completely different vibe, and this just feels off, bu…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 06:14 PM
0

I'm not fearmongering, I just know out of experience that a lot of people in Germany (but especially the media) love to cover stories up that could lead to people having bad opinions on foreigners, because they believe they are fighting racism by that, which they perceive as a heroic deed. I don't believe either side, as long as I have no further information. However I think it shows a lot of signs of non-foreign initiation, but I won't jump to conclusions, since I am aware that I see wage signs…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 04:50 PM
1

Hitler not only said that it was all the jews, he said it's their biologic nature, which is much worse. He did however make some jews honorary aryans, which is kinda funny and strange. However that was by far not the only problem. Fearmongering is a problem, but it is basically the same problem when you prevent fear when fear should be present, since fear is a natural and neccessary reaction. The more general problem is therefore the disparity between what people perceive and what really is the …
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:51 PM
2

despite the comments here Almost all the comments here agree with you... just sayin'
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:04 PM
3

All the reaction letters of Syrians I read are very implausible. Perfect German language is not what they can do. I believe that leftists initiated these letters because they fear racism, the Syrians might just have tagged along, since it helps them and doesn't take any effort. Because of it's history, Germans fear nothing more than being racist. That's because they didn't learn the right things in their history classes. The problem in WW2 was not that it was right-wing or racist, the problem wa…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 02:48 PM
1

I know, but that's still a problem. Inebriating a person without consent might be a crime, but there are more serious crimes. What if A inebriates B and B does a more serious crime while inebriated? B can't be convicted for the crime and A can only be convicted for inebriating a person without consent. The victim will suffer without anyone to punish for the crime. Unless A would be responsible for B's crime, which is not the case, as far as I know.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 02:41 PM
-2

Not, it's not, there's nothing against men in this comic, except maybe for the "male tears". But it is stupid and plain wrong.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 02:37 PM
1

That's all correct, but one case is missing. You could be non-self-induced drunk. What if a person is made drunk by other people without knowledge or against his will? Is he still responsible for his actions while drunk? Does gladly not happen often, but could lead to strange situations. What if A was made drunk by B and then has sex with C? It can only be rape if C knows that A was made drunk against her will, but if he doesn't it can't be rape, but A couldn't consent either.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 01:34 PM
5

You are confusing things. Not remembering what you did last night does not mean you weren't conscious at that time. Those are entirely different things. Therefore if you are still "active", as you worded it, you are conscious and can consent. It doesn't matter what you remember later, because that's a thing another person can't predict. You could even be sober while having sex, then drink and losing your memory about having sex.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 01:25 PM
2

That's because all the shit the feminists say is wrong. "Only yes means yes" => wrong, "no means no" => wrong, "drunken = unable to consent" => wrong. But I better explain. "Only yes means yes" is wrong, because there are a multitude of other ways to say yes. Do these people really believe that couples always say something along the lines of "do you want to have sex?"? That's probably almost never the case. More often people just start slow and then gradually increase the intensity, until they h…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 01:18 PM
8

We should always answer: "I tried to check my privilege but I haven't found it yet"
/r/MensRights13/01/16 01:02 PM
2

You know that this is staged? If anything, that only tells us how biased the media is.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 12:59 PM
1

You can't contact her and you shouldn't try to find out her contact either, since that could get you in trouble. BUT you could ask a lawer to cantact her for you and ask your request. Of course that would cost money and you have to decide if it's worth the money. Also I don't know if she could easily make the protection order void. But anyway, a lawyer could tell you everything. Also that the judge treated you wrong because you're male is entirely possible, independent of the gender of the judge…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 12:16 PM
1

Or if it's possible, they could enter huge numbers.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 12:16 AM
1

Okay, that means we clarified that one. It's of course still bad that student have to attend such classes and that they ask such questions.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 08:21 PM
1

So the title is misleading, students are not required to answer the questions?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:57 PM
1

that, but do they? They'd probably kill all men if they could and then they would starve Well, the jobs that keep us alive are almost exclusively done by men. Without men, 99% of women would starve, or die while fighting for food. But I agree that there are too many women that are intelligent enough s.t. they will never kill all men. They couldn't do it anyway, even if they wanted.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:26 PM
1

this
/r/MensRights12/01/16 07:04 PM
1

You could define if your relationship is monogamic or not at the beginning, and dependent on that it could be legal (or rather it wouldn't be considered adultery) or illegal. Because of some post here, I found the answer to the quesion based on what principle it's based on. I quoted it and you may read it if you like.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 06:56 PM
1

Have a look at what You mean the wiki article? Edit: The wikipedia link provides what I wanted to know: Laws against adultery have been named as invasive and incompatible with principles of limited government (see Dennis J. Baker, The Right Not to be Criminalized: Demarcating Criminal Law's Authority (Ashgate) chapter 2). Much of the criticism comes from libertarianism, the consensus among whose adherents is that government must not intrude into daily personal lives and that such disputes are to…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 06:46 PM
1

I don't say that's wrong, I just want to know why it is crazy, what do you think makes it crazy. Also apparently the US has such laws in some states.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 06:42 PM
1

But murder is most often also the result of a bad relationship, where relationship doesn't neccessarily mean a romantical one. But anyway, I'm more interested in the principle behind. Why do we make certain laws and don't make certain others?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:59 PM
3

Does that mean they have to fill in that form? Because it could be that you can complete the title IX training while refusing to do that part. It's bad enough that men have to do that course, but asking for such information would be insane.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:55 PM
1

That what you wanted to say, probably, but what you said was "because we aren't crazy, we don't want to have laws like in the sharia", which is exactly false logic. Also you didn't answer the question at all. I want to know on what principle we base the creation of laws, that leads to us having no such law.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:52 PM
1

Don't think I advocate for such a law, because I don't. I just thought that we create laws because we want things to be illegal if we don't want them to happen to us. But that must be wrong, since that would make the illegality of adultery only logical, but it isn't. So, based on what principle do we create laws, that makes a law against adultery not logical?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:46 PM
1

That was not the question, and also that is inverted logic. 1) I didn't advocate for such a law, I just wanted to know why we don't have it. What principle is behind. 2) It's bad because it exists in sharia law is false logic. That's like saying being a vegetarian is bad, because hitler was vegetarian or bread is bad, because stalin ate bread.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:41 PM
2

It's not.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:11 PM
2

Is it actually required or can people deny it without consequences?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:10 PM
1

You said you would sacrifice innocents for the goal of destroying feminism and that you don't consider that evil. Sacrificing innocents is killing them, obviously. Also I didn't say that you said "kill the undesirable", but I said you don't care if desirable people get killed in the process of purging certain elements of society.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 05:03 PM
1

But only because no man would stoop so low as to sue his wife/ex-wife for that.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 03:58 PM
1

You realize that, but do they? They'd probably kill all men if they could and then they would starve.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 03:26 PM
2

I think we mean the same but we talk at cross purposes. Theories don't have to be true, but true theories still require you to meet preconditions. Also theories are set in stone, because when you "change" them, they are new theories.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 02:02 PM
5

No it hasn't. But this is kinda cool, since I'm sure it exist much more often the other way around, and that means it could backfire horribly. Imagine all the men who were withhold sex would sue their wifes relating to this as precedent. But of course only in France.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:58 PM
1

Since your ex didn't do any wrong in the case back then, it's entirely possible that she is a sane person. If she is a sane person, it may be possible for you to just ask her politely. Ask like this: Hello X I write you because of the permanent protection order. I hope you agree that there is no longer neccessity for this protection order, since I don't intend to have contact with you and since it worked fine for the past years. However that order is a problem for me now, but let me explain. Bec…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:18 PM
4

That's hard.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 12:52 PM
1

You're wrong. A theory is not a law of nature. You are free to invent theories that only work in certain conditions, because ALL theories only work in some set of ideal conditions, because it would be way too complex otherwise. The only possible exceptions could be laws of physics, but only if we found a true law, which is unlikely. I also didn't say that you should search for conditions where a stupid theory holds, but the other way, you should search for conditions where your reasonable theory…
/r/MensRights12/01/16 12:36 PM
1

So you think it's not evil to sacrifice innocent lifes for you goals? Does that mean it's okay for me to kill you if that helps me achieve my goal?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 11:53 AM
1

I need to sleep now, the discussion with you isn't worth anyway, since you what you propose would lead to anarchy and with that to violent uprisings. But you obviously prefer that over what we have now.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:03 AM
1

But the law is also a unilateral contract that you have to obey. Do you also reject the law? Because if that's the case, are you okay with not having the protection of the law, e.g. anyone can kill you without consequences?
/r/MensRights12/01/16 12:37 AM
2

Equality doesn't require interchangeability, otherwise equality wouldn't be possible if disabled people exist. Equality requires that all people start at the same position, but that's obviously not possible, therefore full equality is not possible.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 10:21 PM
1

half-joking. There are some examples. E.g. cosplayers are not bad just because they dye their hair to look like some anime character for some convention.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:57 PM
1

I would argue that everybody is innocent in certain contexts. There's no global innocence, but only a innocence in a context. You argue that society is beyong saving because of feminism, but you are also willing to sacrifice people who have nothing to do with feminism in you plan to destroy it. That's as evil as it gets. Of course there's no such thing as an objectiv definition of evil, but sacrificing innocent lifes for your own revenge is seen as evil by 99% of humanity.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:55 PM
9

I'm pretty sure that physicists measure how good their model fits reality. And physics is not an engineering discipline.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:51 PM
1

So you think the government has no right to demand anything from you? Why would taxes be justified? Isn't it just the same as protection money, just like gangs do? With your citizenship, you have responsibilities. One responsibility is to protect your country in any way neccessary. I would argue that people should be able to opt-out of the conscription by giving up citizenship and leaving the country.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:50 PM
1

You don't understand democracy... Democracy means the majority decides. If the majority decides to kill ths person called John Doe, they're still democratic. Of course John doesn't get his franchise then. Democracies usually help all people, because it's in the interest of the majority. That's all there is. Also your good cause might not be everyones good cause. Therefore pushing for involvment of people that share your good case is stupid. People should participate in OSS if they have the abili…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:44 PM
1

Agreed, gender studies shouldn't be an academic discipline.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:38 PM
6

To be fair, it goes in two directions. There's the academia bashing by "ordnary" workers, and there's the worker-bashing by the academia. Both are wrong with a little core of truth. Most workers work their ass off. Also they are extremely important, because nothing gets done without workers. But there are also the lazy workers who try to avoid productive work as much as possible. The same for the academics. Most do probably a good job and nothing good gets done without them, and especially almos…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:36 PM
1

You think people will defend their country voluntarily? Yes, some, but there are also the assholes who would try to profit from other being away to defend the country. That's why conscription isn't bad.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:25 PM
2

I know what you mean. Humans are not even evaluated, because people fear that it might give them results that they don't like. But I disagree that it destroys equality. Equality is that everybody gets the same, but some make more out of that and some don't even have the ability to make something. "All men are equal" has always been shit, because all men are different. Also all groups or categories you can think of are different. Black and white people are different and even Swedes and Norwegians…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 08:16 PM
7

Which means they fail to be scientists.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:12 PM
2

Conscription should only be used to defend the country in their own borders. If the country needs to be defended from immigrants, taking in immigrants makes no fucking sense. Therefore a conscription only makes sense with a simultaneous immigration stop.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:10 PM
3

What does "good cause" even mean? Who defines that? You? Also you can only protect the weak and vulnerable when they are attacked. They are not attacked in the OSS community. Therefore anyone who claims to protect the weak and vulnerable in the OSS community if not what he pretends to be. Also the OSS community is not purely capitalist, since they usually give away their product and source code for free. Also democracy and "protecting the weak" have nothing connective. Neither does a democracy h…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:07 PM
14

That's not true, only fools who have no idea of theories say that. A theory tries to fit nature. To simplify, a theory may omit some relevant factors. Also a theory can sometimes be good enough, but wrong. Both things should be found out if the theory is tested properly. That means a theory does always work, IF the required preconditions are met. If you apply a theory without meeting the required preconditions and still expect it to work perfectly, you have failed, not the theory. Of course the …
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:58 PM
5

speculation is not bad, since there is no other way. But shouldn't the academics also evaluate how good the speculation fits reality? If they don't I don't see them as academics at all.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:32 PM
4

But only because the model is simplified. But shouldn't brilliant brains be more able to find a model that looks at enough variables to fit the truth reasonably well? And shouldn't a model, since it's obviously never looking at all variables, be evaluated to find out how good it fits the real world? Those are things I see as scientific, but the social scientists don't seem to do that. Why should I even consider them as science then?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:30 PM
1

Whut. I don't know about you but i know that no matter how much I try to force myself I could never be sexually attracted to a man I agree with that, and it's the same for me, but are you sure that this would hold true if we lived in different social environments, like ancient greece, where it was normal to have sex with young boys? I don't know and how would I know when I'm never in this situation. Also I don't think it's fully your choice. People have some predetermined lean into one direction…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:27 PM
15

It's nice that we are reliably able to detect mental illness by the color of the hair of some women.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:11 PM
15

enough violence... against women She honestly hasn't understood anything at all. One comment said: Stop treating men like tools. and that exactly summarizes everything she said. Her son of age 10 was wise enough to ask her why she treats women better than men, and she misinterprets the "what about me?" with "what can her son do for women?". I feel deeply sad for her son.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:00 PM
216

Why do some arts/humanities scholar tend to be so delusional while some practical people, like this woman, have so much wisdom?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 02:46 PM
1

TLDR: No mens rights issue, but the girl was very impolite and OP apologized while not having done anything wrong at all.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 02:35 PM
2

You don't need reasons to ask someone on a date, and you definitely should not apologize about it, since it is a compliment. You've done the right thing by asking someone for a date who you liked, it was curageous and manly. But it will always be awkward if you ask someone out on a date and she says no, that's not avoidable. However, it was extremely rude of her to give phone to her friend and to hang up. She should actually have apologized to you for that. Also feminists hating on men makes the…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 02:31 PM
1

And you will make other innocent people, and some that also have been hurt by feminism victims of your evil plan? How are you then better then feminism?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 11:43 AM
-2

Where I live, we measure blood alcohol in per mille, where 1 per mille means that you have 1 ml pure alcohol in one liter blood. What does this 0.05 or 0.065 mean exactly? What's the definition of it?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:20 AM
-6

0.065 what? that would be 65 per mille, which means the person is certainly dead. Of is this some kind of notation I don't know? 0.065 per mille would be literally nothing. 0.65 per mille would be possible, 6.5 would be dead again.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:12 AM
0

I wasn't serious about my question. War makes people commit rapes and other crimes, that's different than crimes in times of peace. Therefore comparing them is wrong. Also isis is only a subset of muslims (hopefully) and therefore (also hopefully) muslims don't wage war against us, but isis does. You don't say humanity attacks you, when your neighbor shoots at you. I'm not progressive at all, I'm quite conservative.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 05:04 AM
3

Stupid little question: If we could attribute the increased suicide rate of men solely to feminism, how many men would have been killed by feminism?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:58 AM
1

True, but better complain about the nurse first and then switch the doctor if nothing happens.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:53 AM
1

There's little difference between not beeing able to see a specialist on your own and it being unaffordable.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 04:52 AM
7

The response is definitely not written by immigrants. It's perfect German, and immigrants, even if they taught German in their home country, would not write German that well. I suspect this is set up by lefties to mitigate the expected hate against immigrants.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:55 AM
1

Ideologies are unchanging, therefore feminism the ideology is probably what the dictionary definition says. But you are still right that their ideology is patriarchy and rape culture and much more of that bullshit. But who is they? The feminists (follower of the feminist movement) of course. The dictionary definition really is a pipe dream, but a concept does not have to be followed to exist.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:36 AM
1

even if raped
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:30 AM
14

Don't be mad with your parents, be hateful against the people who enforce this part of culture. Breaking out of indoctionation is hard and actually doing it deserves respect. Some of the most basic indoctionations are religion, society and politics. Your parents didn't manage to break out of societal (or religious) indoctrination. Your parents would have been the followers in nazi germany, not the dissidents, but that is normal and is the case for 90% of the worlds population. Nothing to be mad …
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:27 AM
2

You're holding up the pros, while ignoring the cons. Such a calculation is always positive, but also always wrong. We don't replace feminists with muslims, we import muslims while still having femininists. Instead of one problem, we have now two. Also muslims will either destroy a big part of our culture, or they will give up many things from their culture. Since they don't do that, demostrable by many examples, there's only one option left, which contradicts what you said. Your idea is to solve…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 03:02 AM
1

Since when do women know what they want?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 01:10 AM
3

Dude... your arguments are shitty as hell... We don't pander women by not wanting our culture invaded by other cultures, we want to defend our culture. Our culture contains MUCH more than feminism. Actually feminism isn't part of our culture, but a virus that has befallen us. However, that is curable. So by using muslim immigrants in your game of chess, you'll reach the goal of destroying feminism in the long term, but you'll also destroy what is important. It's like saving the world from evil b…
/r/MensRights11/01/16 01:06 AM
2

So that means muslims are waging war on us?
/r/MensRights11/01/16 01:00 AM
3

Well then... she shouldn't have problems since she isn't smart.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 12:51 AM
2

Feminism is both, an ideology and a movement, two very different things with the same name. Feminism the ideology has a dictionary definition that is actually not that bad, and that's what feminists refer to, when someone accuses feminism of being against gender equality. They don't realize that the movement and the ideology (by dictionary) couldn't be further apart from each other. It's like the DDR caiming to be democratic, because there democratic in their name, or the nazis to be socialist, …
/r/MensRights11/01/16 12:48 AM
0

By trying to be different, they are just the same as the others trying to be different, therefore no different.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:58 PM
1

What you means is they do a cost-benefit analysis, where attracting women is one of the possible benefits.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:53 PM
-1

I think we can't and shouldn't change it. Everyone has the right to tolerated (within the scope of the law), but no one has the right to be accepted/respected. If a person (or a lot of them) don't accept your style, character, religion, ... that's your problem, you can't only ask for tolerance which means the absense of actions against you.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:49 PM
1

It's not neccessarily true that women attempt suicide more often. The reason is because attempted suicide is only counted when it needs medical attention. But a woman who takes ineffective pills is not more of a suicide attempt than a man holding a loaded gun to his head, and the latter are not counted. Also not every "suicide attempt" is actually a suicide attempt. Often women take slightly too many pills to gain attention. It's actually not too hard to determine these people if you know them. …
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:29 PM
1

Ask any woman who had an abortion why they did it, and none of them will tell you that it was because of the right to self-determination over their body. They all will tell you that "the time wasn't right" and stuff like that. That kills basically all arguments for pro-choice and also as a consequence proves what you said.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:20 PM
3

Feminists talk about rape culture and all that bullshit that doesn't exist where we live, but this won't work in the very long term. Therefore feminists desperately want to make them reality and the easiest way to do that is to import the problems from where they already exist.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 10:11 PM
2

Generally studies must meet certain scientific criteria to be credible. If one of these criteria is not met, the study is not credible. I'll post a list here, but I'll probably forget some things, so just tell me if you notice that something's missing. 1) The sample must be statistically representative If it's not representative, it's useless. If you don't know what that means, please ask, I'll explain. There's not one representative, but it can be representative for a country, a city, the world…
/r/MensRights10/01/16 12:38 AM
4

Perfect answer! Thank you for the good read.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 10:05 PM
1

Not a good example. I know not even a single person, male or female, who thinks kim kardashian is beautiful. She looks like a blow-up doll to me.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 09:51 PM
18

Nope: Reduce the risk of urinary tract infections Only higher risk if you detract the foreskin of the baby forcefully Reduce the risk of penile cancer Yes, but just because there is less tissue. Cutting off your legs reduces your chances of getting cancer too, since you won't get cancer in your legs. Rescue himself from sexually transmitted diseases Nope, myth. The study who "showed" that was not very scientific. Easier the genital hygiene It is already easy to clean it with foreskin.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 03:59 PM
1

I think men are much less superficial than many women think. Any kind of boobs is liked, even flat-chested or humongous-chested girls have their fans, every eye color, and every hair color too, and even all different builds have. There are even men who like fat girls and there are also men who like anorexicly thin girls. Tall and tiny are no problem too. Okay, maybe with 2 meters of height, it could become a problem. Look at the list of nsfw reddits and you'll find men liking all kinds of women,…
/r/MensRights09/01/16 02:01 PM
1

Right, but then the insurance has to pay that effort.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:34 PM
1

Acting authoritarian has absolutely nothing to do with left or right wing. So they don't act like right wingers, they act authoritarian.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:33 PM
1

I've got no problem with the "doctor of the same sex" thing, but if you demand an additional nurse, you should have to pay for it. That's no discrimination.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:16 PM
22

"We do provide this service only to white people with any type of cancer. As with any nonprofit organization, the resources are limited. The demand is always greater than what we are capable of handling regardless as to whom we serve. We understand that black people undergo the same life crisis issues; however, we cannot serve everyone. Daily we have inquiries to assist individuals with disabilities, heart problems, MS, asthma and various other chronic medical conditions, which all have a need f…
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:14 PM
-1

It's easy. Assign an equal part of the land to any person. When a person flees, he takes his part of land "with him". That means if Germany hosts 50% of the syrian population, because they fled, 50% of syria belongs Germany now. That way every country would have the highest interest to not produce refugees.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:10 PM
0

I find it hillarious. When women do the things men do, everything around them is damaged and nothing productive is done.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:54 PM
1

That's not the case in my country. But if a female nurse must be present when the doctor is male and the patient female, does she have to pay more, since she requires more people?
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:51 PM
1

Yeah, but what I mean is that many people like what they see around them, not what they are. So asians, who live in mostly asian countries often like asians. Of course that completely randomizes everything, when a place is ethnically diverse. But maybe that's when other factors come into the calculation? Also porn has no "white" category because it's broken up into multiple groups. There's german porn, and russian porn and also both blonde and redhead are "white" categories. I do honestly belief…
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:43 PM
1

I didn't deny that, but I would like to see evidence for it.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:32 PM
2

exacty
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:35 AM
1

But that doesn't change the fact that many asians like asians, many blacks like blacks, and generally many peoplelike something close to what is available locally. It's only statistical, so it doesn't have to apply to anyone.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:31 AM
4

That's evidence, but doesn't actually prove anything, since your selection is not representative. I suspect that the judges give men more jailtime in these cases, but to actually show it, someone would have to look at all similar cases in the same juristiction.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:57 AM
1

That's not only based on what the judge says. We could just look at all the similar cases and find out the distribution of sentence durations for both sexes. That would prove/disprove sexism. But I'm pretty sure that it's a huge difference between men and women and I'm just to lazy to look it up. (Also I don't know where to look it up, since the media would be no good, since it is selective).
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:55 AM
6

If the crime clearance rate is below 0.5, 2x the value of food stamps would be not enough, since it would statistically still be profit for the thiefs. Also how the fuck would he pay the money if he had to steal food stamps to have something to eat? Make him do community work, that's the only useful sentence.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:52 AM
3

Funny how the sentence mulitplies by 3 if the victim is a woman.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:45 AM
1

That's true. I like Germany, the Netherlands and especially Sweden. However, my country is not in this picture and as I remember such a picture that had my country, I'm quite sure it's about on the level of Sweden for me.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:27 AM
1

Just refuse immigrants, problem solved. The governments and polices job is to the thing that is in the best interest of their own citizens, therefore helping the refugees is not allowed.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 09:25 PM
1

Okay, sounds reasonable. Thank you for this information. Every human thinks he's good. I just can't see how this guy thinks it is good what he did, it's a riddle.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 09:12 PM
2

Make a list of advantages and disadvantages, that will tell you. Just don't let your emotions and socialization tell you what to do. It's a contract and it needs to be in the interest of both parties, or otherwise you shouldn't do the contract.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 09:09 PM
2

Women have once been great and your mother is an attester of that. Of course, their choices were limited, just as mens choices were too, but they were like support characters in RPGs, they wouldn't kill the dragon, but no one would slay the dragon without them. I agree with equality, but I disagree with how egoistic and hateful some women have become. If there is no support character left, all characters must be partially support and partially fighter, just that women don't seem to fulfill their…
/r/MensRights08/01/16 09:05 PM
1

Politicians enforce the import of tons of people. It leads (obviously) to problems, and the police has to deal with it. The police doesn't get the money for enough policemen. Since they are not enough policemen, they are overwhelmed in this situation. And now the chief of police is responsible? Is this another attempt to blame the mistakes of politicians on some scapegoat?
/r/MensRights08/01/16 08:55 PM
2

That's not neccessarily how it works. In some places, you actually have to be referred to a specialist or otherwise you wont get to see him. Also a doctor (female or male) should act professional, and therefore is shouldn't make a difference if the doctor is female or male. That is unless you can show me evidence that female doctors ignore/downplay male problems, then I agree with you.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 07:22 PM
8

I don't get why you should switch the doctor, it seems it was only the nurse that told you bullshit. Unless the doctor told her to do so, which is actually not that unlikely. Find out what the doctor thinks and if she refuses, switch the doctor.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 07:19 PM
1

Cool. I always thought it's good that people have different preferences, since that leads to everybody finding someone. That's also a reason why I see the reduction of "market-value" of women with many sexual contacts as a good thing. Women should do the same thing as men, it would be better.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 07:15 PM
1

I don't think so, because the water actually stops bullets quite fast, which means that diving as far as you can would have been by far the safest option (unless that would make their rifles unusable). But that requires that you life long enough to get into the water. I'm guessing that it is what they had, and otherwise it would have taken much more time buiding the ships.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 07:13 PM
2

I agree with that, but you said hurt. Hurt includes a lot of things, especially emotional stuff. You can't avoid hurting people emotionally, and sometimes you can't even avoid hurting people physically. That means we can only reduce it.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 05:16 PM
1

What I mean by attraction principle is what I see what many people see as attractive. Most people find people attractive, that are as close as possible to the average person they see, which includes real people and what you see in the media. Most people in "white" countries see white as attractive and those who like asians have typically some media they consume that shows asian people alot. I think that fits pretty well for most people.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 05:14 PM
1

Which is impossible because that would require isolating every single human.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 02:31 PM
1

But it does lessen the pain of a punch of the same strength. Maybe that's where the misconception comes from.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 02:29 PM
1

Short question for the knowledgable: Why did they open to this direction? This way the machine guns could just shoot the soldiers without protection. They could have opened to both sides instead, providing protection until the men were out of the vehicle.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 02:28 PM
1

Is that the case? I furtunately never had to take such a class, but that would be just ridiculous. All the slides I've seen in this subreddit were stupid in one way or another, but I never noticed the name thing. Do you have a source to such slides?
/r/MensRights08/01/16 02:18 PM
0

Didn't know that. Respect to this woman that I otherwise hate quite a bit for her stupid views.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:51 PM
3

We are offended about "teach men not to rape" classes, because they are insulting and at the same time useless, because our people know that rape is wrong. Now for the question about immigrant-lessons about the same topic, you'd have to ask yourself: "do these immigrants know that rape is wrong?" or even "do they know it well enough for us?" If the answer is no, the lessons could be useful, because the reason why they are useless for us is gone. Of course it remains insulting to some degree. The…
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:37 PM
1

Strange... then you defy my attraction principle. But hey, maybe there's a "exotic" parameter that defines how far from your own a woman must be for you to be attracted to her, and maybe that's built by nature to avoid incest?
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:28 PM
1

There are, but hopefully not by choice.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:25 PM
1

No, that part is implied. But the boy has to dance in girly clothes with makeup, as far as I remember. I just looked it up, no girly clothes and makeup, just dance. It's been a while since I read the book and watched the movie, so I'm not sure how concrete it was in both of them. At least I knew about it somehow, so either it was clear or I googled it back then.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:20 PM
1

approximately 7 in 1000000 where I live.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:36 AM
4

He would be an asshole to do so. Also she would find out eventually. From the post, I don't see that she's a bitch, just a woman that dreams of having a family, nothing wrong with that. They are in a relationship and I hope that implies that they are fair to each other. Being fair to her requires that they break up if there is no possible compromise.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:25 AM
1

You're in the wrong here, or more like you are both partially wrong. Let's look at all the options: 1) You two have children. Result: She's happy with everything, you aren't. 2) She gives up children, but you stay together. Result: She has to give up one of her most important dreams. 3) You break up, s.t. she can have a family with some other guy. Result: She may not be happy with leaving you, but will be happy about the ability to have children. Now depending on for how long you are a couple, b…
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:18 AM
5

She looks like malcolms mother.... says a lot.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:53 PM
2

Raising a child without a partner is just sad imho.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:51 PM
1

Are you indian or ethiopian, or how comes you prefer these women? I always figured people would be into what they are used to, at least that works for me. The longer I know a person, the more attractive they are for me. Also I have litterally no attraction to black, latin, indian and a lot of the other kinds of people around.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:48 PM
2

Nah... they resolve such issues by searching for a scapegoat. They'd probably say that black men have been indoctrinated by the white patriarchy therefore he hasn't really committed rape, but the patriarchy has.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:35 PM
2

Will the feminists realize their stupidity, when other groups use the same kind of stupidity against them? Probably not.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 11:06 PM
2

You can't do much. Women can at any point in time avoid the responsibility of having unprotected sex (or sex with protection that failed). They have multiple methods of pregnancy prevention, they have the morning after pill, the have abortions, they have baby hatches where they can just leave their children, they can give up the child for adoption and they can almost always make some man or the community pay for the kid and herself if they wish to. You have none of these options. You have two ch…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 08:21 PM
1

The "it's her body" argument is kinda stupid, since most women who have an abortion do so explicitly as a reproductive choice, not as a choice of self-determination over their body, a reproductive choice that is denied to men, to be precise. But also the morning after pill is not a medical procedure, just as an aspirin isn't one.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 08:08 PM
1

Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 06:11 PM
1

It's shown in the movie kite runner.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 05:27 PM
8

No, you're very welcome, as long as you discuss your points and try to argue logically. People may not agree with your views, but that doesn't mean your not welcome to discuss. Discussion lives from opposing views. Now I think the main problem is that we mix up two entirely different things. The first thing is who is responsible for the crime, and the second thing is who acted irresponsible. If I go to ISIS territory now and preach about Jesus (I am not even religious, but let's assume I am), I'…
/r/MensRights07/01/16 05:03 PM
1

Except in some black neighborhoods, where you risk to be shot out of racism. That doesn't really exist for black people in the countries I know well.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 01:56 PM
1

In the end, we can't really know, because any person sees only one side of the medal, making it hard to compare the sides. But note that police brutality towards black people does not have to be exclusively racism. It could also be that black people behave different towards the police (because they fear the police?) which leads to more violence. A self-fullfilling profecy that is.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 12:33 PM
3

We are offended because of the suicide rate and all the other stuff, but that doesn't mean we should see everything as a bad thing just because feminists think it is. I think objectification is not only okay, but neccessary. Women may objectify me as much as they want, as long as they don't harrass me. I also will objectify any woman I want to. Mirroring feminism does not help us in any way.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 11:11 PM
2

I really perceive it as strange, when they say what MRAs supposedly said, without any source at all. Who complained about starwars? I didn't even see it.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 11:06 PM
1

That's probably covering most of it pretty well. That's why anarchism is only seen as good by fools, because humans are flawed and anarchism is a very unstable system that would be brought down by some group in an instant.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 10:28 PM
1

That depends on the location. I am sure that white people have to deal with a lot of discrimination in areas where many black people live. Actually, it seems to me that (where I live) black people are much more racist then white people. That may be the case because it's tolerated when black people are racist, and it's always compared to hitler, when white people are.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 10:25 PM
1

I think your post contains some mistakes. It's not better treatment that no salesman assumes you are clueless. Men who actually are clueless won't get help as easy as women, is that womens privilege? Also if the salesman thinks you are clueless, it's definitely to your strategic advantage. Generally, someone assume you don't know your shit when you actually do is always an advantage. But I agree that every group has certain privileges. The most obvious one is that some people like the features o…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 02:01 PM
-3

While most of what you said is true, Kings and Pharaohs didn't have the life of a typical western european poor person. They didn't need to clean anything themselves, they could have any of their wishes granted whenever they wanted. Of course they had no access to todays medicine and technology, but only the lack of medicine would actually lessen their quality of life. Technology does only increase your quality of life, if you don't already have an army of slaves to do the same work. So their li…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 01:22 PM
5

The abbreviation WSJ and SJW share the same letters. Coincidence?
/r/MensRights06/01/16 12:44 PM
2

Sadly, most people didn't learn the lesson from history. I've seen so many lefties who thought they learned by not being right, but that was not the problem. Regimes can just as easily come from the other corner, and these people I see in masses are the most vulnerable people to this.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 12:23 PM
1

You should first make clear how the definition of equal pay does not imply that the genders will make the same at average, because it ignores non-sexist wage-defining aspects. Then you should show multiple statistics and tell what methodology they used to get to their numbers. This is hard, because if you google after these statistics, you'll find a shitload of shitty pages without information, and very little useful source material. Even wikipedia doesn't seem to compare different studies. I do…
/r/MensRights06/01/16 12:20 PM
3

I would argue that she did objectify him, but there's generally nothing wrong with objectification.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 11:43 AM
1

That's a nice compliment. My mother tongue is German. I write English quite well, but talking is much harder to me, since I almost never do it.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 11:38 AM
1

Guess I understood "exercise some restraint" wrong. Sorry for my bad English.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 10:47 PM
2

To be honest, I kinda understand him. If it has real consequence for him if this is shown, why not do it this way?
/r/MensRights05/01/16 02:09 PM
1

The best argument why the wage gap is basically impossible to exist is the economical one. If women with the same education and the same quality of work worked the same for less money, every company would hire women only. But you can't prove that the wage gap doesn't exist, because you'd have to look at all work-related qualities of a person, which is impossible, because you never know you found all of them. But you can point out for all statistics who showed a wage gap, that they made mistakes.…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 01:49 PM
1

You can't stop people from false judgement. But you can point it out when it happens. If there is false outrage, argue it. This place is for discussions, therefore you should discuss. People may learn something new here if you do. If we censor things, no one learns anything.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 01:38 PM
2

Women are more religious. Maybe that's their nature. Therefore it could be that the cognitive dissonance when discovering that religion is just bullshit leads them to other religion-like groups. That would actually explain feminism.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 01:33 PM
1

It's non functional, therefore I dislike it. I dislike it on men, just as on women. I don't think women look more beautiful with nail polish, and I don't care about how men look at all. But I ignore it, since it's their own choices. Let them do whatever the fuck they want, it's their life. I don't have to like it.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 01:30 PM
0

It's logically not possible to prove that gender equality doesn't exist, because you can't prove the absence of something. But you can easily show that all studies who showed a gender inequality were very unscientific. Some problems with the studies: Low response rate. This is a BIG problem, because the ones who repspond could be not statistically representative. E.g. imagine if men with low wages would just not respond, because they feel ashamed, or if women with high wages would not respond, b…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 01:15 PM
0

Feminists love to complain and show themselves as victims. It's entirely in feminists interest to have as many rapes as possible, since it would prove their points. Also since most feminists seem to be very ugly people, they would not get raped, no matter how many rapes occur.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 12:41 PM
1

Someone should read sex scenes of popular literature, just to point out how many of them would be rape after feminists definition. That would actually make a good blog post.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 10:39 PM
10

So the key to success would be: 1) to ask for consent 2) she says yes 3) sleep with her 4) accuse her of rape because you didn't give consent because asking for sex is not a "yes" and therefore not consent.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 10:35 PM
1

Biology can not be unfair. Unfairness requires a conscious decision in disfavour of some person or group of people. This means only manmade things can be unfair, e.g. laws or software, or personal decisions.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 03:09 PM
3

Trump is actually the presidency candidate who buys the least into the feminist propaganda for decades. It's just sad that he is otherwise quite radical.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 12:45 PM
2

It's sad that the commenters don't see the truth behind what Trump said, just because they hate Trump and everything he says must obviously be evil.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 12:37 PM
1

He's an actor. Actors act. That means you have no information on how he is when he is not acting, or at least not based on what you saw on TV. I'm not saying he is guilty, but saying he is innocent is just as stupid to say as "he is guilty", unless you have good evidence for your claim.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 03:37 AM
3

I think that is exactly what chavelah wanted to say. "moronic ideologues on both sides" means both the rape accusing women and Allevil669, because of his comment.
/r/MensRights04/01/16 03:34 AM
4

Because when you are a white knight, it seems completely obvious to you that women never lie. If women never lie, the logical conclusion is that a womans word is better than evidence, it's prove.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 03:03 PM
1

I like how the "be responsible" is only on the left side (male side). At least they are honest.
/r/MensRights03/01/16 01:48 PM
1

How sad... And I am from a European country
/r/MensRights03/01/16 12:53 AM
1

Hey! Pigs are nice animals!
/r/MensRights02/01/16 03:39 PM
1

Because the target audience are feminists and they will upvote such shit.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 03:37 PM
5

Are there actually people believing that deciding to have a child as a single woman is acceptable? I always thought that sigle mothers were just women who got accidentally pregnant or whose relationship broke after becoming pregnant.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 03:36 PM
1

Moving first is not an advantage in any game, but it certainly is in chess. But that means that white has not an advantage because it moves first, but because it moves first and moving first is by some coincidence an advantage in chess.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 03:31 PM
2

That's why such things should be secret until someone is actually convicted.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 02:59 PM
-1

That's mature, I wished more people would see it that way.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 03:20 AM
-1

Do you accept that some people will not accept you as a man, because they only consider biology, as long as they tolerate you?
/r/MensRights02/01/16 12:58 AM
1

By the same logic: Hey, let's not have judges from now on, because it's much more efficient to just teach all people to not commit crimes anymore.
/r/MensRights02/01/16 12:17 AM
1

There are many ways to change views. Many people on this sub think he is a lost case, but at the same time, many people in this sub came from feminism and therefore that is definitely wrong. When challanging a person with knowledge that contradict his beliefs, he will experience cognitive dissonance. If you contradict his beliefs too much, this will lead to him opposing you and anything you'll tell him in the future. Therefore the most important thing to educate people is to do is slow.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 02:26 AM
3

You owe no respect to any group. You owe respect only to people who earned your respect.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 02:11 AM
12

That's what I like about this sub, every misleading and/or wrong post is called out, even if it is misleading in our favour. That's just a huge difference from /r/feminism and similar subs.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 10:00 PM
0

Almost correct. But you wouldn't want to look at the average of the reported rape cases per year, but instead you would look at the average by just dividing the sum of the number of rape cases by the number of years, that would be a little more meaningful. Same for the number of false rape cases.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 09:56 PM
2

The one thing about the left that makes them morally inferior (IMHO) is that they think of themselves as morally superior.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 03:36 AM
1

I agree with you mostly, but i don't agree that feminism must exist. A womens rights organisation must definitely exist, but there's no need for it to be feminism. But that's hairsplitting, so let's say I just agree.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 03:12 AM
1

And after that, the word man will be banned and the word rapist will take its place.
/r/MensRights31/12/15 03:06 AM
4

And after that, men will be sent to jail when their women want a divorce.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 09:37 PM
1

Valid is not the best word in this context. Today is all about equality, but in the past that was different. People were demanding fairness in the past and equality is only a special case of fairness. Therefore women and men had different rights and responsibilities in the past, but none was superior or inferior to the other. Do you think men gave their lives to protect and provide for women because they hated women? Now equality is nice, and I totally agree with it, but feminism doesn't really …
/r/MensRights29/12/15 09:07 PM
1

Does the standard fem doctrine REALLY state that the ONLY reason for the division is that we are brainwashing those roles unto them at an early age? Yes, the standard feminists doctrine does state that. That does however not imply that all feminists will believe it, but definitely a whole bunch of them.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 08:42 PM
0

If you want to believe something that is wrong, you have to tell the lie to yourself very often. That's why religious people pray, and also that's why women constantly remind themselves that they are better than men and that men are actually like some kind of pet.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 02:11 AM
10

Feminists claim that gender doesn't exist and that women are socialized to be different. But the fact that monkeys have gender roles and the fact that newborn human babies follow gender roles proves tham wrong. But people still take feminism serious. It's like a church if you think about it.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:59 AM
5

Not everyone is crazy, should be obvious, but that's almost irrelevant. The feminist movement has gained power, they can influence laws to some degree and get a lot of money. The part of the feminist movement that control this power and influence are some organisations and individuals and sad enough, some of them are fucking crazy, and the non-crazy ones don't complain about the crazy ones. This means that all people supporting feminism support these crazy organisations and people directly or in…
/r/MensRights29/12/15 01:55 AM
3

They are basically admitting that anarchism can't work when they can't even make it work in such a small scale.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 03:10 AM
1

I don't think that there are many places misogyny exists, but religion sometimes really is. Think about the original sin in the bible that is basically saying that humans are out of paradise because women suck. Similar things may exist in other religions. I do of course agree with you, that defending religion (and not only religion) from bogus accusations of any sort is what we should do, but remember that not all accusations are neccessarily bogus, and therefore we should always think about the…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 03:01 AM
3

You make some logical mistake. Humanism is an idea, and no movement, the MRM is obviously a movement and feminism is an idea and a movement that are unfortunately called by the same name. Ideas can have multiple interpretations and be seen from different perspectives, that's why mutliple movements can address the same idea in different ways, but one movement will always have one perspective. The next mistake is that both feminism and the mrm do not neccessarily strive for equality. Both have the…
/r/MensRights27/12/15 02:36 AM
2

As I wrote in another post. Opinions are neutral, only the ways you justify your opinion have worth. I may hate religion and wish for it to perish, but that doesn't mean I should approve any argument against religion, because not every argument will be good.
/r/MensRights27/12/15 02:16 AM
2

ELI5 Capitalism: "Every price (including wages) is automatically set perfectly by demand and supply. That is at least if people don't cheat. You can cheat by making a cartel (price rigging) or by having a monopoly, since that allows you to set prices arbitrarily."
/r/MensRights26/12/15 03:11 AM
5

I'm honestly positively surprised that there's almost no feminism-bashing in this post. You're all being very polite, which is nice. But just a warning at OP. There will be feminism-bashing in many posts on /r/MensRights, so don't be surprised or sad. It's not meant to be against all feminists, but only against illogical ideology and the people who openly support these theories with strange arguments that make no sense. People here often do have reason to dislike feminism. But there are also a l…
/r/MensRights26/12/15 02:55 AM
2

That's a common fear you must overcome. Think about it just like about shark attacks. The consequences of shark attacks are very severe, often deadly, but they happen very rarely. That's why most people take the risk swimming on the shore.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 02:38 AM
2

You can't eliminate risk you can only reduce it. But how many should you do to reduce risk? The answer is it depends on how often the risk actually affects you negative and how negative it is. Now, we both know that the consequences are quite severe when you are falsely accused, but the frequency is not as high as you may think. This sub does lead to confirmation bias and a false sense of insecurity. Also check the local law to find out what is legal.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 01:07 PM
2

Not all people suck, but all groups of people do.
/r/MensRights24/12/15 01:01 PM
1

But maybe if you fight, they don't win.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 11:04 AM
2

Damn, how can one person write so many wrong things. The laws are enforced by the police. Therefore the politicians only have power when the police obeys them. In Switzerland the Army and Police would never side against it's own people, they'd rather go against the government. Also we, the people can make and prevent laws if we like. And I don't think the USA is good when it comes to war, so why are you creating that strawman. Also countries can do many things and they are definitely not concept…
/r/MensRights22/12/15 11:02 AM
1

So... you like our free culture? Isn't defending that against the invasion of a restrictive religion-based culture a noble cause? If the answer is yes, there you have the noble cause. If the answer is no, your culture will eventually perish if all people think like you. Anything valuable must be defended, that's how the world works. Of course you can imagine a world where people don't fight each other, but why would others do that if they profit from fighting? You are an idealist, but the world …
/r/MensRights22/12/15 10:46 AM
1

As I read the answers to my posts here, I have to agree that they are very narrow minded in this matter and they just don't see the bigger picture.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 02:56 AM
0

A concept is an idea and how the draft was used in history are examples of implemenations of the idea "draft". Don't get me wrong, I am all for rejecting to be drafted, if the draft has no noble cause, but that doesn't mean that there are no noble causes.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 02:55 AM
0

to prevent the meat grinder from growing And yes, it is definitely the job of citizens to defend themselves. That includes attacks by other countries and therefore the draft.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 02:50 AM
1

How it's been used is no argument against a concept, but only against the observed implementations of this concept. You could have a draft that is by law only possible in a defensive way, and drafted people would only be allowed to serve inside your own borders. It fits the definition of a draft and it's not a "kill strangers without reason" draft. "Doesn't sound something a free country should do" is also no argument. A free country must (just as any other country) defend itself. Countries are …
/r/MensRights22/12/15 01:16 AM
-6

/u/masterGoshinki wrote about the CONCEPT of a draft and you want to prove him wrong by how the USA used the draft in the past? Not very smart if you ask me. What if you lived in a smaller country that was under attack from a neighboring country? Would you approve the draft or do you think that people should just wait to be killed (because that's the only alternative in this situation)?
/r/MensRights22/12/15 12:09 AM
-5

/u/MasterGoshinki wrote about the CONCEPT
/r/MensRights22/12/15 12:06 AM
0

/u/MasterGoshinki wrote about the CONCEPT
/r/MensRights22/12/15 12:06 AM
1

I don't think that's what he wanted to say. I think the message was that people without enough insight in some field invent words to look as if they knew their shit, or people with insight invent words to sound even smarter. I think that is true, but it certainly does not only apply to women, but also to men. Read what intellectuals write and you'll notice that they can make thte most trivial shit sound terribly complicated without any reason. Also I believe that critical thinking and logical th…
/r/MensRights21/12/15 11:56 PM
1

Crimes affect you physically and emotionally. The important point is that a crime is more emotionally harming, if you believe that this crime is very bad. If women believed that rape was less serious than they do now, they'd have much less emotional problems after being raped. I don't think rape is okay, but the current hysteria is just stupid, since it diminishes other crime.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 08:29 PM
2

Well, most abuse happens in the family, so even if she is the aunt, that's a bad argument.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 08:02 PM
1

I like it. It shows how much more men could do, when they get the mental support from society. Sadly, our society blames men for everything and shouts them down, which is the exact inverse of this situation. But even in this situation, they do as good as women.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 08:01 PM
2

I would have reacted very differently than you. Since the parents didn't instruct you to let the aunt in, for all you know she could have been an organ dealer or a female pedophile kidnapper. It was your duty to protect the children, which is a duty given to you by the parents. This means you had all the authority in this case and you should have called the police if she refused to hand back the children. I know it's hard to deal with crazy, and on top of that the police can be extremely biased …
/r/MensRights21/12/15 12:49 AM
2

It's because you are a man. EVERY man would love to be a hero. Some would like the fame and attention for something good they've done, others would like to be the silent heroes that can be satisfied in themselves.
/r/MensRights20/12/15 05:55 PM
2

The problem is not that migrants are all bad, the problem is that the "progressive" people just wont recognize that migration brings a shitload of problems for all involved countries. You can't integrate an unlimitedamount of people into a society, it's just not possible. Also why would the population of a country want to welcome and integrate that many people? The job of a government is to act in favour of it's own countries citizens. The wellbeing of other people should concern a government on…
/r/MensRights20/12/15 04:24 AM
2

First, similar things exist. Second, it's not a crime if you don't break any law. If you defend people who are in danger, it's not a crime. If you beat up people because they did some bad stuff earlier, it's a crime. Also if you would do that, you'd probably have a hard time finding crimes. The only way out would be to have an app that lets people call you and your hero group. The problem is that it can be abused. If you defended person A against person B, what stops person B from summoning you …
/r/MensRights20/12/15 03:56 AM
1

Doesn't sound too bad I think. It addresses that the MRM has legitimate claims and that they are not some strange minority with a weird perspective. Not very deep, but that's not neccessarily a bad thing in some contexts. But what exactly is the purpose of that post? Who reads it? The subreddit seems empty. More information would be nice.
/r/MensRights20/12/15 03:44 AM
1

I use the terms interchangeable anyway and I usually mean the biological sex.
/r/MensRights19/12/15 07:38 PM
2

That does not answer anything. OP could have the opinion that it's okay for men to dress up feminine but that it's not okay to alter your body surgically.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 02:26 AM
1

You are absolutely right. But since everyone should be free to do whatever he wants when it doesn't affect others, we should let them. There is no objective ethics or moral, because it is impossible. Some people actually believe that adjusting the body to the "felt" gender is okay, while condemning that some people adjust their behaviour to their body. They just can't see the contradiction in that. If you really think about it, both are the same, just inversed. The only legitimate opinions shoul…
/r/MensRights18/12/15 02:20 AM
5

I don't think that women attempt more suicide, that conclusion comes from not looking at the whole picture. So let's look at all cases. Some people attempt suicide without the world noticing (point a loaded gun at your head, but then back down) Some people attempt suicide with the world noticing (mostly due to medical attention to keep a person from dying) Some people don't attempt suicide but tell the world they did. Some people even believe they attempted suicide, when they really didn't. Taki…
/r/MensRights18/12/15 02:08 AM
1

That is absolutely true. However, that doesn't change that X or XXX is defined as female and XXY is defined as male. There's no reason to not include genetic accidents in the definition of a gender. The only thing a definition of the term gender must obey is that it is precise. The definition that is about the presence/absence of the Y chromosome is very simple and very precise, which means it's perfect.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 01:44 AM
5

Whenever I hear or read "strong independent woman", I just know it's not true.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 01:31 AM
2

Almost. A male cell is a cell that contains a Y chromosome. XY is normal, but XXY (Klinefelter), XXXY would be male too. A man is a human that is composed of male cells. A female cell is a cell that doesn't contain a Y chromosome. XX is normal, but X (Turner), XXX are other options. A woman is a human that is composed of female cells. I remember that there are some weird conditions where a human body can consist of multiple different DNAs, because it's actually a twin that got merged or somethin…
/r/MensRights14/12/15 01:25 AM
11

You can't fight one inequality with another one, it just makes no sense. Since the alcohol level is determined as a percentage of the blood, women already can't drink as much as men and still drive. It could of course be possible that the same percentage affects women more than men, but the legal inequality about sexual consent isn't evidence for it. The other way around it would make sense. If women were less tolerant to the same alcohol level, it would make sense that women wouldn't be allowed…
/r/MensRights12/12/15 03:36 PM
1

It is actually misleading in my opinion. The first bar about new york actually has 60% male only exploitation, which is inverse to the british columbia bar. Also the title tells us "male victims, female exploiters". Of course nothing is factually wrong, but it would lead lots of people to think that kids are mostly exploited by women, which is not true by this data. The data tells us that both men and women exploit children equally and the percentage can vary heavily from one place to another.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 03:29 PM
1

Soooo...people become slaves voluntarily? You're crazy man. Nope, he's aboslutely right. Why would paperboys earny only little money? Because there are paperboys who work for that money. That means that the group of potential paperboys decides how much they earn. If they all refused to work for to little money, they'd get more money, because they are not replaceable by machines yet. But of course a single paperboy can't force the company to pay more money, since there are more people wanting a j…
/r/MensRights12/12/15 11:31 AM
1

I loved the things you wrote in most of this comment, but the end sucked (in my pov). Does the right-wing support ending prison rape? You can't support that. Or rather the only way to support that is isolating all prisoners at all times, which is in itself inhumane. What you should ask is "Does right wing support fighting prison rape?". Also why should decriminalizing drugs beccessarily be a good thing? That is a thing that is up for debate, and the result of the debate highly depend on what you…
/r/MensRights12/12/15 11:18 AM
4

It's both stupid to hate righties and to hate lefties. People are people and how good their opinion is depends on which thoughts they are based on. If you are left because "right wing people are all nazis", your opinion is stupid, because your argument is stupid. If you are right, because "leftists are all commis that want to destroy our society", then your opinion is stupid, because your argument is stupid. A lot of people have stupid opinions because they don't really question things, but ther…
/r/MensRights12/12/15 11:13 AM
1

Some things are almost insightful, but then they fail again, like most feminists. 1 (Racism in the history of feminism) is true, but not that relevant for todays feminism. But todays feminism is still quite racist, so that's one problem. 2 (white feminism) is true in a sense that feminism cares very much about silly problems of white women, while at the same time they pretend to champion for all women. 3 (more inclusive feminism) is kinda weird. The most inclusive feminism would be when the femi…
/r/MensRights12/12/15 10:45 AM
1

Pedophile is an often used word, but the wrong word in this situation anyway. It's not guaranteed that pedophile people actuall do something to kids, they may just avoid sexuality at all. At the same time non-pedophile people may rape/have sex with children just for the feel of power. So the word you should probably call her is child-rapist.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 10:18 AM
1

another person without arguments?
/r/MensRights12/12/15 10:08 AM
0

That's not true. You assume people are constant, but they're really not. It's hard for his father to accept it, and he may never be able to, but it's not guaranteed. But the most important thing is that you can ask for acceptance, but people don't have to accept anything. The only thing you can expect is tolerance. Tolerance is on a whole different level than acceptance. His father may hate his homosexuality, but tolerate it, meaning he won't do anything against it. I think acceptance is the wro…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 10:14 PM
-1

Fuck you, or bring in some argument you retard.
/r/MensRights11/12/15 10:06 PM
-7

Yes you can, but do you really want to? Your father comes from a situation where homosexuality is seen as despicable. Imagine you had a son and he told you he's having sex with animals (or any other thing you would see as despicable). What would you do? It's likely for many to get violent in these situations, even thou violence doesn't solve a thing. So you should try to understand him to some degree, then ask yourself what you want from your father, and then chose the best option to get to that…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 04:11 PM
2

That should be counted as a criminal act to be honest, wasting resources for the sole purpose of making him pay more is insane. Also it would be easy to prove.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 10:56 PM
1

Yeah, meanwhile watch this youtube video paroding it.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 10:51 PM
2

This graphic is like the most stupid thing ever. If the data behind this image was true, that would imply that we should make more women report rape, since that is by far the biggest problem. Also since when are falsely accused people part of the non-reported rapes? Makes no fucking sense. Also it's worthless without sources.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 10:45 PM
1

There is a hentai anime called rapeman, just sayin.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 10:38 PM
2

That's kinda sad that men are pushed to such problems. I honestly think that a husband should never pay an amount that makes the exwife live better than himself, because why should she have a right to that?
/r/MensRights10/12/15 10:16 PM
2

While I agree with you, I don't think it conflicts with anything I said. Looking at the percentage of poor people in a certain age group is eliminating the distortion by differences in life expectancy. Of course that doesn't mean that the statistics is automatically good if you do that. You'd have to account for how much money flows from men to exwifes and probably many other factors as well.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 03:45 PM
1

Wouldn't a poverty statistics be more meaningful if they investigated the percentage of poor people in a certain age group? That would eliminate distortion by different life expectancy.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 02:05 PM
0

You probably are an outsider, but is that a bad thing? Being an outsider is hard, but not always bad. Non-Nazis in Nazi Germany were outsiders too. Also being popular based on your hobby is a good thing, that means people around you actually care about more than just looks. You are probably fun to be with for men and that is actually, in my opinion, a good reason to like someone. Also you are not sexist, but I guess you know that. I am really impressed by people who get out or withstand hard soc…
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:38 PM
2

I would attribute that also to the fact that feminists annoyed gamers, and gamers are not known to let people insult their hobby and come off easy.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:19 PM
2

Sociology is not scientific at all. It could be, but it isn't.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:05 AM
3

You should definitely go talk to her and tell her that it's not okay to advertise her opinion in a lecture. Tell her that people should be free to decide and she just took the free choice from the students, because it might affect their grades.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 01:00 AM
1

I agree with this. If you judge anything, define how you judge it precisely and objectively, because all other judgements are subjective and therefore worthless.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 11:50 PM
2

That's what I was saying. But the survey has to meet scientific criteria, and if it doesn't it's at best accidentally right and at worst wrong and misleading.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 09:20 PM
1

Makes sense, I didn't know that.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 04:03 PM
4

Shouldn't the defense attorney be able to say whatever he likes? I mean if he really tells such bullshit, that should just have the consequence that the judge thinks he's full of shit. But hey, you provided some sources, so thanks.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:51 PM
5

You can't possibly know how many rapes are not reported. Any assumption is basically based on bullshit, unless you have a scientific study that found out how many rapes occur. But such a study does not exist, at least not a really scientific one. Scientific means 1) enough questioned people, 2) 100% response rate, 3) the questioned people are statistically representative for the whole society, 4) The questions are neutral, 5) The questions can't be misunderstood, 6) The definition of rape in the…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:43 PM
5

No source means it's a claim without evidence, no matter if you are right or wrong. Shouldn't be too hard to prove your claim if it was common, should it?
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:30 PM
1

That depend on what kind of man you are. If you are built strong and you like to fight, the hunter gatherer era might have been the most pleasant for you. It's important to note that golden age of men doesn't imply that it was neccessarily bad for women.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:21 PM
2

I'm not gonna read it but for the ones who did, does she have any argument (doesn't matter if good or bad arguments) on why to believe her, or could the text be shortened to "I believe her because she's a woman"?
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:16 PM
5

I think he wanted a source of a court decision that it was not rape based on the appearance of a woman.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:14 PM
3

Calculate it yourself, the data is available. Calculate 1-(1-rapes/population)years and you'll get the chance of being raped in the specified amount of years. My country had 556 rapes in 2014. 1-(1- 556/8256000)85 = 0.0057 = 1 in 175 in their lifetime. Might be worse for other countries. But I don't know how these numbers add up, could be that those are mostly women and the men don't report, which would double the bumber, since it would be 556 rapes for only half of the population. Also if you l…
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:09 PM
5

Are that supposed to be negative things?
/r/MensRights09/12/15 02:45 PM
0

\s means that the thing before was sarcasm.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 02:22 AM
1

I agree, but with strength you don't lose the ability to control your force. That's why you can hold a woman without using too much force.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 01:34 AM
1

I don't think women are that delicate. You can easily grab their forearms without it leaving bruises. Also it wasn't about leaving no traces, but about how to react reasonable.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 01:07 AM
2

It is not generally wrong to hit a woman, just as it is not generally illegal to kill, since self-defense is a situation where killing may be legal. There are situations where hitting a woman is justified, e.g. when she points a gun at you and you somehow get the chance to knock her out. But most of the time it's not okay to hit anyone that doesn't want to get hit. Some people want to fight, e.g. hooligans or boxers, then it might be okay. Women have inferior strength, even at the same weight, w…
/r/MensRights08/12/15 10:24 PM
3

Or maybe they mature faster because they are all raped as children \fullfeministmode
/r/MensRights08/12/15 08:40 PM
7

Because patriarchy \s
/r/MensRights08/12/15 08:35 PM
9

Almost all comments on reddit that contain tables are good articles in my experience. Good comparison. Edit: actually that would be a cool project. Gather as many pedophile cases as possible and then compare similar cases and create statistics about double standards from the data.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 08:29 PM
1

We don't really want to become the new feminism. We are different and we want to be different, because we believe that our way is the right way.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 02:35 PM
1

I think everyone should be drafted. Now some people will complain that it doesn't make sense in some combat roles, but I disagree that this is a problem. If we have a test that can tell wether a human has the ability to perform a certain task, we can allow women to take that test too. Then some people will argue that it's too much of a hassle for a tiny amount of women, but that is wrong as well. We can just publish the criteria for getting into certain combat roles. Women that have no chance, w…
/r/MensRights08/12/15 02:30 PM
4

I think you are partially wrong. You are a MGTOW as far as I see, but that doesn't mean you should ignore women at all times. Or to be more specific, not greeting people is impolite. If you want to go MGTOW, treat women just as men. Don't treat them any better or worse than other people. You can avoid them when you don't work, but acting ideologically on your job is not professional. Interacting with people is part of any job, even if it is not directly part of your job. Be professional.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 02:22 PM
2

No, school is like that now.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 12:31 PM
3

We should really give an instruction to fallacies in a feminist sub, since they seem to always run into them.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 12:28 PM
1

*would be the worst option Centralizing power is the worst thing you can do, since it's hold the highest risk of abuse by corrupt people.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 09:54 PM
3

You can't change people, that's not possible. Therefore you have to create a system that works even with the shittiest people, because it is stable. Such a stable system needs an army that defends the system if needed.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 08:38 PM
2

I'm okay with that, makes sense to me.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 08:35 PM
2

War is bad, yes, but you can only avoid it if both parties agree. If one attacks anyway, the other has no options. That's why all countries should have defensive weapons. If the defensive weapon technology was way higher than the offensive ones, wars would be useless.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:56 PM
2

I don't think we hate only based on what things are, but also based on what things were in the past. Otherwise hate would be unreasonable.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:41 PM
3

How long did it take nazi germany to build up a strong army from scratch? 10 years? In 10 years an army could be strong enough to beat you up, if they invest enough. But I'm not talking about the next decades, but more likely about the next century.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:38 PM
1

I didn't say there is an enemy, but that doesn't guarantee that there is no enemy in the future.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:35 PM
2

True. But even then, that the draft has only been misused in the past doesn't imply that it will only be misused in the future.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:32 PM
2

I don't disagree, I just wanted to say that there are mutliple arguments for and against a female voice. There is no superior choice. But I agree that I would prefer a female voicex too, but not for perverted reasons.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:30 PM
1

I said it's unlikely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe in 100 years the usa has been split into multiple countries in a civil war, or maybe the third world war will be fought on us soil too? No one knows what will be in the future. Don't take anything for granted.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:28 PM
0

How naive... If you country is attacked, your brother was already killed and your sister raped, then everyone will fight. You believe you could just stand there and sing kumbaya? Don't make me laugh, the enemy would just shoot you.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:26 PM
2

I agree, but that doesn't mean male voices couldn't have advantages, just as female voices can have advantages. In fighter pilots, female voices are especially handy, because that way you can't confuse systems with radio transmissions, since most people in the army are men and have male voices.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:04 PM
24

Even if he wanted to see the girl naked, it isn't sexual harrassment. Even if you fantasize about raping all women you have ever seen, it's no crime.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 07:00 PM
2

The draft can also be used to get people to fight for your country on your own soil. But of course that is only when you are attacked in your own country, which will probably never happen in the USA. But it's not impossible to happen, and therefore the draft is legitimate for such situation, which means that the draft is okay in such an exotic situation.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 06:55 PM
1

The american draft, yes, but USA is not the only country.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 06:53 PM
3

Agreed, therefore I welcome everyone that refuses to fight in such a war, because I would do the same. I'd gladly fight a war to defend my country, but I would never fight to attack another country.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 06:52 PM
2

Well... there would be reasons to build systems with male voices, namely that male voices can be understood easier by men. I've read an article that claimed that men process mens voices in a different part of the brain than they process female voices. Processing female voices was more tiring to men because of that.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 06:51 PM
3

If a war is really going big, there's even a shortage when all people fight. If a war is not that big, tons of people will try to get away from their duty. Most people today don't care for countries and therefore they wont fight for it, which is kinda sad.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 06:48 PM
-1

Then it's not "fuck the draft", but only fuck the draft partially, right?
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:17 PM
2

You are forced to either drive a damaged car, or invest money to repair the car. But basically, you have to take responsibility for your car. Responsibility in the case of a sexual "accident" would be to not kill the child, since it's life is precious. You gave up your right to self determination, when you had sex.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 04:17 PM
12

But would you fight to defend you country if it was attacked? Because that would also be a draft.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:21 PM
3

Men like to hear womens voices, and men ususally build any kind of system. Therefore the developers of video games make their AI voices female.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 01:59 PM
1

Switzerland
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:11 PM
1

You are right, but most of the positions in the army are not combat. We could draft women for things that don't require much strength at once, e.g. all the organizational things.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:03 PM
1

Choosing to drive a car is not the same thing as choosing to become a victim of a car accident.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 11:57 AM
3

That's actually not that bad of an argument. If the people who decide wars had to fight in the war, they would reconsider it in many cases. It would actually be great if bush had to fight in iraq war.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 02:10 AM
1

For the first one. If you drive a car, you can't chose to not consent to accidents that happen. So why would you be allowed to not consent to pregnancy but still have sex? That is denial of responsibility. The point is that you gave your consent to a potential pregnancy, when you decided to have sex, because those two are bound together. As I said, a good analogy of "the government forces you to give up your body" is when the government forces you to get pregnant, but that's obviously not the ca…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:58 AM
2

1) source Translation: compensatory for not-accomplished military service duty According to the miliary service duty compensatory law, Swiss citizens that didn't or only partially fulfilled their duty have to pay a surrogate in form of money. That does also hold valid for members of civil defense [another service you can chose instead]. The surrogate amounts to 3% of the tax liable income and at least 400.- [per year]. 2) same source To the age of 30 years 3) Because I want to protect my country…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:43 AM
18

Possible answer: "No one ever denied that it's rape if he points a weapon at you, but if the situation was different and you actually gave money to some homeless, it would be wrong to call if theft afterwards."
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:13 AM
2

There are different points here. One is that male only draft is unfair. If we assume that draft may be neccessary at some point in the future, a men and women draft would be the only fair solution. The other point is that women in the army can be a problem. If you have to fight, a big part of it is that you have to evacuate comrades. A woman can not evacuate a wounded male comrade, or even if she can, she would be too slow. That is of course if the guy is not very lightweight, which people in th…
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:02 AM
3

I agree that it is unfair, but definitely not to women. Women can go to the army if they want but can't be forced. That's more options and less responsibility. that is only unfair to men. That of course doesn't hold for any place. When women are excluded from some positions in the army, it's also unfair to women. But is that the case? Not in my country.
/r/MensRights07/12/15 12:01 AM
8

If that was a good excuse, any male crime could be excused with a high testosterone level, since that is much more influental. The media is just full of shit.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 11:16 PM
12

Unfalsifiable arguments are stupid arguments. It's on the niveau of "if black people were white, they'd know that white people are better people", it's just horribly dumb. Men cannot become pregnant, but that doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on these matters and it also doesn't mean that our opinions are less relevant. Denying mens opinion on women-things is like denying the opinions of non-circumcised on circumcision.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 11:10 PM
1

how fucked up it is to have the government force someone to give up the use of their body against their will Now you just make it sound bad, that's no way of argumenting. The government didn't force someone to give up the use of their body, that would only be the case if the government forced women to become pregnant and yes, that would be fucked up. The government would not allow to share the body and then revoke that. And yes, moral and ethics are not completely arbitrary, they are that way to…
/r/MensRights06/12/15 10:53 PM
1

That's bullshit. There is a crucial difference between the situation with the kidney and the pregnancy, namely that a woman becomes pregnant by herself, or at least that's the case most of the time. I have no problem that you are pro-choice, think whatever you want, but you should definitely stop thinking that other options are reprehensible, because they are not, they are just as justified as your opinion, you just don't want to see. Thinking that other opinions must be wrong is a dictatorian w…
/r/MensRights06/12/15 09:24 PM
3

You should be careful with the term "logically sound argument". A logically sound argument does not imply that it is the only logically sound argument. The reason for this is that different chains of reasoning come from different basic assumptions (axioms you could say). That's why it is stupid if you are pro-life and denounce pro-choice, and it is also stupid the other way around. Pro-life does acknowledge human rights from the point a conscious human is born, while pro-choice acknowledges huma…
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:14 PM
0

That's such an USA thing to ask for legal actions. In my country such things are not often brought to court. But hey, it's your decision. If you want to do legal actions, document injuries first if you have some. Go see a doctor for this and make photographs. Then go talk to a lawyer. But I don't recommend it. I think the chances of paying more than you get are too high.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 11:53 AM
3

All false accusations should be punished, but the punishment just shouldn't be static. Instead the severity of the punishment should depend on how severe the consequences for the accused would have been, if he/she was actually convicted for something he/she hasn't done. If I falsely accuse someone of something and he gets the death penalty, that should obviously be treated more seriously than when I accuse a person and he gets sentenced to a fine. That has only one problem. What if I accuse some…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 09:55 PM
1

That's a stupid question. What can you do to make any kind of false accusation impossible? Nothing, that's not a thing that should be possible. The problem of false rape accusations is that they can have real effects, because of the "guilty until proven innocent" thing. Now what can you do despite this fucked up legal situation? Not much. Filming your surroundings all the time is probably illegal in most countries. The only thing you can do is to lower the risk of false rape claims, by only real…
/r/MensRights05/12/15 01:24 PM
1

I would say that adultery is not a right-issue at all, since no right of any person was violated. BUT when it comes to children out of adultery and the cuckolded man has to pay for that, that is a serious mens rights issue.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 12:26 AM
2

That's aweful! How could the police arrest these guys? The article doesn't really say which violation of the law they were accused of and "manspreading" is not against the law on its own.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 08:33 PM
2

There have been people arrested for having their knees to far apart? Really? I'd like to see sources of that. I'm glad this is not a problem where I live.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 05:08 PM
10

Because they are a movement against men, but against straight white men in particular. That's why they side with everyone if they can go against straight white men.
/r/MensRights04/12/15 12:19 PM
2

If it's not funded by taxpayers, I don't mind that they distribute thier stupid shit. BUT if it's funded with taxpayer support, it's basically criminal, or it should be. Also where I live, you can stick a sticker on your mailbox that you don't want advertising. Thy would have to follow such rules if they exist in Sweden.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 08:39 PM
2

and did more of each than at least half of the men there
/r/MensRights03/12/15 07:43 PM
8

Nope you are not, some people here are just very pessimistic. If what you told is true, you are completely fine. If the police comes around, you can even tell them that you were absolutely passive, which is a good thing, since it's not possible to rape while not doing anything. No sex is further away from raping a woman then what you described, so either all sex is rape, or you are innocent. But since she'll lie, it's her word against yours, and while the police does favour women very much, they…
/r/MensRights02/12/15 10:19 PM
1

It's not about entitlement. But let's think about it, how would a good experiment to measure the entitlement look like? I suggest that for the experiment we'd take a few good looking men and women and let them pick up some person. They then will back down in the last moment and observe the reactions.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 12:17 PM
2

That may be true, but two wrongs don't make a right. So a false rape accusation is still a false rape accusation even if he is a real asshole. There is also no need to trust him, since we are not judges. We can simply give him advice with one and at the same time think he's an asshole for the other.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 11:58 AM
3

35/2 = 17.5 I'm pretty sure that mens soccer has more than 20 times the amount of viewer female soccer has.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 11:19 AM
2

The more people think that sjws and crazy feminists are a problem, the more people will upvote it. That means upvotes are not a prove, but a hint that a lot of people see the hypocrisy of feminism and sjws.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 11:10 AM
9

I just recently found out that not a single women ever run for US president as a representative of the democrats or republicans. Here's the source. Now if since in the USA not a single president has been elected out of a smaller party, the chance for women becoming president was 0 to begin with. Which means you can't call the USA sexist for not electing a female president. It's possible (maybe even likely) that the republicans and democrats where sexist in the way that they never let a woman run…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 09:35 PM
12

But it does show that the public opinion is slowly changing into the direction we like the most.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 07:14 PM
1

You're really trying hard to get banned, but it won't happen.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:54 PM
1

-_- some of the questions aren't even closed questions, meaning they can't be answered with yes and no.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:52 PM
2

How about you're not insulting people here and explain why you think that his claims are wrong?
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:47 PM
1

It's human nature to avoid cognitive dissonance.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 01:37 PM
3

While I don't know much about the history of the MRM, I would assume that to acknowledge the issues of men, you have to give up the feminist theories (which blame everything on men actually). Now when a human realizes that the feminist theories make no sense at all, he will first start to see feminism in a bad light (he's become an antifeminist). Sensitized by this, he will start noticing some mens issues and sexism towards men (he's become an MRA). This may lead to him finding out that the mens…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:36 PM
3

While you are right that politicians are a big part of the problem, politicians won't be the solution. Therefore not addressing the politicians in the process of developing a solution to this problem is actually valid.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:14 PM
1

Feminism is both an ideology and a movement, which is why they are so indoctrinated and basically like a religion. MRM is just a movement. We don't have an ideology, which is a good thing, because that means we are openminded.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:05 PM
7

You chose the wrong approach I think. The reason is that confronting someone with information that contradicts his/her worldview drastically will lead to a complete refusal of any information you bring in, no matter how good it is. That is actually how religious people stay religious despite all the evidence against all existing religions. That is how left wing people refuse any problem that are important to right wing people. That is how right wing people refuse any problem that are important t…
/r/MensRights01/12/15 04:11 AM
3

Game of thrones is in general a really good show to reveal feminist hypocrisy. Sansa getting raped generates a feminist outcry, while Theon getting tortured (physically and emotionally) for days, then castrated and then held as a slave is aparantly not as bad.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 03:26 AM
1

Agreed. But while pointing out the hypocrisy we should really always make clear that we are not outraged because of the rape scene, but because rape scenes with female victims lead to a feminist outcry, while rape scenes with male victims don't, or are even considered funny.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 03:04 AM
10

It's at least an improvement compared to other cases I've read, but of course a male perpetrator would probably be in prison right now.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:59 AM
1

Theres a rape scene in Game of thrones and the feminists were all over it, but let's please not act like the feminists.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:51 AM
2

To quote myself: Is it even possible to hold a judge accountable for false judgement? And this is exactly what it is.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 02:34 AM
5

Which means it exists, which means it's not that bad of an idea.
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:58 AM
0

I know, in most cases that would be very stupid. But what if you have a judge that misuses his power? What if a judge would e.g. give much lower sentences for people that are in his own party? When a policeman misuses his power, he faces consequences. Why wouldn't a judge be in the same position?
/r/MensRights01/12/15 12:20 AM
1

How many pushups can she do? jk
/r/MensRights30/11/15 10:35 PM
1

I just realized that pay transparency is a rather problematic issue. Pay transparency is useless without the information on why these people earn as much as they do. But to have that information, companies would have to publish personal data like the education, the number of hours they worked and so on. I don't think that this would help much.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 10:17 PM
43

We need to create awareness. That means we should write articles in newspapers and other media. Also a lawsuit against the judge who decided it would be nice. Is it even possible to hold a judge accountable for false judgement? I don't want every judge to fear the public, but in extreme cases, it would be nice to have that ability.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 09:43 PM
5

That's all correct, but there's even more to say. Guilty until proven innocent allows political parties (and especially the government), or companies to jail their opponents. Innocent until proven guilty is not only fairer, it also is a neccessary property of a states legal system to lower the chances of becoming corrupt. Just think about the many ways you could use guilty until proven innocent to silence any of your opponents. One can really be creative with that. You participate in a sports co…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 09:16 PM
1

Ask the NSA for video footage :p
/r/MensRights30/11/15 08:58 PM
3

Actually the opposite is the case. If a woman is a real slut, but she has never accused a man of raping her, that is evidence that she's not often accusing men falsely. If she however has a history of rape accusations, that is definitely a factor that should damage the weight of her statements.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 08:44 PM
1

You didn't sound rude to me. You shouldn't use this as evidence that discrimination exists, because that's not what it is. If they didn't miss important factors in this study, the wage gap due to discrimination is between 0% and 1%, and we don't have information on where on this scale it is. That means that this study does neither prove a discrimination, nor prove that there is no discrimination, but it disproves discrimination > 1%, which is actually nice to have. If this study (like others) mi…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:56 PM
1

That would be nice, I'd love to read the article. But don't force yourself, it takes quite some time to translate a whole article, I've done it for a German video about mens rights.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 05:55 PM
2

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to be rude, I just wanted to make the point that "1% unexplained" and "1% discrimination" is not the same.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 05:47 PM
0

Which is, strange enough, the one thing that we all agree with feminists XD
/r/MensRights30/11/15 04:57 PM
2

That's bullshit. To prove that 1% is because of sexism, one would need to prove that all possible other factors have been examined. Also statistically, the wages between the genders will differ just by chance, which isn't discrimination. So you'd also have to prove that this 1% is statistically significant and not just a random outcome.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 04:53 PM
2

No, I mean the venn diagramm makes no sense. It's just a riddle to me, what exactly you mean with that. When the set describes rights, why would emotional reasoning be a right? Also you labeled the circles with "Rape and sexual assault" and "All other crimes", but then then circles should contain instances of crimes, which they don't. You should better write a text on what you mean, because the venn diagramm gives me no information. Or maybe I'm just not able to understand. If I try to figure it…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 04:00 PM
2

That makes no sense at all.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 03:21 PM
1

I don't know it, but I suspect that women are more likely to receive treatment for all diseases. Could that be true? Are there numbers?
/r/MensRights29/11/15 11:01 PM
1

Why not ask the mods, they should know who has been banned. /u/rMensRights
/r/MensRights29/11/15 09:52 PM
1

I've never heard of people being banned on /r/MensRights do you have some information about that?
/r/MensRights29/11/15 08:57 PM
1

I agree. It's just like when you hit someone and are not ready to get hit back. You can only demand as much as you are able to bring in. That's how it should be.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 08:41 PM
1

Fat acceptance is self-delusion, plain and simple. Women being a little chubby is normal and actually healthier than being thin. I think there are also men who like fat women, but only very few. But fat people use the fat acceptance thing only to avoid doing something, at least most of them do.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 08:38 PM
0

"No one" is obviously an overstatement, but the thought behind it was that almost no one cares, which is still valid.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 03:49 PM
2

I'm playing the devils advocate for once. Wanting a tall guy is a personal preference. Personal preferences are okay, because everybody has them. Some like a specific hair color more, others a specific skin color, others a specific body shape. The problem with the tall-guy obsession is that it's just too many women wanting tall guys. When 90% of women think like that, it becomes a problem. If 90% of men would be into blonde, underweight girls, that would be a problem too. But mens tastes seem a …
/r/MensRights29/11/15 03:47 PM
1

That's funny, because it's completely against my experiences. All men I've ever seen have only tried to figure out DIY stuff, when they actually needed to do it. Women on the other hand often want to DIY stuff to show everyone that they are equally capable as men, which is always funny, because if they truly were equally, they wouldn't have the urge to boast with their DIY skills.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 02:31 AM
1

Quotes from the comments: wb99 How can sucha misanthropic shit make it to Zeit-Online? SethusC. It's always the same pattern: Feminists: Men are stupid. Men complain. Feminists: That's prove that we are right. Vernunftkultur "Women are more ecofriendly" Many million tons of cosmetics are trashed every year and end up in the sea. Cosmetics is mostly done based on mineral oil. I don't think this is ecofriendly. Eriko We understand... women are better because when ignoring every negative point abou…
/r/MensRights29/11/15 02:06 AM
1

That's why I posted it here. Mostly because the comments show MRM success. Maybe I should translate some and post it here.
/r/MensRights29/11/15 01:49 AM
3

I know, right? But those are feminists, they are stupid. Women literally produce almost nothing and consome almost everything. If you account the carbon footprint to the producers, men will obviously look bad. But as you correctly noted, most things are only produced because of the demand that is created by women.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 09:56 PM
1

What a bullshit. You confuse causation with correlation. Just because crazy feminists often have dyed hair doesn't mean I have to oppose dyed hair. I don't oppose paganism, because it doesn't hurt men at all. That is unless paganism was the cause of feminism, which it is definitely not, or at leats I've never seen any evidence for that.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 09:53 PM
1

It's in German, so it's only for a few. The comments are nice.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 06:25 PM
6

This is mens rights, and it's literally all there is to say. We address problems where men are disadvantaged and our goal is to get to the point where men have the same rights and duties as women, and no more. If men are disadvantaged because they are men, it's our job to complain as the MRM. Your nationality, ethnicity, color are irrelevant for that purpose. If black people are disadvantaged, but it's about men and women equally, then it's not a MR issue. For that purpose, there should be a bla…
/r/MensRights28/11/15 04:57 PM
0

So are we know on the political correctness train, where jokes are not allowed anymore, when they hurt someones feelings? I think rape is wrong, but rape jokes are acceptable. I think rape jokes about men are acceptable, but only if rape jokes about women are equally accepted.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 12:03 PM
1

I highly agree with all you said. But I want to add that the point of competition should be that there's no perfection, but there must be room to always be objectively better. Because that can generate a huge effort of boys. Imagine they had a game for learning addition in primary school with a highscore that could always be beaten. Boys would be masters of addition in a week, while nowadays most people have a hard time doing simple calculations. Also games and software in general could be extre…
/r/MensRights28/11/15 02:37 AM
-1

I don't care about paganism and witchcraft. All religions are against logic, as MarcoVincenzo said. Also the connection is constructed. Shows with/about paganism have nothing to do with people believing in paganism. How about we focus on mens rights? I couldn't care less what feminists believe in, since it doesn't affect MRM at all.
/r/MensRights28/11/15 12:11 AM
68

I actually don't mind this, since the punchline about subway sandwich sizes is quite funny. What I have a problem with, is that the same people who post this are offended when it's a mean joke about women.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 10:18 PM
1

It's hard to discard wrong knowledge. That goes for every person, not only for the indoctrinated ones. Keep discussing things, and she will gradually realize. Tell her "Sexism is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender. Since what you told is prejudice and it's directed towards one gender, it's sexism." If she tells something like "It's not prejudice when I experienced it", tell her that this is correct, but would require that she spent a significant amount of time with all…
/r/MensRights27/11/15 09:51 PM
2

One important word is missing in this article. Competition. Most boys and men love competition. They'll invest a lot of time and effort trying to be better than others. And with that I don't mean a hateful kind of competition, but a friendly, sporting competition.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 09:08 PM
1

Treating root causes sounds like a much better investment of time and money With with you implied that not incarcerating criminal women would be a good solution, because otherwise they'd raise even more criminals. Also I disagree that it is standard, in the way that many criminal mothers are given lower sentences, explicitly because they are mothers, even if the father is available, not criminal, and willing to look after the child. The following implies that mothers are responsible for (aka dir…
/r/MensRights27/11/15 08:37 PM
5

Did you point out that this exact sentence is sexist?
/r/MensRights27/11/15 01:01 PM
5

The guardian doesn't see domestic violence as a non-gendered issue, they want the payment for domestic violence to be non-gendered. If you read the article, you'll see that the sub-header is misleading.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 11:15 AM
1

I just wanted to say the following: You have to chose the kind of speech that has the best effect, where "best effect" is defined by whatever your goal with this communication is. That means that intellectual language might have a better effect, in the sense that it makes feminists rethink their points or it makes non-feminists reject feminism and accept mens problems. That does not only hold true for intellectual language. It might be that stupid arguments might prove more effective than very s…
/r/MensRights27/11/15 01:44 AM
23

Except that women-hating comments usually get downvoted here, while feminist-hating comments mostly get ignored if they don't have an interesting point. It would be annoying if someone made a big campaign of false flag posts, where a bunch of people post and upvote shit here, but that's not the case. Also a bot could be annoying that does that. If that was the case, we'd have to ban these, but as I said, no need yet.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 01:09 AM
5

You don't seem to understand. She told the reporter that she told the boys that they could play with legos, which she won't let them. That's literally what she said.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 12:54 AM
1

This is true. The effect of language is defined by how it is received, and intellectual language, or even better a mix of all available forms of language, could increase the effect.
/r/MensRights27/11/15 12:51 AM
1

I disagree. Professional jargon usually adds precision, while shortening the text, which makes things easier to understand if you know the jargon. Otherwise it prevents you from understanding. Intellectual language on the other hand doesn't increase the precision of language at all, but makes it harder to understand. The only reason to use intellectual language is to sound smart and make a good impression on some people. I wished more intellectual people would stick to easier language, because t…
/r/MensRights27/11/15 12:38 AM
1

Don't blame ISIS for the very existence of terrorism is a correct statement, while don't blame ISIS for the terrorism they do is bullshit. I think OP wanted to say that feminism is not to blame for the existence of false accusations, but only for the false accusations caused by their ideology. At least I hope he wanted to say it like that.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 11:38 PM
9

So telling the little boys they'll get to play with the legos, but not let them is somehow justified by what again? I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head
/r/MensRights26/11/15 11:18 PM
1

But that's also a good thing, since that means the "those are not feminists" argument is as invalid as can be, since provably at least half of them are crazy idiots.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 11:13 PM
1

Not correct. Criminal women being the primary caregiver of future criminals may be true, but that doesn imply that women should not go to jail. Equality strictly forbids unequal treatment of men and women, which means either we drop the idea of equality, or we treat people equally, which requires that women are punished just as much as men. Also a equal solution to the criminal mothers problem is that in this case, we give the father custody over the children, unless he is also a criminal. Also …
/r/MensRights26/11/15 11:01 PM
3

That sounds too extreme to believe it, honestly. But if it's true, it's definitely time to launch a big lawsuit that draws a lot of attention to this issue. Maybe you should contact some mens organisations, they might cover the costs, since attention to this issue is in their fundamental interest.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 10:50 PM
2

The funny thing is that every criminal could then claim to identify as a woman, which would mean he cannot be incarcerated. No one can prove this false, since identifying as a woman doesn't require that you act or dress girly.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 10:24 PM
1

I hope that's sarcasm?
/r/MensRights26/11/15 10:17 PM
3

agreed. Stop incarcerating women cements the widespread idea of women being angels that never commit crimes. This is totally against men.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 09:54 PM
3

Logically that is true, however it is very unlikely. I've never heard from or read about anyone who is advocating for stopping incarcerating criminals.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 09:51 PM
2

I didn't say the other 87% are against feminism, just that the likelyhood to answer yes to this question is much higher for feminists, ans since more thatn 13% identify as feminists, it means that almost no non-feminst answered yes.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 09:47 PM
0

Nope. In the second part of my post I wrote about the situation, when a woman wants no child, but also no abortion. She then still has more rights than a man.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 07:50 PM
2

This is the dumbest shit I've read today... Did you com from /r/feminism?
/r/MensRights26/11/15 07:44 PM
1

Well, Vilars argument is not good either. It could theoretically be true that women live longer when doing "double duty" and at the same time live longer at average. But we now know that this is either not the case (becaues women still live longer), or women are not even coming close to working as much as men, which would mean that men should earn more money than women.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:50 PM
22

13% is probably about the percentage that identifies as feminist. Therefore we can safely assume that litterally no non-feminist agrees with feminism on this one. Quite positive, I think.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:39 PM
5

That's where you are wrong. Wanting children is not binary, you can want a child more or less. A woman who is morally opposed to abortion choses the life of the children over abortion, which means she wants the children enough to not do an abortion. If she doesn't want the child at all, she just wont be opposed to abortion, therefore she doesn't have to pay. If she doesn't really want the child, but not enough to have an abortion, she can just not tell the father and give her child up for adopti…
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:26 PM
1

I don't disagree that feminism was invented by men, but that's not the reason it is a bad idea.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:15 PM
1

I'm really curious to be honestly, to what study she refers. I mean, there must be sources, right? Edit: I just googled it. She said it was a UNESCO study, and apparently the UNESCO doesn't do gender studies at all. So it's a complete lie, as far as I know.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:13 PM
1

The beginning, where she complains that feminists represent a male feminism, while she represents a female feminism is kind of weird. She implies in the beginning that feminism is wrong, because it's a male idea. But while feminism is wrong, male ideas are often great. She's pretty insulting to men in the beginning, but as I said, then the gets way better and actually has great arguments at a time where almost no one realized.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 11:53 AM
1

7 is still true. When a person doesn't want children Men Women Can use contraceptives Yes Yes When she gets raped, gets pregnant and kept the child Pays Gets money When he gets raped and the gets pregnant and kept the hild Pays Gets money When she manipulated condoms and she kept the child Pays Gets money When he manipulated condoms and she kept the child No rights on the child, pays Gets money When she lied about contraceptives Pays Gets money Can have an emergency contraception No, her choice …
/r/MensRights26/11/15 11:43 AM
1

Oops.. I wanted to write abortion, but wrote divorce instead... I'll correct it.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 03:07 AM
6

When women don't want to have children, they can have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. Men don't have these options. That means that a woman can always prevent any payment, by giving up her rights on the child. Men on the other hand are fucked, when they get a woman pregnant. Neither can they enforce an adoption, nor can they opt out of their responsibility.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 01:34 AM
1

Watched 5 minutes yet and I am already sick of them, they're both incredible stupid. I knew that Alice Schwarzer was stupid, but I didn't know the other yet. Edit: okay, she get's better over time.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 12:44 AM
3

I think everything should be available, as long as the demand is high enough.
/r/MensRights26/11/15 12:34 AM
1

Nice statistics, but it's not perfectly what he wanted. Your statistics is evidence that boys are hit more likely than girls, but that doesn't automatically mean they are hit more often. Just an example to illustrate what I mean: Every second person of group A is hit once in their lifes, but only once, the other half is never hit. The chance of a member of group A being hit is 0.5 and at average, every member of group A is hit 0.5 times. Every 10th person of group B is hit, the other 9/10 are ne…
/r/MensRights26/11/15 12:26 AM
1

Could you by any chance upload the presentation? I'd like to see it.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 11:52 PM
1

But I did say that the actual implementation of the nazi ideology was worse then feminism (the implementation). Comparing things is not wrong, if two things are comparable. If I'd say you raped less women than genghis khan, then that is a true statement, even if you never raped anyone. Being offended by who you are compared to is kind of wrong, unless the comparison is wrong. If I said that you raped as many women as genghis khan, then you'd be right to be offended. But I said feminism the ideol…
/r/MensRights25/11/15 11:41 PM
2

So? I didn't read or downvote it yet, but I don't think it's neccessary to read everything to downvote somethin legitimately. To upvote however, a full read is required. The reason is that you can detect bullshit without reading everything, just because the part you read is bullshit. To find out that there is no bullshit, you have to read everything. I'm not saying you wrote bullshit, that would be unreasonable because I didn't read it yet, but your complaint about downvotes is based on the assu…
/r/MensRights25/11/15 11:25 PM
2

It's extreme, yes, but I don't try to not offen people. A world without offensive words would be boring as hell. Sometimes I offend people by opposing their views just to look at the reaction. The best part of a humans opinion is how he justifies it, or rather that is the only intersting part. Feminist ideology is at least as flawed as nazi ideology, at least the feminist ideology of the crazy ones, the only thing making them not as bad as nazis is that they didn't kill millions of people. But a…
/r/MensRights25/11/15 10:49 PM
1

Stop repeating yourself. You think right wing is about being selfish because either you percieved it that way, or you heard it that way, but that doesn't make it true. It's surprising how hard it is to define right/left wing. But look at it this way: If egoism was a defining property of right-wing, then there would be no corrupt left-wing politicians. But there are, and there are just as many as on the right side. Also business people are the ones that profit the most from immigration, because t…
/r/MensRights25/11/15 08:08 PM
6

It's like jews joining the Nazi party. Except that some jews actually became honorary aryan, while all men are treated as shit in feminism. The term feminazi really fits the movement well.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 12:15 PM
1

That's not really a definition of left and right, that seems more like left wing propaganda, because it paints left as good and right as selfish. Also your definition would make nationalists left wing, since they look for the benefit of the country (= some kind of society), which is not the benefit of individual people. Wikipedia says that right-wing politics: are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, n…
/r/MensRights25/11/15 11:55 AM
3

No true scotsman fallacy
/r/MensRights25/11/15 12:14 AM
1

If you live close to a shopping center, 30 minutes is doable. 10 minutes walk (5 mins in each direction) and 20 minutes actual shopping. Why not? If you know where the stuff is located, 20 minutes in no problem. Also you don't need to thing or decide things, since that is already done in the planning part. I did however not count cleaning, so that's one missing thing. Also I am just very slow in ironing, but that's just me. I take like 5 minutes for a simple t-shirt.
/r/MensRights25/11/15 12:07 AM
1

I thought that you would answer like that, that's why I wrote the comment. Now you wrote twice that my logic is flawed, but it really isn't. When a local population of a country grows too much, it leads to massive problems. Food shortage is one of them, increasing crime rate another one. If the population of that example-country doesn't emigrate, the country has to do something way faster, then when emmigration decreases the amount of people living there. That's why migration is making overpopul…
/r/MensRights25/11/15 12:03 AM
1

If that's true then you are also against migration? Because without migration, overpopulation would not be a global problem, but a very local one. The sources of overpopulation can only continue producing humans, because emmigration helps them.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 11:08 PM
8

That's one reason why mandatory paternity tests would be nice. Everybody has the right to know their biological parents.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 10:49 PM
7

That is messed up. I hope you told your mother at some point what you think of it.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 10:40 PM
9

which implies that a loving father is less capable than a woman that kills her children, because that is one instance of a woman that doesn't even want the child. It's really sad that often even abusive mothers are preferred before the father.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 10:36 PM
0

That's true, but even if it took longer, it wouldn't take more than three hours a day if planned correctly. The problem is that almost no one plans it. Planning is basically just deciding on what to cook and make a list for shopping. 30 minutes is too much for that. Groceries in 30 minutes is doable. Cooking might take longer, but as I wrote, it depends. You can cook for four hours every day, if you want make fancy stuff, but you can also cook in 30 minutes. Ironing takes an awful lot of time th…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 09:57 PM
6

He starts by recommending that fathers make a personal pact with themselves to never strike or hit their daughters. Good advice. It also applies to boys. No shit. Then why should we need a pact to not hit children? Just another example of how men are seen as inherently violent.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 09:11 PM
3

It's intersting how sexism, racism and companions are always in the media, yet most people (especially feminists) don't seem to know what that really is.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 09:04 PM
9

Great interview. It shows that people are starting to realize how messed up the world is.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 08:51 PM
3

That seems correct to me. Women are not the problem, because there are women who are not buying that irrational crap, and there are men who do. But that's actually not too contradictory to OPs post, since mostly soft degrees are D/M infested. But you are right, not all are D/M, e.g. languages are not. We also teach D/M crap in grade school, instead of relying on hard sciences. I honestly believe we should teach formal logic, even before we teach math with numbers. It's not too hard of a topic, b…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 08:40 PM
3

That is not relevant. Working longer hours is not what we should strive for, we should want to do the same work in less hours. Let's be honest here. All house wifes I've ever seen are extremely inefficient. If they just planned their shit, they'd have less than two hours of work a day. Groceries: once a week, takes 30 minutes (approx 5 minutes a day) Planning: once a week, takes 30 minutes (approx 5 minutes a day) Cooking: daily, takes maybe an hour (but depends), but is mostly waiting, can do o…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 08:24 PM
11

feminst logic. Feminist: "I want you to do half of my work!" Her Husband: "Okay" - does half of it Feminist: "I want you to do half of my work!" Her Husband: "Okay" - does now 3/4 ... That would be a nice example to teach feminists infinite sums.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 08:09 PM
2

The world is like monopoly, except that female players get a free out-of-jail card every second round and if she happens to be on the same panel as a male player, she gets half of his money.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 07:46 PM
0

Not appropriate, but also no reason to suspend him. Unless they told him that it's not wanted and gave him a clear warning that it would have consequences the next time.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 07:42 PM
2

This is truly intersting. Also this is not nsfw at all.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 02:37 PM
2

In both cases a group is seen as inferior for stupid reasons. In one case this stupid reason is that the other opinion is seen as dumb without even looking at their arguments, in the other case the stupid reason is just some other factor. Neither leftist nor rightists are neccessarily supremacists, but both can be and they have been throughout history. The big difference is that one of them is condemned, while the other is accepted. I think both should be condemned.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 02:04 PM
2

Nope, not in this case. There is no such thing as a "correct opinion" opinion in politics, and even if there was such a thing, there would be different correct opinions. Thinking that you are morally superior/politically superior, because you are confident that your opinion is "correct" is still supremacy. It would only be legitimate if you thought about the topic from every viewpoint, and I'm sorry, but lefties rarely see things from more than their own viewpoint.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 11:42 AM
2

How exactly does gender supremacy fall under the entitlement theory of justice? I just read a little about it, but it doesn't seem to have much connection on first sight. Sorry if the question is dumb.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 11:32 AM
1

But that doesn't make it more relevant. 16 years are a lot of time. But maybe somebody should read the whole thing first, before we discuss too much with too little infomation.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 02:31 AM
1

Still needs female egg cell.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 02:23 AM
1

So you are against toilets that only allow one gender (segregation by gender)? So you are against roller coasters that you can only ride when you have a certain size (segregation by size)? So you are against doorlocks (segregation by ownership)? So you are against chosing your partner by your preferences (segregation by lots of features)? Segregation is a much broader concept than you think and it is absolutely neccessary in some cases. If you think it is wrong, think about a complete definition…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 02:14 AM
1

Is it also allowed to have less equipment for one gender, but also having lower fees for this gender?
/r/MensRights24/11/15 02:06 AM
1

Women often train very different from men, using different devices. A division on this criteria makes much more sense than a division by gender. The mood that is created when people are lifting weights is very different from when people are doing other kinds of training. That means that both at the same place might not be the best idea. But I don't really have a problem with womens only spaces, as long as the same right is granted to men. The definition of equality only allows that either both g…
/r/MensRights24/11/15 02:03 AM
1

Mens only spaces should just have a punch power meter that only allows you if your punch power is above average for men. That won't exclude women, but it will make it hard for them to get in.
/r/MensRights24/11/15 01:48 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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