TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

MakhSC Archive

View 1 post and 618 comments by MakhSC on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

A much more thorough answer, thank you. It's not ok, but consistent with how internet people behave to everyone.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 06:18 PM
-1

I'll say that most of those tweets are definitely uncalled for, immature and shockingly cruel. Thank you for the thorough and nuanced opinion, but a clear position in the end.
/r/MensRights28/01/15 06:02 PM
-13

You've highlight one tweet that could be characterized as funny - but there are countless more that are harder to defend. So is it your position that is she's a complete lunatic, and this "harassment" is acceptable?
/r/MensRights28/01/15 05:59 PM
-1

That's a lot of tweets - you believe that all (or even half) of those accounts were directly or indirectly created by Sarkeesian to harass herself?
/r/MensRights28/01/15 05:40 PM
-8

So you're under the "She deserves it" column?
/r/MensRights28/01/15 05:30 PM
-1

I have no particular agenda - and am genuinely curious how people here feel about this. I know Sarkeesian is far from popular on this subreddit, and I know a lot of people honestly believe that she manufactures some of the threats she receives. Do you believe this is manufactured, or real? If real, do you think she deserves this, is it completely unacceptable, or somewhere between?
/r/MensRights28/01/15 04:57 PM
-63

I know most male gamers have a (what I believe to be) an irrational hatred of Sarkeesian. I actually agree with most of her critiques wholeheartedly while still enjoying the same games which are the subject of her critiques. Even if you do disagree with what she says - can you really call it sexism? Is it sexist to claim that video games are sexist against women - even if the claim is erroneous?
/r/MensRights08/01/15 10:45 PM
2

This is why I am an opponent of "teach men not to rape" initiatives. The vast majority of men do not engage in this sort of conduct, and do not need to be told something they already believe. I live in Edmonton, so I was the target audience of the "Don't be that guy" campaign. I found the phrase "Just because she's drunk doesn't mean you can help yourself" insulting. It implied that I view drunk girls in the same way I view an all you can eat buffet - like I am some kind of slavering rape machin…
/r/MensRights30/12/14 10:52 PM
2

The words "rape", "raping", and "child" do not appear in the linked story. Your title is incredibly misleading.
/r/MensRights29/12/14 09:11 PM
1

Depends on the jurisdiction. Where I'm from unless you're the proven bio-dad, you're not going to have "ex-girlfriends" coming out of the woodwork. Unless you're married, or living together for over a year, there is no presumption of parentage.
/r/MensRights29/12/14 09:06 PM
2

In my Province (alberta, Canada), you can only be required to pay child support if you are the parent of a child. You're only a parent if you're (a) the biological father, (b) married to or cohabitating with the mother for 12 months prior to the birth or (c) you sign the birth certificate. So if he doesn't sign the Birth Certificate, she needs a paternity test to prove he is the bio-dad. Otherwise, no child support. I know this runs contrary to your ideology, but them's the rules.
/r/MensRights29/12/14 09:04 PM
23

You're asking the criminal justice to help with a civil problem. The police can't evict people from a house if they own it, or are staying with the owners' permission. Get a lawyer, and discuss the civil law options available to you (which vary wildly depending on your jurisdiction). This is an issue between you and your co-owner (she's not a room-mate if you're both owners). She's bringing people in who are threatening you and your property. They need to leave, or you need to be allowed to take…
/r/MensRights29/12/14 08:31 PM
6

They are referring to the "Dastardly" Achievement in which you have to hog tie a woman, drag her to a railway track, and let her get run over.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 09:31 PM
2

What? Because the achievement doesn't specify that the woman has to be a sex worker? Any woman will do? I fail to see the lies.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 08:45 PM
5

Thank you - arguing like an ass will cause people to call you an ass. If you want to be taken seriously, then don't engage in absurd hyperbole and sweeping generalizations. Also, never use the phrase "in before", or worse "inb4". It is a cheap and flippant way to deflect a counterargument. It indicates a complete unwillingness on your part to listen to a counter argument, and demeans anyone who might hold the view you are disparaging.
/r/MensRights23/12/14 05:09 PM
4

Men's productivity loses 1.5% due to sick days, and women lose 2.5%? The difference is marginal, and doesn't even come close to accounting for the 77/100 discrepancy. This "argument" is grasping at straws when there are far better things to reach for: hours worked, hazards, overtime, work experience, working conditions, etc.
/r/MensRights22/12/14 04:25 PM
4

Most women's shelters are charities. Charities are donor funded, and allowed to focus on whatever causes they want provided it is for a public benefit. You're right that her comment "Men can't get abused, they are the abusers" is sexist, and ignorant of the reality that many men are victimized without recourse. But you were wrong to have "lost it". You called her sexist, and claimed a double standard with no evidence to back up your position. Men as victims is a relatively unknown social issue. …
/r/MensRights17/12/14 09:56 PM
5

<-- /r/mensrants Also - "bitch problems", so it's probably satirical. Go find something worthy to get mad about.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 09:37 PM
1

"University students get expelled for voting which female classmates they'd like to drug and hate fuck." According to the CBC, some of the students voted on the female students they would like to have “hate” sex with and also talked about using chloroform to incapacitate the women. Dr. Florizone said specific female students were named on the Facebook page. source
/r/MensRights17/12/14 09:35 PM
7

Now make the same joke, and substitute "you" with "one of your female co-workers". That's more in line with what these students did. They weren't making jokes, they were voting on which classmate they'd prefer to drug and hate fuck.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 09:33 PM
5

"The social media group was called the Class of DDS 2015 Gentlemen. According to the CBC, some of the students voted on the female students they would like to have “hate” sex with and also talked about using chloroform to incapacitate the women. Dr. Florizone said specific female students were named on the Facebook page. " source Voting on which classmate to rape is not "disliking" someone, and it's not even remotely appropriate.
/r/MensRights17/12/14 09:30 PM
5

The radio has been saying that many of the blatantly misogynist comments were directed at female classmates. I'm not so sure you claim these students "did nothing wrong".
/r/MensRights17/12/14 06:59 PM
2

Whatever a small group of women choose to do with their armpits is their own business. And it has nothing to do with Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 08:24 PM
3

<-- /r/mensrants
/r/MensRights15/12/14 06:01 PM
1

And hitting would solve that problem?
/r/MensRights13/12/14 12:09 AM
2

"Some people hurt my feelings with words, and I should be allowed to punch them" Violence is wrong. No hitting. Emotional Abuse is wrong. Don't a bully. Notice how those two can be mutually exclusive? The solution to one isn't the other.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 09:52 PM
1

<-- /r/mensrants
/r/MensRights12/12/14 09:21 PM
2

Thank you - this is what I was trying to convey.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 07:41 PM
10

Making lists is fun - but meaningless unless you're willing to provide some more objective criteria. I think North Korea and Somalia should be high on that list though, because they have sh%# rights and half the population is male.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 05:55 PM
1

Of all the things in your story, the fact that you were criticized for owning up to something is the worst. What you did wasn't that bad at all. Frankly, it was pretty harmless. But it bothered you. It's clearly bad by your own standards, and I admire you admitting that you disappointed yourself. Best of luck to you.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 04:53 PM
1

The reality is that in a great number of places women are horribly oppressed. The situation is Syria is pretty awful, and Canada has been remiss in a lot of respects. Taking 10,000 Syrians into the country would be 1 refugee per 4,000 Canadians. Using your basement example, you would need to put a refugee up for a night once every 11 years! The only reason I came after you is because you tried to make this about feminism. I agree, this sounds like a pretty "leftist" agenda being forced on high s…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 04:51 PM
1

That chart is bizarre. All I see if more young men in school, fewer old retired men, and more disabled men. Family and childcare have increased dramatically in 4 years, but they are still not even a blip on that chart.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:56 PM
3

This is a bit of a stupid question, since most redditors live in the States, but I'd think there's some sort of a legal protection for cases like these. I think I'd ask this community. Taking legal action doesn't calm matters down, it inflames then. Doing that, or even threatening to do that would only make matters worse. I end up talking to a girl, who was a week shy of turning 18. At some point the conversation turns sexual or I make some innuendos (I'm 24 btw) A 24 year old interested in an 1…
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:54 PM
35

Well, Mary is "slurring her speech" and is "off-balance when she walks". John is merely "tipsy". But you're right, they use the word "too" which implies similar levels of inebriation.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:42 PM
2

What does this have to do with Men's Rights? Also, nothing in your story has to do with feminism, yet you highlight that the people that run your class are "feminists". I'm all for keeping politics out of schools, but this is not the correct venue for your rant.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:40 PM
147

In the fact pattern, she was incapacitated but he was merely tipsy. They said that to make it a clear cut example. But you're right, if John and Mary are both blitzed out of their minds then technically both should be guilty of "potential policy violations".
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:35 PM
1

You didn't even read what I wrote, instead your merely re-stated your incorrect argument.
/r/MensRights12/12/14 03:27 PM
-2

No, the notion that police often will not or can not help is not fabrication.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 08:57 PM
-1

I've heard MRAs say a lot of those things.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 06:18 PM
4

No. Actually, sexual assault is a very precisely defined term (that varies somewhat depending on your jurisdiction). I will use Canada as an example. For us, Sexual Assault is (1) an application of force (any touching or contact), (2) of a sexual nature, (3) without the consent of the recipient of that contact. Your claim that sexual assault is "anything the woman says it is" is incorrect. Asking a woman on a date is not sexual assault, because there is no physical contact. Accidentally collidin…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 06:16 PM
11

That's not really a fabrication by feminism. The reality is that Sexual Assault is incredibly difficult to prosecute.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 06:08 PM
24

And here is the report, for those interested.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 05:29 PM
-1

Again, the photo may as well be a stock image. It is in no way connected to the text. This kind of puff garbage is endemic on facebook - "share this if you love your children!". This particular one is speaks to the emotions of women. You are free to agree or disagree with it, but it really has nothing to do with men's rights. Also - and not to quibble - but because the three images are separate pictures, we have no way of knowing that the photograph was even connected to the text with so many li…
/r/MensRights11/12/14 03:47 PM
-3

I don't fault her for disabling comments. Do you honestly believe a constructive discussion would take place if she permitted them?
/r/MensRights11/12/14 03:14 PM
1

The line: "Say what's in this drink" does sound like a Rohypnol reference, but you are absolutely correct that it is an anachronism in a 1940s song. The phrase "what's in this drink" refers to the amount of alcohol in the drink. Anita is right to point out the he is lowering her inhibition, but drugging her is a stretch. (Then again - alcohol is far and away the most effective and most widespread date rape drug)
/r/MensRights11/12/14 03:13 PM
4

<-- /r/mensrants.
/r/MensRights11/12/14 03:07 PM
-1

The word feminism isn't used in that excerpt at all. It's a Christian post, not a feminist post. Also, the photograph is of a woman crying. The person portrayed isn't relevant to the textual content. Just because people can't recognize her, doesn't mean they can't agree with the text. This has nothing to do with feminism, and nothing to do with men's rights. You're just trying to point at this and say "LOL, look how stupid these women are."
/r/MensRights11/12/14 03:05 PM
2

If she was treated preferentially by the justice system, then you are free to make an argument for how it is a men's rights issue. Simply posting specific instance of bad behavior of a lone woman is representative of nothing. Pointing to an individual and claiming they are representative of a whole is the essence of bigotry - something MRAs are supposed to be against.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 06:48 PM
2

Whether this woman in question is a psychopath or sociopath is of no relevance to men or gender issues. She's an individual woman who behaved badly.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 06:31 PM
1

Call them women. When you say "females" it sounds like you are referring to a different species.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 06:28 PM
1

I'd much rather have the veil extended to the accused. We shouldn't be making it harder for victims to come forward - we should just be mindful that innocent parties not be harmed in the process.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 06:25 PM
-1

This is why people hate MRAs.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 06:21 PM
0

Because a person's photograph is determinative of the merit of their arguments and opinions.
/r/MensRights10/12/14 06:21 PM
3

That's actually a pretty wretched article. It's fox-news quality conservative ethics without much (and I am being generous here) in terms of analysis. Hillary Clinton I don’t know if most modern feminists have noticed, but right now, >there is a pretty dreadful person being bandied about as a potential 2016 presidential candidate just because she’s a woman. I don’t think we’re as oppressed as you think we are. You can be critical of Hillary Clinton if you want, but you don't get to call her a "d…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 09:46 PM
2

You should be consulting with a lawyer, not the internet.
/r/MensRights09/12/14 09:28 PM
0

It's the MRA equivalent of "check your privilege".
/r/MensRights09/12/14 09:25 PM
-1

Yeah, I've seen "New" posts disappear that certainly warranted it. But the bar is set quite high when it comes to criticism of women for its own sake (i.e. misogyny).
/r/MensRights09/12/14 09:24 PM
0

I'm with you. I gave up on this subreddit and the movement as a whole a long time ago because hateful extremists move around unchecked, and moderates are labelled "concern trolls". While I am fully in agreement with the majority of issues discussed here, I simply will not associate myself with a movement so devoid of introspection. The MRM suffers from an ever bigger victim complex than feminism, in my opinion. It's great that the mods are trying to put a stop to "concern troll". It's the MRA eq…
/r/MensRights09/12/14 09:23 PM
2

Corruption from the police - ok, I'll agree. But it looks like the rest of the justice system worked exactly as intended. Hell, the prosecutor actually insisted on continuing with the trial instead of granting a stay of the proceed because the accused deserved a full acquittal. As for the accuser not being charged with perjury - I think that is a discussion worth having. I certainly agree with feminists that "threatening" would-be accusers with perjury if the accused is acquitted would be bad. I…
/r/MensRights21/11/14 11:23 PM
1

Given that the accuser recanted in her testimony, the prosecutor insisted on proceeding because the accused deserved a "full acquittal", and all of this is on the public record, I'm going to call bullshit on this one. Show me a feminist making that claim, and I'll be happy to join in on your righteous condemnation. Otherwise you're just making a strawman argument, and you should be better than that.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 11:19 PM
0

holocaustal "justice" system Oh come on.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 11:10 PM
2

"Prosecutors said Vela’s status as the primary caregiver for six children figured into her sentence, and the state’s inability to find Dail at the time of sentencing." It's an outcome not many people can get behind. Personally, I don't think someone's familial obligations should be a factor in sentencing, and it is troubling how often this is cited as a factor for sentencing. As for the second issue, we'd need to know the full story. If they need Dail to testify at the sentencing hearing and he …
/r/MensRights21/11/14 11:07 PM
1

Why would you marry someone if you can't make joint decisions about money/working?
/r/MensRights21/11/14 11:00 PM
1

Which he can pay by selling/transfering them to her.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:59 PM
1

It's not contentious. You just hear the interpretations of bitter people telling their biased side of the story. Mom usually gets the house because she also gets the kids. Dad gets to keep his investments and pension. The property gets divided 50/50. The other problem is that men tend to lump in support obligations along with property division. Sure, she may get 50% of the stuff, but she also gets child support (which she spends on child costs, so that's a wash) and spousal support/alimony (but …
/r/MensRights21/11/14 10:58 PM
0

In this case the "fair" arrangement seems to have favored the male. If the guy is making money in investments, what is she doing in the meantime? Is she also working in investments? Is she working at home? Is she raising kids. You are assuming that she is doing nothing - which is rarely the case. Just because he spends his time in the marriage doing things that get him money doesn't mean she should get nothing. Marriages are partnerships. If you don't want to enter into a partnership, don't get …
/r/MensRights15/11/14 07:32 AM
0

Yes. She gets $500. The asset appreciated, and you share in the increase. That's the law. Yes. She gets half of the savings. If she had worked and saved instead, then you would be getting half. That's how it works. Yes, couples share in both profit and loss. If half of the "matrimonial assets" increased by $10,000, and the other half depreciates by $5,000, then there is a net gain of $5,000. The $5,000 would be split between the couples. Courts don't divide "fun". If you earn money while she pur…
/r/MensRights15/11/14 07:30 AM
0

Her $1 billion award was inclusive of the property, I believe. Also, there is no need to sell the shares. They can simply transfer some of them to her.
/r/MensRights15/11/14 07:18 AM
6

Most people here would be surprised by how often Family Law is "pretty fair". Usually we only hear one person's side of things. In this case, I certainly agree that $1 billion seems outrageous, but with people who are that sophisticated (she was a VP in the railway company, not a lightweight by any means) they could have easily entered into a strong pre or post-nup. They chose not to, so they get the default rules applied to them.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 03:55 PM
56

It's division of matrimonial property, not alimony. When couples divorce they divide the property acquired by them during the marriage. For property that was owned by one party prior to the marriage, you only divide the increase in value over the course of the marriage. In this case, Mr.'s shares in his railway company appreciated by $18 billion during their 28 year marriage. A 50/50 division of property would have landed her $9 billion, so the courts actually agreed with OP. A 50/50 division wo…
/r/MensRights14/11/14 03:46 PM
1

I can only speak for my jurisdiction, but yes, she would. If she "stands in the place of a parent" for a sufficient time, then she is deemed to be a parent for child support purposes.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 06:15 PM
1

In Canada, Child Support is only payable if you are a "Parent" of the child. You can be a parent either by being the biological parent, or by "standing in the place of a parent" (for example, marrying a single mom and raising the child as your own for 10 years). In the first instance, Bob is presumed to be a parent because he is married to the birth mother of the child. As a parent, he pays support. However, if he can prove that he is not the biological father of the child, then the presumption …
/r/MensRights12/11/14 09:50 PM
3

In my jurisdiction (Alberta, Canada), Bob would not be the father of the child, because it is not his biological child. He would be presumed to be the father because he was married to Jane at the birth of the child, but that presumption could be rebutted by evidence (paternity test). In the second instance Alice is the birth mother, and Bob is the father. Jane is a stranger to this relationship, and this child, and would have no obligation to pay support. See ss. 7 & 8 of the Family Law Act for …
/r/MensRights12/11/14 06:40 PM
0

Good for you? I'm a practicing lawyer, with far more education than you and I obtained comparable grades in my undergrad. But education does not in and of itself make someone right or wrong, so why bring it up? Again, you are comparing two independent sets of data and trying to draw conclusions from it. 3% of accusations are false. 3% of rapes (some of which result in accusations, some do not) result in conviction. The fact that these numbers are the same is mere coincidence (and frankly, most n…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 11:37 PM
0

That's irrelevant to OPs argument. He's suggesting that because the percentage of proven false accusations from a subset of accusations are the same as the percentage of convictions from a subset of actual rapes, then false accusations are just as common as actual rapes. He uses all sorts of symbolic logic to "prove" this point, but it's completely wrong at the outset.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 11:14 PM
1

You're entirely right though. When a bunch of girls got kidnapped, we went crazy because they were all girls. Here, it's all boys, and the gendered nature of violence seems to be irrelevant all of a sudden. I think the difference in coverage really betrays the casual indifference to male death and suffering, as though being killed is normal, routine, or expected.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:58 PM
1

Look it up on your government's websites. Whatever the UKs department of Justice is called will certainly keep crime stats, and will certainly publish them. Sure, someone here can provide you with the answer, but wouldn't you rather be in a position to say "I looked it up, and according to our own government, here are the numbers" as opposed to "reddit says..."
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:47 PM
0

That's a "poisoning the well" argument. It's a logical fallacy. You're implying that (1) because she's a feminist, (2) she did something bad. (3) Therefore all feminists are bed. Don't stoop to that level. Sniping is what AMR does. Be better than that.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:26 PM
9

Believe it or not, people do studies exactly like that in social sciences. If you happen to be in school, you could probably do a self-directed research course and look at the gendered language used in popular media relating to Boko Haram stories. Just pick 4-6 major newspapers (you already picked 3), be rigorous in finding all of the articles in 2 year period, and then count incidences of certain phrases or words. I literally did this for several research papers as a research assistant in my un…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:23 PM
2

And she's probably going to get charged for it. Celebrating an instance of a woman doing something bad does not help your cause.
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:19 PM
2

Thank you - it's incredibly disingenuous to claim that we shouldn't believe these women because they didn't report to police when no men report sexual assaults either. This is one of those incredibly poor pieces by AVFM that earns them their poor reputation among mainstream people. It's stands in sharp contrast to articles like this that raise poignant issues without being deliberately offensive under the guise of "raising awareness"
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:16 PM
3

This is horrifically flawed logic. Let's say, for example, that of 100 alleged rapes: 3 are false and 97 are genuine. Let's then say that of those 97 genuine accusations, only 3 result in a prison sentence. If this were the case, it would be accurate to state that "3% of accusations are false, and 3% result in jail time". The error in this blog post (sorry: "essays". Plural, for some reason) is in suggesting that the 1:1 ratio between proven false accusations and prove genuine accusations must r…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 08:57 PM
-2

Interesting that you called her a "feminist prop machine" when no where in the video was the word "feminism" ever used.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 08:35 PM
2

Respect should be a default, not a privilege. /thread.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 08:31 PM
2

It should absolutely go both ways. I couldn't agree more.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 07:35 PM
4

Yeah, I don't understand why anyone here is opposed to this video. It's pretty damning evidence that catcalling is a problem. I'd like it if MRAs could just acknowledge that "yes, that is bad", and move on. However, because this video feels "feministy", MRAs need to oppose it on principle. Why don't we all agree that men shouldn't harass random women in the street, and then move on to issues that matter?
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:54 PM
-5

If that's what Gamergate is about, then why are people talking about it this subforum? If it is truly about ethics in journalism, why does gender keep getting figured into it? Why are people even mentioning Quinn, Wu, or Sarkeesian? Why are people threatening them? Why aren't they doxxing journalists?
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:50 PM
6

Street vendors hassling you is harassment - even if their first overture is "hello". Saying "Hi" to a woman is not necessarily harassment, but if it is done in bad faith, then it certainly is.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:34 PM
-2

How are Men's Rights impacted by Anita Sarkeesian appearing on the Colbert Report?
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:32 PM
3

You know why so many people hate MRAs? It's because of people like you.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:19 PM
-6

Thank you - the whole premise of gamergate is flawed. She allegedly slept with these men for favorable coverage, and yet no such coverage was generated.
/r/MensRights30/10/14 04:17 PM
2

It's a troll - move on and ignore it, guys.
/r/MensRights28/10/14 09:11 PM
5

Most of the article is her saying exactly that. She just trying to highlight the hypocrisy of saying "don't condemn Jian based on unsubstantiated allegations" while also saying "this woman is clearly lying".
/r/MensRights27/10/14 04:00 PM
6

That's what Ghomeshi said - not the CBC.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 03:45 PM
2

And the next morning an article comes out citing 4 separate women all making similar claims. I think we should be praising the CBC for refusing to comment on the content of the "information" which gave rise to his dismissal. They refused to smear his reputation, even when confronted with some pretty damning evidence.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 03:44 PM
3

Thank you - making snap judgments about a person's guilt or innocence is something this movement is supposed to be firmly against. Signing a petition proclaiming this man's innocence is the epitome of a snap judgment. If you believe questions about sexual conduct are best left the courts, then leave this matter to the courts.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 03:43 PM
5

Grow up. If the guy is innocent, he doesn't deserve this. If he's guilty he is. His politics are irrelevant. Do you believe in equality or not?
/r/MensRights27/10/14 03:40 PM
9

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they are all from the same woman. Meanwhile, we have a published newspaper claiming to have received 4 independent complainants. I agree that no one should be rushing to judgment, but there is undoubtedly more evidence in favour of guilt than "false accusation" at the moment.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 03:18 PM
6

This is the correct approach. Avoiding presumptions goes both ways - you can't condemn this guy based on unsubstantiated accusations, and you can't assume the accusations are false either.
/r/MensRights27/10/14 01:40 PM
6

I actually practice law in Alberta - and agree with everything you said. I just didn't want to bog down a reddit thread with the specifics. Thanks for keeping me honest, though!
/r/MensRights20/10/14 09:41 PM
1

To be fair, this article only mentions one instance of a false accusation. All it proves is that false accusations "happen". It says nothing about "often".
/r/MensRights20/10/14 07:23 PM
0

The problem with 50/50 custody is that there typically will not be any child support payments. That's bad for the State and the courts, since they take a slice of that pie. Not true at all. Most states - and all of Canada - divide child support in proportion to the parties' respecting income. Basically, each party would pay child support to the other based on their guideline incomes divided by 50%. The lesser payor would pay nothing, and instead have their amount credited against the other's pay…
/r/MensRights20/10/14 07:20 PM
0

While allegations of concocted rape threats are all the rage right now, there's no need to unearth a story that's over a year old.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 09:36 PM
1

Did she do these horrible things because she's insane, or because she's a woman? I appreciate that some people believe that women are better nurturers than men, but highlighting a single instance of abuse by a woman isn't a men's right issue. It's just a tragedy committed by a disturbed person.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 09:34 PM
1

This blog post pulls one single reddit comment from a single person and cites it as "proof" that "the anti-#GamerGate rubbish about how gamers are all misogynists trying to force women out of gaming is a complete and total lie." One instance of something in no way proves a trend. It's a data point, not a line.
/r/MensRights17/10/14 09:31 PM
-2

The article I linked states that the Policy specifically confirmed that they were contacted her by, and forwarded the complaint to the FBI.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 10:43 PM
-1

You're still doing. I'm familiar with the story, and I don't believe she is lying at all. Convince me.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 05:47 PM
1

Believe it or not, you are describing the legal test with a lot of accuracy. In Canada, this defense is only available where there is a reasonable belief in death or grievious bodily harm, and that killing the batterer is the only reasonable option.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:29 PM
-3

You're doing it again. You claim she's lying without providing any specific examples, nor providing evidence of how those specific examples are untrue.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:27 PM
1

BWS is a form of self defense. It expands the traditional defense for rare situations. And she doesn't get to use it "because her yelled at her". (In Canada) There has to be both a reasonable apprehension on the part of the accused of death or serious bodily harm, and a reasonable belief that killing the battered is the only option. The leading case summary contains this: "Expert testimony relating to the ability of an accused to perceive danger from her partner may go to the issue of whether sh…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:26 PM
2

While I agree that getting a restraining order is fairly simple to obtain - a restraining order only helps if the cops get there in time. In those few rares cases where the "battered wife syndrome" is applicable, the abuse is serious enough that calling the police can't help.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:09 PM
1

Don't call someone a liar without showing how they are lying.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:06 PM
-5

I think it's bang on. gamergate is fine so long as it is limited to the issues with gaming journalism - namely that conflicts of interests abound between journalists and developers. The dark side of #gamergate is the anti-women vitriol associate with it. The whole thing started because a jealous ex-boyfriend publicly alleges that his ex slept with a gaming journalist. Normally, this kind of public airing of dirty laundry would ignored because it's nobody's business. For some reason, gamers decid…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 04:00 PM
-3

You must have missed the part where Anita's claims of reporting threats to the police were vindicated by the San Francisco Police and the FBI.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 03:47 PM
-2

First of all, you have no evidence whatsoever that she concocted this threat herself. Second, are you suggesting that she has been the architect of and has personally manufactured all of the hate and abuse directed at her? From my perspective, given that she has received countless threats and harassment in the past. It seems logical that this is more of the same - and not a "Reichstag Fire".
/r/MensRights16/10/14 03:44 PM
-3

What does that even mean? Speak up against her for what? She's doing exactly what film critics do to video games. No one threatens to kill film critics. No one makes apps where you can beat up the face of a film critic in effigy. MRAs are certainly open about their dislike of Sarkessian, but they are incapable of providing cogent reasons for that hatred. And because they can't provide good reasons, people are going to assume its misogyny.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 03:32 PM
5

Stop posting on this forum, and go talk to a non-profit that specializes in this area. You don't get any say in whether there's an abortion, and you don't get to force her to put the child up for adoption. If she keeps the child, you both will be financially responsible for the child. If you have reason to believe you are no the father, then it is possible you will not be financially responsible, but you need to speak with a lawyer to make sure it is done right. In some places, signing the birth…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:44 PM
-2

This thread is a complete circle jerk. Yes, it's a gendered insult. So is shitlord. We get it.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:40 PM
-4

You have no evidence whatsoever that this is a "false flag". I've seen ample comments in this subreddit alone directed towards Sarkessian that are not inconsistent with the hate displayed in this letter. This subreddit cannot leave any Sarkeesian issue alone. This subreddit is absolutely obsessed with her. For some reason that I simply cannot understand - MRAs hate her. It isn't fair to claim that MRAs can't be associated with threats like this - because hatred of Sarkeesian is constantly encour…
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:35 PM
-4

What "facts" does she get wrong, exactly? Most of her facts consist of "look, here's some content from a game". It's her analysis you disagree with. And, to be fair, the linked article is referring to the threat. The letter contains plenty of gender-specific language. Her being a woman is central to why she was targeted by this person. So it is appropriate to claim she is being threatened in a large part because she is a woman.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:29 PM
2

Being crazy doesn't negate the possibility of usual correct grammar and punctuation.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:24 PM
3

Elliot Roger published a manifesto before his shooting spree.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:20 PM
9

This link is already a stickied post.
/r/MensRights16/10/14 02:08 PM
5

What? A Textual analysis of the writing? That's not evidence in the slightest. Unless you are some kind of professional criminologist that specializes in written death threats, your opinion has no more weight than anyone else's.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 05:35 PM
3

In Canada, we call Alimony "spousal support". The law is completely gender neutral, and quantum/entitlement is a function of how much each person earns, their financial needs, and sacrifices they made during the marriage that harm their earning potential. In practice, men are rarely entitled to spousal support, because men are typically the primary earner, or were a secondary earner who didn't hurt their earning potential by taking time off.
/r/MensRights10/10/14 02:38 PM
3

There are people who legitimately believe in the "Great Zionist Conspiracy". All you can do is pity them, and tell them to leave.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 06:59 PM
14

Take your racist bigotry elsewhere.
/r/MensRights09/10/14 06:10 PM
1

Agreed - Insulting someone and calling them stupid without explaining why they're wrong doesn't make you look smarter than them. You got banned for being an ass, not for calling someone out for being wrong.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 08:35 PM
1

Register the new order with CPS. Apply her arrears against your arrears.
/r/MensRights23/09/14 10:12 PM
1

Then you need to take a broader look at this subreddit.
/r/MensRights13/09/14 08:11 PM
1

Wait, wait, wait. So you're saying that in your Kindergarten, the Teacher would punish the first person to hit, and praise the one to defend himself? Even if the defender knocked the other unconscious in one hit?
/r/MensRights13/09/14 02:18 PM
1

Here's what happened: She was charged, and used the defense of Duress at Trial. She was acquitted, and the Crown appealed. The appeal was denied, and the acquittal stood. They appealed again to the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC held that neither Self-Defense nor Duress could be pleaded in her case. And overturned the acquittal. Where this gets weird is they granted a "stay of proceedings" instead of ordering a new trial. Their reasoning was that because she had been told that Duress was an av…
/r/MensRights13/09/14 02:16 PM
-1

In Kindergarten, we have a rule: No Hitting. And "because she hit me first" isn't a valid excuse. And helping her out after knocking her unconscious? He dragged her out of hte elevator? What are you? Deranged or Trolling?
/r/MensRights13/09/14 12:36 AM
1

Read it again. The battered woman defense failed in that case.
/r/MensRights13/09/14 12:28 AM
1

I disagree with you completely, but your point is thoughtful and well stated. Have an upvote.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 08:51 PM
1

The two words may not be the same, yet they are heavily similar and contain the same synonyms, a fact you failed to counter. I accused you of not understanding how these two words are different, and your defense was "they aren't different, they are the same". I gave you many examples and 7 citations of how they mean different things, and you counter with "but they're the same". There's a philosophical "thing" called "the Equity vs. Equality distinction". Me, and your 'stupid feminist teacher' ar…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 08:50 PM
2

See Intersectionality. It's a feminist concept that describes exactly what you're trying to say. You're not just a white man. You're a white man, with a mixed class upbringing, divorced parents, etc. We can't just slice out one piece of your identity and claim to have you completed figured out. You're right to be critical!
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:58 PM
2

Lots of them are, they're just under constant assault from the worst MRAs out there - just as MRAs are under constant assault from the worst feminists (SJWs). People get defensive when harassed.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:54 PM
1

Equality, simply put, is two things being treated the same Equity, on the other hand, is two things being treated fairly once their differences have been accounted for. Where equality is "sameness", equity is "justice". Take this picture, for instance. Three people with different heights are trying to see over a fence. The tallest can see over without help, but the short and shortest cannot. If we want to help them see over the fence, we can give them boxes to stand on. If we only give boxes to …
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:52 PM
1

It's always an uphill battle to deal with men's issues from a feminist perspective. It's because this generation has been brought up with a worldview that "women are oppressed". I actually agree that this is largely still true - but in no way does that mean that "men are the oppressors" and "men are never oppressed". I usually frame my arguments as "men have issues too", men's rights /feminism are "two sides of the same coin" and "gender politics isn't a zero sum game". I don't run into anywhere…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:03 PM
2

In Canada, you can't claim "battered woman" if the murder is carefully planned out. She has to have a reasonable belief that she is in imminent mortal danger. This man had nothing of the sort. He simply had enough, and murdered his past abuser.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 06:00 PM
1

Equity and Equality are not synonyms. This is why I tried to draw your attention to the difference. If you understand subtle difference, then you will see what she was trying to explain with her pencil analogy. And no, I haven't misread anything you wrote. I understand that your teacher went off topic, and that you debated on the off-topic issue. I merely pointed out that the reason she probably stopped taking your questions was because she was trying to go back on topic (even though she went of…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 05:58 PM
0

I hate to break it to you, but you've got a very superficial understanding of what she argues in her videos. You can bring up her fundraising, you can claim she made up some of the threats she received (but c'mon, someone made an App where you beat up a picture of her face - you're not going to win on that point), but if you want to 'win' a debate, you need to beat people on their own terms. I'd re-watch her videos and try to have a sympathetic mindset. Take her arguments seriously, and see if t…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 05:51 PM
21

Murder is a crime, regardless of provocation. If you think this young man deserves sympathy, I agree with you, and the Article you linked is certainly sympathetic. I think he is being treated as a victim - just as a victim who committed murder. If it's any consolation, a 15 year sentence is pretty lenient considering what he did is a pretty clear case of first degree murder. The prosecutors and judge were probably very sympathetic and allowed such a lenient sentence to be plead. Would it have be…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 05:30 PM
4

You are correct to note that gender issues are a two way street. Men have equality issues, and women also have (albeit probably more) equality issues. I identify as a feminist, but I think your critique is very fair. Too many self-described feminists are stuck in a mindset that tells them that women are oppressed in each and every imaginable issue (as opposed to simple "on average"). Any issue becomes a game of "spot the oppression", because there's a presumption that women's subjugation must ex…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 05:25 PM
2

You need to look up the distinction between Equity and Equality to understand her comment about the pencils. You also need to realize that your caricature of her position makes it impossible for anyone to honestly agree with you because you have made it impossible to see the other side of the story. As for her ignoring your raised hand - keep in mind that this is a medieval literature class and you're derailing it by quibbling over equality/equity. Those discussions belong in a philosophy class,…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 05:14 PM
16

Careful. This does not "prove" anything. As the author stated, it's very difficult to prove a negative. She could have called a different precinct, the officer may have failed to keep records of the call, the report could have been misfiled and they simply can't locate it. This definitely casts doubt on her story, and illustrates how little faith we can put in anything someone says on twitter.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 04:55 PM
4

100% agree. It's easy to point and laugh at something while encouraging others to do the same. But to take the time to actual break down what is wrong with it, and what it should be instead, that's what makes you better than the author OP is trying to mock. Edit: We haven't even criticized the title. "The stupid... it hurts"? C'mon! That is the laziest critique you could have come up with.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 04:09 PM
-1

Congratulations. You have successfully defeated feminism. This will be in the next issue of Time Magazine, no doubt.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 03:57 PM
11

...and she was apprehended by police and sentenced to life in prison. The justice system worked exactly as we would hope, and the article in questions make no attempt to defend or excuse her for what she did. This isn't a men's right's issue. It's a shameless "woman behaving badly" story that will only serve to propagate the stereotype that this subreddit hates women. If a woman receives too lenient a penalty because she's a woman - that's an MRA issue. If the media tries to excuse her conduct b…
/r/MensRights12/09/14 03:54 PM
-1

This is petty. Responding to an injustice with another injustice isn't helping anyone.
/r/MensRights11/09/14 02:58 PM
5

This is from 2006.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 07:37 PM
1

Mods get to decide what stays up, what goes down, and who gets banned. He's a mod doing what mods do. I won't say he's right, but I will say within his rights.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 07:28 PM
1

I don't think that men need to be held to a higher standard, but I do think that a physically stronger person does (and men just happen to be the usually stronger person). And my analogy didn't mean to bring mental capacity into the equation. It's meant to provide an extreme example of physical disparity to show that OPs fundamental argument is fundamentally flawed. If a woman is attacking a man with no real chance of causing any physical injury, then he is not justified in knocking her out with…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 07:27 PM
0

I have to disagree with quoting a work of fiction as an argument in your favor. Given the size difference, he was never in any real physical danger, so needing to "win this now" isn't even a relevant consideration.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 07:21 PM
-3

Ignore the mental capacity part of the example, and go with "size and strength" of a 5 year old. It's an extreme example to show the underlying flaw in OPs argument.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:30 PM
-7

We need to stop flogging this dead horse. Your argument does not take into account proportionality. Lets change your bodybuilder/weak man scenario and change the roles into a "5 year old" who starts hitting "a professional boxer". By your reasoning, the pro boxer is well within his rights to deliver a knock-out punch to the toddler (which would probably kill them, to be honest). Would we applaud the boxer for doing this? Would we excuse it? The reason that my boxer analogy sounds inappropriate i…
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:14 PM
3

Girl transfers to new school from out-of-state, and on her first day is criticized for wearing a skirt that doesn't go past her knees and forced to wear a giant over-sized yellow tee shirt that reads "DRESS CODE VIOLATION". On her first day. Humiliating students for breaching rules they don't know yet strikes me as being harassment. Maybe not 'sexual' harassment, but harassment nonetheless.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 05:06 PM
1

His subreddit. His rules.
/r/MensRights10/09/14 04:59 PM
2

You're missing the "proportionality" element of self-defense. Yes, someone spitting at you constitutes assault, but shooting them in retaliation is no "self defense". It's no different than in this case. Just because he was provoked, doesn't give him license to assault her. As I and others have said countless times on this issue (and your kindergarten teacher): Don't hit people. Hitting is wrong.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 04:30 PM
5

How is Pierce not the top rated comment? How can anyone think this is even remotely a good idea? If there was ever an indication that this subreddit is beyond redemption - this post is it.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 03:43 PM
3

Vipers are animals that cannot change or control their nature. Society is mutable (if you don't believe this, why do you call yourself a Men's Right's Activist). Questions of justice don't apply to nature. Nature simply is. This is not a natural phenomenon. It's an injustice, and we should be calling it as such.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 03:10 PM
2

Very nice victim blaming. By the same token, I suppose blacks should never go out at night because they should EXPECT to be racially profiled by cops and accidentally shot, right? After all, as rational human beings, they know that such 'accidents' happen, and shouldn't get upset if it does! The only relevant discussion here is whether these celebrities deserve what happened to them. And let's face it - none of them do. They have a reasonable expectation of privacy to images saved in private clo…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:28 PM
2

I do exactly this, and I run into few problems. I did get banned from /r/feminism, but otherwise no one seems to mind.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:52 PM
1

103,000 hits on google scholar for male homelessness. 896,000 hits on google scholar for male suicide And another 88,000 on male incarceration (and nevermind how many more there are that use other words) You're grasping at straws here. Gender-based research is nothing new, and there's nothing wrong with it. Feel free to take issue with funding disparities, if you like, but don't pretend that $3 million dollars to study obesity among lesbians is some affront to men everywhere.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 06:51 PM
1

Medical studies are often (usually) performed on specific populations to limit variables. Have you honestly never heard of a study focusing exclusively on men? Edit: "According to the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly three quarters of America’s lesbian population falls into one or other of these categories – compared with half of the heterosexual female population." So lesbians have a disproportionately high rate of obesity compared to heterosexual women. That merits study.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 05:56 PM
2

I saw what you were doing. Typing 10 messages <140 characters back to back with proper punctuation is hardly an accomplishment.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 02:23 PM
1

You think judges/juries wouldn't be able to tell their gender by their name, speaking voice, or context? I don't really see how that would provide any benefit beyond humiliating the women a little bit more.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 05:55 PM
0

Being 'anti-gamer-culture' is not the same as being 'anti-men'. Just as being 'anti-feminist' isn't being 'anti-women'.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:24 PM
-1

It doesn't matter the context (family, business, criminal), good recordkeeping is absolutely essential for courts. If she changes states, then inform your state that she has changed states. Show them the letter you got from the new state, and ask "who should I be paying?" You're acting like this problem is unsolvable. You have a child support order. It says how much gets paid. No one is going to disagree with you that paying twice is wrong.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 07:21 PM
2

I work at a law firm that primarily does family law. I've seen many examples of husbands getting child support reduced, arrears cancelled, and I've seen wives paying child/spousal support when the circumstances merited it. Many of the horror stories we hear are from men who have refused to provide income information for the purposes of calculating child support. The court then draws a "negative inference" of their actual income (eg. if his income is somewhere between 50K and 90K, they go with 90…
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:53 PM
0

Bias is no excuse for hypocrisy. I am rapidly losing the shred of hope I had for this movement. Sarkeesian has nothing to do with Men's Rights, so why are we going out of our way to claim she's making up threats based on the weakest imaginable evidence? We might as well be saying "Look! The guy used correct punctuation. It's gotta be fake!" That's how weak the evidence is.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:50 PM
1

It's not even remotely compelling evidence. I thought we were all about "innocent until proven guilty" here, but I guess not.
/r/MensRights28/08/14 06:41 PM
18

That's hardly the reason men earn more. The article only accounts for 10% of the 23% wage gap. Of course, it's also hardly news. Someone already did all the work accounting for the wage gap. Warren Farrell, in "Why Men Earn More". It's on our sidebar, and he lists 25 factors, backed up by data, that account for the wage gap. It bothers me that this book is never discussed when the wage gap comes up in popular media.
/r/MensRights23/11/13 04:08 PM
20

Can we be perfectly clear that she's not a judge, but a television show personality? The case is ridiculous, but courtroom 'reality' drama shows go out of their way to show ridiculous cases. They are more interesting.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 07:49 PM
2

I'm afraid that nothing Ann Coulter says can be take seriously - even if it supports your views. She is a professional media troll, and does not deserve our attention.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 07:46 PM
3

She sounds like a horrible person. I am sorry for your experience. she had short boyish hair and some kind of "india-inspired" clothing. If you don't mind my asking, what does this have to do with anything?
/r/MensRights20/11/13 09:51 PM
1

People on both sides of any criminal matter tend to jump the gun. If anything, this is why accused persons should not have their names published if they are accused of a crime. There is just too much stigma associated with formal charges. This subforum is no different. People here are always looking for reasons to be offended or to shout "misandry!" Confirmation biases run rampant. That's why I am a proponent of slow, careful, and dispassionate reading of everything posted here :)
/r/MensRights20/11/13 09:45 PM
1

The article COTWA links And my point stands - no one is saying that these charges are because the girls are underage. Only that there are charges, and the girls are underage.
/r/MensRights20/11/13 04:12 AM
-1

The article COTWA links doesn't state that the man in question was arrested because his sexual partners were under-age. It just says that he was charged with sexual assault. For all we know he's being charged for, you know, raping women his own age. The sex may have taken place under the threat or use of force. Does anyone have a statement from police that indicates that this sex was non-consensual because the girls were under age?
/r/MensRights19/11/13 03:38 PM
-1

Extremely misleading title. It's being proposed, not enacted. Further, it's in a 'county', not the whole country. OP is going out of his way to get angry about nothing.
/r/MensRights19/11/13 03:29 PM
3

I think that "anti-epidurals" have a lot more in common with "anti-vaccination" people. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard of anti-epidurals being a feminist issue.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 08:33 PM
1

Two posts in 1 hour about this? Really? This is an incredibly lazy post, making assertions that are vague in the extreme.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 08:32 PM
3

Your post is entirely devoid of content or meaning.
/r/MensRights18/11/13 08:26 PM
2

This guy go away free.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 09:16 PM
15

Like other comments are suggesting, this probably has more to do with moronic writing than male disposability.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 05:14 PM
5

Tessie suggested that there should be a specific crime for this sort of action, so that it need not be lumped in with Child Pornography. I think everyone here could get behind that. What the boys in this story did was wrong (I can't imagine anyone on this sub saying otherwise), but it is a far cry from the seriousness of child porn.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 04:12 PM
42

Good catch there.
/r/MensRights15/11/13 04:53 AM
6

No, it has more to do with "defending allegations that you sexually harassed an employee by stating that you would never do that because you perform oral sex on your wife". It's the context that's vulgar.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 04:17 PM
1

It's a business staffed entirely by attractive young women, and managed by 4 men. While I find it funny, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 04:16 PM
4

There's no need to make things complicated. The articles argument fails simply because it relies on a false premise - that Men's and Women's rights are mutually exclusive. All this article does is list all the instances where women are disadvantaged in society. You don't need to disagree with a single one of these points. They can all be true for all your care, because none of them take away from the fact that men also have gender issues which are generally ignored by feminist groups.
/r/MensRights14/11/13 04:10 PM
6

We'll have to wait and see what the court decides. Suffice to say - if this man's conviction is upheld, then yes, the reverse would also be true.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 06:11 PM
5

Civil remedies have always been available (though very difficult to prove). This would also make it a criminal offence by including it as a form of sexual assault. Sexual assault comes with possible jail time, and sex offender status.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 04:50 PM
13

For those interested in reading the case Basically, the man sabotaged his girlfriend's contraception in an attempt to keep them together. Because she did not consent to sex without contraception, using sabotaged condoms is sex without consent (which is a textbook definition of sexual assault). It will be interesting to see where the Supreme Court goes with this case. They have already found that sex without disclosing that you're HIV positive is sexual assault, and this seems like a natural prog…
/r/MensRights08/11/13 04:15 PM
1

The chart you were looking at what Time Use 2008. They just carried over the results from 2007 (probably because they didn't gather new data).
/r/MensRights08/11/13 02:14 PM
17

Your picture included a source - that would have been a great place to start! The UN report doesn't go into a lot of detail about how the data were collected. The UN is, however, generally a very reliable source of statistics. I will take the at face value. What you should note is that these numbers represent the total number of hours worked in a day, both in and out of the house (basically all time not spent sleeping, bathing, and at leisure). You should also note that women do, indeed, almost …
/r/MensRights07/11/13 10:52 PM
4

Purposefully inflammatory article written only so people will click on links to it. Ignore it. It means nothing.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 06:46 PM
5

Yes, those are bigots. But they're not necessarily feminists (it's a mom's site, not a feminists site). Best to leave them alone to their bitterness.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 06:44 PM
2

Your friend should rely on internal channels for the time being. If this is just a misunderstanding, then he and the girl should meet with a campus representative and explain the misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 06:42 PM
10

I actually disagree. I don't think I've ever seen someone complain here about feeling emasculated . Mostly people here are trying to tear down 'masculine' gender roles (allowing men to be caregivers, for example). Most of the complaints have more to do with feelings of powerlessness or a lack of control over their own lives. While power and control are masculine traits, I don't think people want them "because that's what makes a man", but because these are things that everyone wants.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 06:41 PM
0

I'm a practising lawyer. I'm going to go ahead and assume that I understand the intricacies of burden of proof better than you do. Reasonable doubt does not mean any doubt. You have to look at the evidence as a whole. The article in question provides us with no details about the full body of evidence. Say, for example, the accused was caught on video abusing his daughter. Would we say that her recanting would create reasonable doubt about the abuse happening? My point stands. The court was likel…
/r/MensRights07/11/13 06:32 PM
2

See my response to Revoran. You are assuming that the daugthers testimony was the only evidence.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 01:54 PM
3

You are assuming that her testimony was the only evidence supporting the case. For all we know there were multiple corroborating testimonies, and physical evidence of ongoing abuse. That's my point. We weren't at the trial. The judges were. We only heard what a reporter said about the case, through a google translator. We can't immediately assume that this is a travesty of justice because we want it to support our politics. We are critical of feminists for doing this, so we can't do the same!
/r/MensRights07/11/13 01:53 PM
1

Male punching bags are a cartoon convention that goes back to the original bugs bunny cartoons, or the 3 stooges. It's funny when men get hurt. So yeah, you're being picky, but you're also not wrong. Kids are taught that its ok to hurt men, because they can take it. It's another example of male conditioning for their own disposability.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 10:55 PM
21

Come on guys, this is information coming from a google translation of a reporter's article on a court case. There are way too many opportunities for lost in translation problems. From the sounds of things, the court felt that her initial accusation was real, and her recanting was a fabrication (something like stockholm syndrome). This is entirely plausible. For all we know, she had enough of her abuse, told the police, and then got guilt tripped by her family into recounting "you don't really wa…
/r/MensRights06/11/13 10:53 PM
2

This article is 2.5 years old, so it isn't really news. Last I heard she fired her lawyer and is awaiting trial. She has also had several other arrests since the Duke incident.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 10:37 PM
1

And hey - why not go nuts and get us the court transcript (if one's already floating around)? That would put everything out into the open.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 06:53 PM
5

Most (if not all) jurisdictions, legally require all drivers to obtain car insurance. Similarly, the ACA requires everyone to obtain medical insurance. I acknowledge that, strictly speaking, people don't need to own a car. But realistically, most people absolutely need one to commute. Like I said, I can't find a principled distinction between the ACA and Car Insurance which can explain the different treatments. There are differences, yes, but none which can logically explain why one should discr…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:28 PM
29

I don't have much patience for men complaining about paying an equal share of collectivized medical costs. But I cannot for the life of me find anything wrong with your particular argument. I see it every time on these obamacare premiums threads, and I simply cannot disagree with it. Men's higher car insurance premiums are justified (and the courts have upheld this reasoning) because men are statistically significantly more likely to make car insurance claims. The reasoning makes sense. But you …
/r/MensRights05/11/13 05:02 PM
2

To be fair, men are not the sole targets of overzealous vigilantism. I will agree that men are the overwhelming targets of violent vigilantism.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:56 PM
2

I made this point on the other thread on this topic. I work in a family law firm in Canada, and I am extremely suspicious about this story. First, we have no independent confirmation that he is being forced to pay as much as he claims. A local reporter asked to see copies of the court order, and Mr. Mora specifically declined to provide a single document. Second, we are only getting his side of the story. He paints himself as a complete victim of the court process, but we have reason to believe …
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:19 PM
1

Another article has been posted which confirms two of my suspicions. Legal experts say that judges sometimes order one spouse to pay the legal fees of the other if he or she is viewed to have delayed the case unnecessarily. As I suggested, you only get solicitor-client costs where there's bad conduct. So he probably did something pretty reprehensible to get this. Mora declined to provide a single court document. At the courthouse, a clerk said that records relating to an alimony dispute are not …
/r/MensRights05/11/13 03:18 PM
1

Yup, I'm calling bullshit on this one. There is way more going on here than we are being told. We need to get this information from an objective source. Ideally, I'd like to read the order or the transcripts of this case. That would explain a lot.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 06:44 PM
5

I would really like to hear the other side to this story, or see a copy of the order that gives his spouse 83% of his income. The story, as he tells it, would be pretty much impossible under Canadian Law. The fact that he is allegedly paying his wife's lawyer's bills is also very telling. The only time where someone will be responsible for paying the other side's legal bills is if a judge awards "solicitor-client costs". These awards are incredibly rare in family law, and are reserved for situat…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 06:41 PM
2

I'm very critical of the 25% of women college women are sexually assaulted figure. But this study has found that 17.1% of college men have been raped. That's certainly in the same ballpark. I'm not sure if these results suggest that we need to re-evaluate what sexual victimization means, or acknowledge that there is indeed an epidemic of sexual victimizations against both genders. Unsurprisingly, the study also found that male victimization is strongly correlated with excessive alcohol consumpti…
/r/MensRights30/10/13 09:04 PM
2

That's a fair point about semantics. Maybe the solution is to back off on the use of rape in a lot of instances. The problem right now is that the connotation of rape is a violent "back alley" sexual assault. This label hardly applies to the less predatory types of sexual assault. If we are not going to call 'made to penetrate' rape, then we should similarly not call 'mistaken belief in consent' assaults rape.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 08:52 PM
4

Read the article. It's something any MRA would write.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 06:56 PM
6

While I certainly agree that it doesn't make any sense to create a whole new category of sexual violence when applied to men, at least give the guy some credit for acknowledging that: In any case, it is still sexual violence and needs to be taken seriously.
/r/MensRights30/10/13 06:53 PM
3

While a 50% decline is staggering, politifact is pretty good about getting their numbers right. The fact that they provided citations from very reputable sources (Bureau of Justice Statistics and the American Bar Association) leads me to believe this number is correct. Other comments here have already pointed out the two most important caveats to this number, however. (1) All violence and crime has been on a steady decline over the past 30 years, and (2) correlation doesn't mean causation.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 01:59 PM
2

Yeah, its threads like this that make me really sad to be an MRA.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 01:52 PM
-2

You completely ignored the following: 1) That she cited publication didn't even use her maiden name. 2) That the wife was working while her husband worked - so the double standard and hypocrisy argument don't even apply. 3) That ad hominems are rhetorical fallacies - they prove nothing (and in this case, the ad hominem is wrong (see point #2) 4) With respect to the cause of the divorce, my argument (that the divorce was caused by spousal violence) is actually backed by evidence. The authors argu…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 11:46 PM
1

Means words are a problem if you want people to take you seriously. Children try to win arguments with mean words. Adults use reason backed up by facts. The article fails to use either.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 11:40 PM
1

Not to mention there's an issue of the inherent sexism of the time against women that prevented them from being in positions of authority. It's not really fair to say that "women weren't the perpetrators" when women were prohibited from being in a position to give orders. Had women been allowed to serve as officers, I'm sure there would have been plenty guilty of war crimes.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 10:06 PM
2

I would prefer that we redefine the test so that this kind of activity isn't wrong in the first place. But your suggestion works too.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 10:04 PM
-2

I don't like to guess an author's intent. I just go by what's written. The article insinuates that while Friedan was writing her silly books and articles under her maiden name (GASP!), her husband was slaving away to earn money to support her. This hypocritical attitude, it is suggested, was the cause of her divorce. I have a ton of issues with this reasoning. 1) Criticising a woman for using her maiden name is petty, and belongs in the 1950s - not now. To top it off, the citation provided links…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 10:02 PM
7

I agree completely about reverse sexism. It's just sexism. Full stop. I also didn't really delve into the fact that while picking on geeky people is not gendered, per se, the vast majority of 'geeks' are men. This could be considered sexism against men by the same token as discrimination against stay-at-home parents is sexism against women.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 09:29 PM
8

You're asking for answer to a legal questions without saying where you live. Laws vary from state to state, and so that answer will vary as well. If you want a correct answer, you need to speak with a lawyer. If you want to vent, then you're in the right place! I can generalize based on my jurisdiction - but I cannot guarantee that this is true for your state. A legal name change requires the consent of each of a child's guardians. If you apply on behalf a child, you will need to provide a copy …
/r/MensRights28/10/13 09:26 PM
15

I know this point gets raised all the time, but seriously, can anyone resolve the paradox of sexual assault where both parties are blackout drunk? Neither the male accused of rape nor the 20-year-old female student who accused him have any memory of the incident, the Columbus Dispatch's Alex Felser reports. Being drunk is not an excuse for committing a crime. Being drunk also vitiates consent, making sexual activity non-consensual, and therefore sexual assault. Applying those definitions equally…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 09:08 PM
-1

So that’s a summary of the fraud of Betty Friedan. But it doesn’t mean that the women she purported to speak for were also living a wild, and wonderful life of free expression, it only explains that the woman credited with initiating the second wave of feminism was a complete cunt. It's good to see AVFM is staying as classy as ever.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 09:00 PM
5

I'm not sure your examples are really 'reverse sexism'. While I certainly acknowledge that a lot of male geeks get mocked for their weight and poor social skills - such mockery is not gendered. They're getting made fun of for their weight and poor social skills, not because they're male. Your first two examples are things that both men and women get harassed - and the perpetrators are similarly both men and women. My point is that these are not gendered identifiers, so it's not sexism. Your poin…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:48 PM
3

Interesting article, but I really fail to see what it says about hypergamy, and a refutation of Sugar and Spice. I do see the connection to the pussy pass, though it's slight.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:39 PM
1

Thanks for that. I would argue, however, that you haven't provided an example that isn't "shaming and silencing". Rather, you've provided an instance where it is justified. Labelling someone a concern troll, even if such a label is valid (i.e. accurately describing the content and motives of someone's opinion), is still dismissing. I believe that if a person actually meets the criteria of a concern troll, then the best response to point out their error, or to ignore them completely. Labelling th…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:30 PM
4

I actually believe that it is exclusively a tool for shaming and silencing. (See my ongoing debate with Alzael in this thread). Can you provide an instance of how the term could used without being dismissive?
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:11 PM
2

It actually was an accidental misspelling. Not a good speller here, and patriarchy is not normally in my vocabulary. But you do see how it could be misconstrued that way? That's a problem with the internet - it's very easy to misinterpret people's meaning. The feminist threads can get pretty inundated with criticism, so they are extremely trigger happy. I have nothing against gender equality and do not want to bash feminists generally, as many feminists also believe in gender equality. I do feel…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 08:08 PM
1

Because he was intentionally wrong, in an attempt to derail the conversation, shame others into agreeing with him, or to disrupt the dialogue. Which is what we call concern trolling. This statement is impossible to prove. You can show that his statement cannot be backed up with facts or logic, but you cannot show that his statement was motivated purely to derail and distract. The proper way to deal with a statement like this is to correct/educate/show the error. Labelling him a 'concern troll' i…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 07:40 PM
1

So why do we bother with the prefix of "concern"? If it's trolling, call it trolling! In your provided example about /r/atheism and /r/christianity, it sounds like people responded in an appropriate way. When asked to provide examples, he said to check the top posts on /r/atheism at any given time. When shown that none of the top posts advocated hate in anyway, he suddenly said it was just general hate. At no point did he produce a single instance of this hate against /r/christianity that he was…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 07:03 PM
2

That's an awesome comment. I absolutely agree - don't make about anti-feminist, make it about "also men's issues". People too easily conflate feminism with women. Focus on your strongest issues first. False Rape Accusations is a very contentious topic, and a poor place to start. I think that family courts, as suggested, is a pretty safe lead.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:59 PM
6

I was going make an almost identical comment - I'm really glad to see someone had already beat me to it! I think the article could not have worded this better. There's no judgement or criticism. Simply put, even well meaning people will be more inclined to accept the benefits of social change, but will be slower in shouldering burdens.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:55 PM
9

I'm afraid I do know what the term refers to. I've been called a concern troll several times on this subreddit, despite being an MRA. By calling someone a concern troll, you are implying the following: a) That they are not a member of your group. b) That their opinion is not honestly held. c) That they are motivated not by a desire to contribute, but by a desire to derail a topic. d) That anything else they may have said, or will say is similarly motivated - and equally invalid. Like I said, it'…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 06:31 PM
1

The whole point of mediation is to put non-legal (emotional) issues on the table. You either need to bring that issue up in the mediation, or you need to withdraw from the mediation, citing that reason. If you cannot think straight because you're afraid of her, then you clearly need an agent or an advocate to speak for you.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:54 PM
7

The fact that many of the feminism subreddits have a low tolerance for criticism is old news. For what its worth, you comment is mildly obnoxious and trollish. I'm pretty sure people are already aware that manufacturers make what sells. The issue being discussed about costumes probably wasn't that they get made, but that people want them in the first place. To top it off, your deliberate mis-naming of "patriarchy" as "patronacracy" is condescending. If you want to bash feminists, then join a fem…
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:51 PM
6

The term 'concern troll' is ridiculous. It's just a tool for shaming and silencing moderates who criticize similar minded people for their extremist opinions.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:41 PM
3

While the 'teach men not to rape' issue is often discussed here, please refrain from using pointless and crass words like 'libtarded'. Many MRAs are liberals - and political affiliation should not have any bearing on gender issues.
/r/MensRights28/10/13 05:04 PM
2

"Without Prejudice" is a legal term. It means any discussions cannot be held against you in a court. If you sign an agreement, however, then that agreement becomes binding (it's a contract), and can be held against you.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 08:30 AM
3

No - mediations are always held on a "without prejudice basis". They are only an opportunity for the parties to sit at a table, face to face, and talk about what they really want. Mediations can work wonders in a lot of situations, but sometimes they are completely useless. Courts are making them mandatory because they are far less of a burden on court resources than trials. The resolution method I prefer is something called a 'JDR' (Judicial Dispute Resolution). Basically, the parties meet priv…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 06:09 PM
1

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends the procedure, but ultimately it should be up to the parents. The Canadian Paediatric Society says no, but ultimately it should be up to the parents. From a medical perspective, most doctors equivocate. Circumcision has its advantages and disadvantages. It can go horribly wrong, it can be mildly bothersome, or it can prevent disease. What doctors don't get into are the social and ethical issues. Personally, I feel that the benefits it provides (moder…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 09:47 PM
0

Nice to see another family lawyer around here.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 04:08 PM
3

We have no reason to suspect she's lying or telling the truth. This is a random forum post from a random person on the planet. For all we know, this is a 14 year boy. For all we know, you made that post. Also. What's a lolypups?
/r/MensRights23/10/13 09:30 PM
5

Cool. Source? (I'm interested to see if it's private or public housing)
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:29 PM
4

Social Sciences don't have hypotheses - they jump straight to theories. (I think that Patriarchy is more of a framework than a theory anyway. You don't need any evidence to support a framework. You just posit it and hope that people will use it).
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:27 PM
-1

That's an equally valid theory.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:27 PM
6

I practice law in Canada. I can't speak for the US. Do people actually hire lawyers to press charges in the US? That sounds insane.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:27 PM
6

Except that's how insurance works. I don't get angry about my insurance premiums just because other people's houses burn down. I am supposed to feel secure knowing that I'm covered in case my house burns down. Sure, young men may be 'subsidizing' other less healthy classes of people, but someday you'll be an old man and start getting that money back by getting more coverage than you put in. I'm a Canadian, so I don't pay insurance premiums. I pay taxes which in turn pay for my healthcare. I prob…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:17 PM
16

My understanding is that the way this is supposed to work is that you go to the police and report the crime. They would take a statement, and investigate. If they think that they can prosecute, then they will have the file over the a prosecutor and issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The prosecutor will then meet with you several times, and (unless the accused pleads guilty) you would most likely have to appear as a witness at the trial and give testimony. Because of the private natur…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:12 PM
2

The phrase originates from old English etiquette. While not 100% sure, I believe the phrase was used primarily in respect to walking into rooms. The gentlemen would hold open the doors to allow the ladies to enter first. If I had to guess, I'd imagine it is rooted in an idea that the men should remain exposed to the elements/danger while the women get to safety first. It's an old custom that doesn't make much sense in modern times, I agree.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:09 PM
6

This is a men's rights issue that is new to me. Can you post a source showing this bias in rental rates that favour women?
/r/MensRights23/10/13 08:00 PM
0

The line can be fuzzy sometimes, but the bar is not as low as pop culture believes. I do want to set one thing straight about your comment. Absent a prenup or other agreement, matrimonial property is divided 50/50. This is the rule that people are referring to when we say "she gets half his stuff" There are certain types of property, however, that are exempt from matrimonial property division. Inheritance, gifts, and property you bring into the marriage are exempt from property division. You kee…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 07:59 PM
3

Marriage breakdowns are difficult times. Filing for a divorce to sever the legal connection is rarely a first priority. I agree, sooner or later both people want to get divorced, and they will almost certainly get around to it. My point is that even though both parties might want to get divorced - who files first is important. Usually, women file for divorce not because they want to sever the tie or be allowed to remarry - but because they want access to the corollary relief (money).
/r/MensRights23/10/13 07:26 PM
2

Keeping all the stuff is unfair. An unequal division will be upheld if it is reasonable. Duress is duress. No contracts (prenups are contracts) are upheld if there's duress. Demanding a prenup shortly before the wedding is duress. Insisting on one shortly after the engagement is not. These two problems are minor problems, and any decent lawyer will draw your attention to them to make sure that the prenup is valid. Again, it's a popular myth that prenups are always thrown out. If they're done pro…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 07:24 PM
7

You'll be hard pressed to find a 'factual' discussion of patriarchy at all. It's a social theory - a framework for understanding the world. You can't 'refute' it with facts - all you can do is that try to show that it gives a poor understanding of the world. You can provide examples of male oppression, you can provide examples of female privilege, you can provide sources, and you might convince some people. It won't be concise, though!
/r/MensRights23/10/13 07:10 PM
4

You're assuming that (a) people will notice the same wording and (b) people will assume that these subreddits are affiliated. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the chance of either of those two conditions being met are slim to none.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 07:06 PM
1

People falsely equate 'filing for a divorce' with 'wanting out of the marriage'. You can leave a marriage without getting divorced. You simply move out and leave your spouse. Filing for a divorce isn't about wanting out, it's about wanting money or time with the kids. We don't have studies about 'who wants out' - only 'who filed first'.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 07:02 PM
-7

TLDR - Divorce is a type of lawsuit, like any other. You only 'sue' someone when you want something from them. In most marriages, the husband controls the matrimonial assets and has the higher income. If the couple splits up, he can continue working, earn money, and pay his bills. The wife, often a stay-at-home mom, has no income, poor employment prospects, and few assets to support herself. She can't pay her bills. In order to support herself, the wife will often need child support, spousal sup…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:56 PM
4

Speak to a lawyer, and get a Pre-nupital agreement. It's a myth that women get 'half of everything' in a divorce. Rather, they are entitled to 'half of everything' that was acquired during the marriage. It is possible to opt out of this arrangement by way of a fairly drafted pre-nup. Another myth is that pre-nups don't work. Truth is, they do work. When you hear about pre-nups getting set aside, it's usually because they are grossly unfair or were forced on someone under duress. If you do up a f…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:43 PM
10

I think you're looking for /r/theredpill If you want to use terms like 'alpha males' then that's where you belong. We're not traditionalists. We're progressives. We're trying to deconstruct the male gender role, not restore it.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:39 PM
-21

You knew about the distinction - yet you deliberately used phrasing that is misleading? This is a story written by a fan, not by her. Sure she 'endorsed it', but only in passing. This isn't grounds to dismiss anything and everything she says.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 08:01 PM
-1

The articles doesn't actually say she wants everything. He's allegedly worth $80 million. The article fails to mention what portion of that net worth she is claiming. As for child support for the child from a previous relationship, this is old news. Parents can be responsible to care for a child notwithstanding any biological connection if they stand in the place of a parent. This obligations cuts both ways - for men and for women. See In Loco Parentis
/r/MensRights17/10/13 07:58 PM
5

Obamacare may have the effect of increasing healthy young men's premiums, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that this is the overriding purpose of the Act.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 05:08 PM
-56

/facepalm
/r/MensRights17/10/13 05:05 PM
1

It's ironic, yes, but I wouldn't argue that He-Man is causing a "crisis" in young boys self esteem.
/r/MensRights17/10/13 12:36 AM
0

If an IRA Terrorist reforms, and renounces violence as a means to affect social change, is he automatically wrong for being hypocritical?
/r/MensRights17/10/13 12:33 AM
2

They are way more common than most people who give credit. I agree. The definition of feminism is not "Women are better". ... I am a Feminist for men, too. And she falls firmly in the camp of feminists who believes that feminism includes equal rights for men (not female supremacy). She is a real feminist, and we should be treating her as the norm, and not the exception.
/r/MensRights16/10/13 09:42 PM
-2

The article's argument is twofold: First - that because Charlotte Church has benefited from the exploitation of women, she's a hypocrite. Second - that pop music doesn't count when it comes to gender stereotypes. The first argument is a logical fallacy. It's just a personal attack that ignores the actual point. The second argument is just wrong. Pop music is the largest and furthest reaching form of cultural expression that exists today (except maybe movies).
/r/MensRights16/10/13 09:38 PM
18

That's just absurd. First off, 6 of 14 of the Senators who struck this deal were women - a minority. Yes, they were overrepresented as compared to the Senate as a whole, but I would hardly credit them alone for the deal being struck. Second, there were plenty of women who should be sharing the blame for the shut down. Republican women were repeating the very same talking points as their male counterparts throughout the shut down. They were all entirely complicit in all of that posturing nonsense…
/r/MensRights16/10/13 09:32 PM
1

I have never heard of a ladies first policy in court. In my jurisdiction, matters proceed in the order that they are listed (which is typically determined by the order that the applications were filed). Judges do often stray from the list, and allow brief matters to go first. They will also usually let matters go first if they have lawyers on both sides, as these matters are costing someone more money, and tend to be resolved quicker because it is assumed lawyers are better prepared. I have neve…
/r/MensRights16/10/13 07:30 PM
3

So what? What are we trying to prove here? I get it - some women take advantage of their good looks, and later become anti-beauty culture advocates. So what? Just because they changed their positions doesn't make them wrong and worth dismissing. If an IRA bomber gets older and changes his ways, and decides that "violence never solves anything!", is he a hypocrite? Does it even matter? Shouldn't we be glad that he's mended his ways? Either JB is saying that beauty culture isn't bad, in which case…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 09:57 PM
15

Here's an analysis of that particular statistic. The number is definitely not entirely accurate. Even looking at the site, they include 'war brides' as child soldiers. Being the sex slave of a soldier is not the same as being a soldier. It's awful - that's for sure - but it's not the same thing. Have a good read of the linked blog post, and see if that satisfies you.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 08:11 PM
8

It's unfortunate that your ex does not understand the difference between bi-weekly and semi-monthly. 5) Oh and her child support payment is based off of "standard visitation", even though I have my son much more than that. (I did that, because if I tried to adjust it downward, she would fight against me having more time with him.) 6) Oh, and she recently got a new job, that isn't even calculated into the equation. You are, of course, free to revisit child support in court given the change in the…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 07:40 PM
-1

The story definitely raises the issue of capacity for consent - but I'm with the rest of the guys posting here. The guy claims he has no memory of it. That may or may not be true. More importantly, we have to draw a line here between not remembering something, and consciously and wilfully doing it at the time. Our girl heard him specifically say "I feel bad about Jane" while he was 'too drunk to consent'. If he was too drunk to understand or be responsible for his actions - how did he have the c…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:49 PM
-1

Just to be 100% clear - because I think a great many people are missing this: OP is not paying child support for the new kid. His not being required to support the new kid. The parents of the new kid are obligated to support him/her, and no one else. What's happening is that for the purposes of calculating income, OP's ex is having her income adjusted for the children under her care. Because her income is being lowered as compared to OPs income, his support obligation is increasing. This system …
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:37 PM
-1

Who the hell keeps downvoting this guy? He's giving actual information, and explaining things instead of just complaining about it.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:30 PM
2

Division of assets is almost universally separate from support (alimony). The objective of courts in a divorce is to fairly divide the benefits that accrued during the marriage. They divide the assets that were gained during the marriage (property division), and they divide the earning potential that increased during the marriage (support and alimony). They also ensure that the children are adequately cared for (child support). So in your hypothetical, if both parents are working full time durin…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:22 PM
6

Also a lawyer. Even though Bl1y and I are lawyers, we are in no way qualified to talk about class action lawsuits in California. If we can't help you - imagine how wrong all the non-lawyers here will be.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:16 PM
1

Yeah, people weren't downvoting you for wanting equality - they were downvoting you for callng feminism a movement for inequality in favour of women. Very few people agree with that sentiment - I don't agree with that sentiment. Only some MRAs believe that.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 10:24 PM
1

Thank you for providing those links. While I asked for 3 studies, you linked three newspaper articles referencing the same study. Nonetheless, I did do some further research and found that you are completely correct. Actual date rape - where a drink is spiked with drugs - is exceedingly rare. Of women who self-reported been drugged without their knowledge, 2%-6% were found to actually have traces of these drugs. Most of them just had alcohol or other recreational drugs in their system. I should …
/r/MensRights12/10/13 10:08 PM
3

I try to hold us accountable to the values we espouse. We claim we aren't misogynist - so I call people out when they are. We claim people shouldn't be condemned by popular opinion when accused of a crime - I remind people of that. We claim to be reasonable and logical - I hold people to that standard. The only place where I actually disagree with other MRAs is about feminism. I am a feminist (and an MRA). I don't think feminism is a 'religion of hate'. I think most of the anti-feminist rhetoric…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:59 PM
-1

If the topic was rape, we should be talking about rape. Why bother calling women gutter sluts with cum in their hair if the topic is rape? It absolutely matters, because these are exactly the sort of things that give MRAs a bad name.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:43 PM
1

Thread has almost 4 upvotes per downvote. I'm the top voted comment because I wrote someone a lot of people agree with. The system is working as intended. Why don't you post something useful instead of moaning every time people agree with me. Get a new schtick.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:41 PM
0

You are correct. I over-simplified to make it easier to read. Thanks for pointing this out.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:40 PM
0

Yeah, I browse the new section, and upvote the good stuff, and downvote the bad stuff. I also comment whenever possible to explain why. It's not that threads I comment in get downvoted, its that I comment in bad threads to explain why they're problematic.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:39 PM
0

It's almost like all the treads I call out for being bad... are bad. I wouldn't call that a coincidence.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:37 PM
2

No. But there is something wrong with having such sex while wanting to be able to claim rape in the morning, and/or deluding yourself about what is going on. JB specifically calls women who have sex on a first date sluts. It doesn't matter that she goes on to criticize false reporting - she still insults women for having one night stands on its own. What about the men in these situations? Are they sluts too? There is little to no evidence showing that date rape drugs are commonly used. The vast …
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:26 AM
0

Out of curiosity - would it be ok if you edited Wikipedia? You clearly have an anti-feminist bias. Maybe you should be banned from editing Wikipedia as well. Or are you totally objective?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:48 AM
1

Really? They're going to clearly promote an ideology and flawed history? How do you know that? And to answer your question, i would have a problem with other ideological biased people if they are editing 'objective' content. But I would have no issue with conservatives explaining core concepts of their ideology. Similarly, I have no issue with women writing content about women.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:46 AM
2

This is just a "women behaving badly" post, with the added twist that the actual perpetrator was actually a man. It has nothing to do with Men's Rights, it's just women bashing. If the story had at least mentioned, for example, that Adrian Peterson had tried to get sole custody because the mother was a drug addict, then we'd have a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 10:16 PM
2

You and I never heard this hypothetical guy say this. Only she did. It's incredibly unfair of us to pretend to know better what was intended than her. For all we know, he actually said "Why are you hiring a maid when you have three daughters who are wasting their time getting an education when they should be staying in the home." She may be paraphrasing to fit it on the tiny card. All while probably doing no help around the house. You don't know this at all. For all we know she does tons around …
/r/MensRights11/10/13 10:08 PM
1

For all we know - she has 1 brother to which this didn't apply. The point is, we know next to nothing about her. Given that there are a reasonable way to interpret what she's saying, let's give her the benefit of the doubt, and not paint her as an entitled brat.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 09:26 PM
2

Seriously. Creating pages for famous women scientists and doctors is hardly "vandalizing" wikipedia. I'd go so far as to call that "using Wikipedia exactly as its intended". Grow up, and stop assuming every group that calls itself 'feminist' is bigoted.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 09:12 PM
1

Expressing an opinion that random hookups don't lead to love is fine. You just did it, and while I disagree, I respect your opinion. You don’t fuck anyone on a first date... you don’t get to wake up the next morning and scream rape when he puts you down in the gutter with all the other deluded sluts combing jizz out of their hair. That's not an opinion. That is demeaning, that is nasty, and that is mean.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 08:38 PM
3

The guy didn't say "why are you hiring a maid when you have 3 kids". He said "why are you hiring a maid when you have 3 daughters". We can't just assume that this girl's a moron because we know better what some guy meant (especially when all we know about this guy is what she's told us he said). Give her the benefit of the doubt, or at the very least, don't mock her for being wrong when we don't know that she is.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 07:15 PM
13

Oh, it's definitely there. Just make sure you set aside the rest of the day - I don't want you to give up easily. It's definitely there somewhere.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 07:12 PM
2

The guy didn't say "why are you hiring a maid when you have 3 kids". He said "why are you hiring a maid when you have 3 daughters". The implication is that because they're women, they should be doing domestic work. I think we can all agree that kids should be made to chip in around the house, but I don't think the girl in the photograph is saying she shouldn't have to do chores. I think she's being critical of what she see's a person's backward opinion about the role of women. This isn't deservi…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:59 PM
2

First of all is that it's her opinion thus if she doesn't think you should have sex on the first date or time you meet someone then so what? I agree, that's her opinion, and people are entitled to opinions. You don’t fuck anyone on a first date... you don’t get to wake up the next morning and scream rape when he puts you down in the gutter with all the other deluded sluts combing jizz out of their hair. This goes way beyond an opinion. This is the equivalent of "MRAs are all neckbeards with tiny…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:53 PM
20

I really don't see what gender has to do with financial need for a housing credit. But, to be fair, this money is also available only to graduate students. In 2011, female graduate students were (maybe are) still a minority . Undergraduate gender: 53% female and 47% male (Fall 2011). Graduate gender: 55% male and 45% female (Fall 2011) What bugs me the most is when there are women-only scholarships for departments where there is already a majority of women enrolled. At least here that's not that…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:48 PM
5

Instead of having an actual dialogue, the feminist protesters mostly just yelled insults, the MRAs returned the favor, and everyone became more firmly entrenched in their polarized ideological camps. It was all very stupid. Yeah, there is a lot of that going on.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:19 PM
52

The first third of her blog post is superb. She's totally right. A huge number, if not most, of relationships in college begin with drunk one-night stands. According to the legal definition of sexual assault, consent is vitiated when someone is intoxicated, and sex without consent is sexual assault. Drunk one-night stands are by legal definition sexual assault. This outcome is absurd. Drunk one-night stands cannot all be sexual assault, because so many of these turn into loving relationships. Th…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:07 PM
0

Well, I can't actually say for certain. I have no idea where OP lives. In my jurisdiction, child support and spousal support are based entirely on cohabitation, and not marriage. Honestly, we should require everyone person with a "I got fucked by the courts" story to post a copy of the order, or better yet transcripts of the proceeding. Based on what I see on this sub, men get nothing but shitty child support orders for 90% of their income. When I go to court, I mostly see men deliberate under-d…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 05:32 PM
1

OP didn't say how long they had been cohabitating. If they lived together for 10 years, married for 1, then there's a great case for alimony.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 05:13 PM
38

"We're fairly certain that this person wasn't even raped in the first place. That being said, here are photographs of the men who have been accused of raping her... but probably didn't rape her." Let's be fair - the rape kit test mentioned was 'inconclusive'. It doesn't necessarily mean that the accused are innocent. They might well have done it, and the test simply didn't work. But whether they did it or not is irrelevant. There's no excuse for dragging their names through the mud like this. If…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:57 PM
11

I'm not a fan of this campaign - but I have to come down on your side on this one. This platform is absolutely dripping with irony. The gateway author (and anyone else) should be embarrassed for not picking up on it.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:50 PM
6

My advice would be to focus your paper on a more concrete topic. Are North American men "second-class citizens" is an entirely subjective question. No one can accurately define what those words mean. A better approach would be to focus on something more tangible. You could write about the wage gap, and deconstruct the myth by pointing out all of the factors that are not accounted for (see Warrenn Farrells "Why Men Earn More"). Alternatively, you might dig up newspaper stories where men are presu…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:45 PM
1

It's fine to believe that, but having some evidence to back it up would be helpful. I can only speak for Canada, but here's a report on the incidence of people found "Not Criminally Responsible" in Canada (these are people found to lack the capacity to be held accountable for their crimes due to mental defect). If you look at figure 3 on page 14, just under 25% people accused of homicide who are found NCR are women. For sexual offences, 97.6% of the NCR cases were men. Now I do appreciate that t…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 03:41 PM
1

I've commented on this story before, I'll reproduce it for you. To clarify what's going on here: Mom killed her kids. She was found not guilty because she's insane. The 'estates' of the slain children sued the local county and settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because the kids didn't have wills, their estates are divided pursuant to the law of "Intestacy" (literally means 'no Will'). In most jurisdictions, the Intestacy's give estates to the deceased's closest living relative. The or…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 03:24 PM
4

This is a "women behaving badly" post. It has nothing to do with Men's Rights. And the article is not sympathetic to the woman in question, so the sarcastic "She's MOTHER of the year" title is unwarranted.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:12 PM
2

It's good see that the comments are wonderfully supportive. Saying nothing about things like this cause it to happen more often. Getting the police involved might be a little overkill, however.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:35 PM
0

I don't read this as saying that females needs to be the only default. Rather, it's pointing out that games with a default female protagonist are comparatively rare (and they are). If anything, she's calling out for parity between the sexes as default protagonists, not a complete takeover. If you actually read/watch her stuff, all she's saying about video games is that female characters are rarely given agency. No one has more agency than the protagonist (you!). More female protagonists would to…
/r/MensRights10/10/13 09:31 PM
1

I love that you're better qualified than I am when it comes to evaluating "logic and reality". I don't mind if you cite sources (like in your other comment here). But claiming exclusive jurisdiction over 'logic' and 'reality' is the height of hubris.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 09:17 PM
3

Eh, I've self-labelled myself as a feminist enough times on this sub that I'm pretty much saturated by those cooties. Never met an actual feminist lurker here before. Well met!
/r/MensRights09/10/13 07:44 PM
2

I've always felt that men are socialized to need sex in order to validate their self-worth. Men who can't get sex/girlfriend/wife are failures and losers. Not being able to get laid is a common insult - and often used by people criticising MRAs. This article really highlights that problem. A man's worth should be measured by qualities like his integrity, intelligence, honour, sense of justice and honesty - not his ability to bang hot chicks.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 07:43 PM
3

My god, there is a feminist conspiracy. I've been wrong this whole time. (Thanks for that, by the way - now EatsTinyBaldBabies is going to be certain I'm in league with the feminists).
/r/MensRights09/10/13 07:35 PM
0

Well said, sir.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 07:22 PM
2

Here's a great little page talking about some of the counter arguments at the time. You'll notice that yes, the lack of women's contribution to war is mentioned often. But the biggest uniting reason is that women simply do not belong in the public sphere. On the one hand women were considered too precious and innocent to become embroiled in public life, on the other they were thought too irrational and emotional to make an intelligent contribution. Whatever their abilities, their place was thoug…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:23 PM
-2

I'm so sick of everything being compared to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Feminism is not Nazism. Not even close. The NAFALT thing is ridiculous. By treating the most extreme feminists as the spokespeople for the movement, you give them legitimacy. You create a self-fulfilling prophecy. A better solution to writing off the movement as a whole is to usurp it. If you encounter extreme feminists, don't dismiss them because "they're feminist and movement is unsalvagable". Dismiss them for not bein…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:19 PM
5

It's good to see things like this - especially from NPR which is at least fairly objective. If you take anything away from this study, it's that both men and women pressure their partners into having sex with them. It takes two to tango - and it's a rare occurrence for both partners to be exactly equally enthusiastic about a particular dance. The coercion used was almost always psychological, not physical. The most common tactics for forcing or trying to force sex were guilt, deliberately gettin…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:11 PM
-4

At the time women were considered too frail and fragile to fight in wars. And they weren't denied the right to vote because they weren't subject to the draft (women's suffrage took place in countless democratic countries at the time - many of which have no conscription). They were denied the right to vote because people believed that women lacked the mental faculties to do so. People around here sometimes float the idea that the suffragettes hated men because they would push for the women's vote…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:02 PM
3

That's funny, because I've reconciled feminism with MR for myself and for many of my friends and family. They are not diametrically opposed. It's just that many feminist/MR organizations and individuals are too extreme to meet on the common ground. The notion that the feminism is and has always been about female supremacy is patently absurd. Some feminists might be acting this way now. But how can you honestly say, with a straight face, that things like the right to vote and the right to work (f…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 04:38 PM
5

Feminist don't cry and moan about WNBA players being paid less than NBA players. We shouldn't be complaining about this. We're better than that.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 04:21 PM
9

Get over yourself. This thread has four downvotes. Four. That's not a brigade. That's 4 people down voting a thread - probably because the linked page was down. To top it off, it's a blog post based on a 4 year old newspaper article that is only current because this sub talked about yesterday. Reasonable people can downvote this thread without being members of some non-existent feminist conspiracy downvote brigade.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 04:16 PM
-1

Don't you hate speaking in analogies? That's part of the problem with using them. The issue with asking "who makes the ice cream" if we're treated 'ice cream' as 'being treated fairly by society', is that it suggests that men are "creating fairness" and women do not. Therefore, only men are entitled to be treated fairly. It's a dumb analogy to begin with. A better analogy for the past hundred years of feminism would be to show a man eating ice cream, and a woman eating chocolate cake. The woman …
/r/MensRights09/10/13 03:51 PM
11

Her comment is reasonably fair (but follows the same argument that many MRAs use - if woman control the vote, why is it only men in power??). What I would do is point out that there aren't exactly any alternative voting options. You vote for party A, or you vote for party B. If A and B both have the same problem you want changed, then voting will not help you solve your problem. If, for instance, you wanted a public healthcare system in the US, then 'voting' would get you nowhere. No elected off…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 03:13 PM
4

Looks like someone didn't pay their GoDaddy fees. The link is down. This wouldn't happy to be a post about that 2009 child support Globe and Mail article circulating here?
/r/MensRights09/10/13 02:25 PM
3

A lot of feminists may be socialists, and a lot of socialists may be feminists. The two theories on their own, however, are not really linked in any way. Feminism is like a cancer or parasite, it tries to be a host in a much larger and real idea, like socialism, and it fucks it up. Feminism isn't a cancer. You may have had some bad encounters with some tumblr feminists, but they are representatives of the movement as a whole. Most MRAs are actually very closely aligned with 'Second Wave Feminism…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 02:23 PM
2

Listen to this guy - you'll have far more success making convincing cases in favour of specific Men's Rights issues than you will being critical of existing feminist groups and issues. Don't be downhearted by opposition. Some people will be against simply because their bigots. Most people will not support you because they haven't turned their mind to the more persuasive MR issues. All you can do is make positive and reasoned cases for what you believe. If people actively try to oppose you, don't…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 02:09 PM
0

It's a pretty shallow way to criticize the icecream meme. What's wrong with the comic is that it implies that men cry "misandry" when women try to get a fraction of the 'good' that men already receive. In reality, men cry "misandry" when women go out of their way to harm men. A more accurate comic would depict a man eating ice cream where the woman walks over, and knocks his scoops off the cone onto the floor (not taking ice cream for herself, but going out of her way to deny him his). Typonblue…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 02:01 PM
8

To be fair, everything that Breitbart publishes is 'Appalling'.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 09:33 PM
2

I would have liked to have read more about the study than that brief summary. But did anyone notice how the title is "Men are abused too!" followed by an image depicting a woman being assaulted?
/r/MensRights08/10/13 09:28 PM
1

This belongs in /r/theredpill. Not in Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 09:25 PM
2

More like 'acontextual'
/r/MensRights08/10/13 09:20 PM
5

My reading of this in depth and thoughtful article is that Obamacare is going to drastically improve the health of young men through reduced alcohol consumption.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 09:10 PM
2

She doesn't sound like someone I would ever want to date. That being said, As for the fellow who sent the breakup text -- he's fine too, apparently, since Pu tells HuffPost she did not, as initially claimed, actually forward the sexts. "He is safely and soundly still employed," she says. He's also been back in touch. She didn't seek to ruin his life. And also, the article doesn't indicate he sent her nude photos. It only mentions 'sexts' - which may or may not have been nude photographs.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 08:10 PM
1

I think it takes objectivity to an extreme in this case. When are talking about boys and girls, or men and women, we are talking about us. When we use "Male and Female" we are talking about them. When inforgraphics (or reddit posters) use these overly objective words, it makes them sound detached. You and I will probably just disagree on this point! :)
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:52 PM
4

I've been accused of being a concern troll or a feminist troll on this sub before. This usually happens when I'm being critical of people for overstating their case, using deliberately inflammatory language, or taking an inconsistent position. We like to be critical of feminists for banning/down-voting dissenting opinions on their subs, but we still down-vote dissent here very aggressively. I would recommend that if you encounter an opinion that you disagree with, try to see where that poster is…
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:27 PM
0

Very nice infographic! One beef I have (and a lot of people do this), is that it uses the words "females" and "males". Why can't we call them boys and girls? If this was an infographic about another species, like say... some species of freshwater fish? Then we could call them males and females. We don't call girls "female children". We call them girls.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:20 PM
9

Some guys here will tell you that it's because feminist are Nazi's and want men to suffer. I believe that the opposition has more to do with a belief that we are trying to redirect actually suffering experience by women and make it a men's issue. They think that by acknowledging some of men's problems will somehow 'dilute' the attention that women's issue get. Also, and I get really sad when I encounter this, some women think that men have had it good for so long, that they deserve to be ignored…
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:16 PM
8

Is it a true statistic? Yes and no. Is it just propaganda? No. It's a shallow statistic, and people tend to repeat statistics that agree with their position without investigating and most people do not understand why. (I can only speak about Canada - I don't know the US numbers) The claimed wage gap is that women earn between 70 and 80 cents for every dollar a man earns. The 70% number that gets quoted only accounts for the annual salary of workers and their gender. It ignores hours worked. If y…
/r/MensRights08/10/13 02:05 PM
-2

You are assuming that because one doctor said this, its the reason millions of people did it for the reason. If you can provide some evidence of the connection between his writing and the practice, i'll of course agree.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 01:33 AM
-1

an entire generation was circumcised to prevent masturbation I hadn't heard this before. That's a very interesting theory - do you have sources to link? (I'll probably look into this on my own later). Thanks for pointing this out.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:39 PM
-1

I can at least partially get behind the "I want him to look like his father" argument, but what I will never understand is "I don't want girls to find him disgusting". People can be so weird.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:37 PM
-6

Thank you for illustrating my point. Your reply is exactly what I mean about overstating your case. Look up Cognitive Dissonance!. When people are confronted with something that does not resonate with what they already believe, they are tempted to dismiss it out of hand. The stronger the dissonance between what they are being told, and what they already believe to be true, the higher the chance that they will dismiss without listening. In this instance, most people think circumcision is either (…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:36 PM
1

Even if you're not a particularly articulate guy, you should take this guy up on his offer. The public will benefit from hearing this point of view, and you'll benefit from the practice articulating your points :)
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:16 PM
3

I had a trio of friends who streaked on the last day of high school. They ran down a hallway, out the doors, and into a van with the engine running and a driver ready to go. As fate would have it, a police car was driving down that street when they saw these three boys run from the school doors to the van. The police car turned on its lights, and pulled them over. Once pulled over, the officers asked for the registration and insurance. The unclothed guy in the passenger window rifled through the…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 09:10 PM
1

Look, I am as anti-circumcision as most MRAs. I remain in disbelief that the majority of American men are circumcised - and have been for the better part of the past century. What blows my mind is that absence for a compelling reason for it. Yes, there are religious reasons, but these religions are a minority. Yes, there are arguably health reasons, but studies showing these health reasons are relatively new (and don't explain why the practice got so popular in the first place). It's just a biza…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 08:50 PM
10

I don't want to overstate this point - but if you read that facebook post carefully, it's actually victim blaming. The hypothetical victim is dead because 'she lacked the courage to leave him'. Nowhere does it call on people to 'not abuse partners' or to 'report abuse'.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 08:17 PM
55

While this sounds like an open and shut case, one of the pillars of the MRA platform is that, because of the incredible stigma associated with sexual crimes, people so accused should not be identified until they are found guilty in a court of law. From the sounds of things, she is guilty as sin. And this article does illustrate how men do not enjoy a monopoly over perpetrating sexual crimes. Nonetheless, I caution other commentors to remember that both men and women are innocent until proven gui…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 08:15 PM
5

While I agree with most of the contents of the article - yes, we 'insult' men by comparing them to women (don't be a pussy, you throw like a girl, stop being a little bitch) - I think the title is pretty dismissive. 'The Real Boy Crisis' Really? So boys' chronic under-performing in schools is (a) not really a crisis at all, and (b) in any event, pales in comparison to how seriously boys are oppressed by not being able to be more feminine. That title is pure, shameful, click-bait.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 09:15 PM
4

To clarify what's going on here: Mom killed her kids. She was found not guilty because she's insane. The 'estates' of the slain children sued the local county and settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Because the kids didn't have wills, their estates are divided pursuant to the law of "Intestacy" (literally means 'no Will'). In most jurisdictions, the Intestacy's give estates to the deceased's closest living relative. The order usually goes as follows: Spouse --> Children --> Parents -->…
/r/MensRights04/10/13 03:42 PM
2

I meant the former - but I am very interested in stats for the latter. Can you link the source? Edit: Found It. 8.6% is much higher than I would have guessed. The study doesn't provide us with the data, so we don't know how it was collected. I'm worried that where this study says "tried to stop them from using birth control" includes suggesting or attempting to persuade. It's also interesting that women experienced nearly identical rates of reproductive coercion. In any event, thanks to Typonblu…
/r/MensRights03/10/13 09:40 PM
1

I don't think anyone would argue that this kind of 'fraudulent' impregnation is a widespread problem. That being said, for the few men this sort of thing happens to, the law really does nothing to protect them. In many jurisdictions, biological paternity is enough to trigger financial support obligations. As for this story in particular: Fouad is reportedly furious with the consulate. His wife has filed for a divorce and neither of them wishes to raise Salwa. That is just.... classy.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 09:04 PM
7

I find this comment interesting: The case garnered attention as Hunt's lawyers claimed that authorities wouldn't have gone after her if the situation had involved a male and a female instead of two teenage girls. But after Thursday's court hearing, Workman said the case would have been no different if Kaitlyn was a boy. There's concern here that the accused received too severe a punishment because she's a woman lesbian.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 08:45 PM
10

A lot of what you describe isn't unique to online dating. These services are populated by a cross-section of society as whole - it's just that every is looking for a match. It should not be surprising that most of the women we uninteresting to you. Most women in the real world would be no different. As for your story about Ms. Laser-Eyes, this is an all too real dating story. When I met my wife she was seeing someone else. Obviously she chose me, but I didn't find out about him until months late…
/r/MensRights03/10/13 07:56 PM
5

As CptCool has pointed out, this man's character is not what is in question. People good character do bad things sometimes. As for the rest of what you have said, I have only your word. All I do know is that a jury of 'peers' saw all of the evidence you described, and unanimously reached a guilty verdict. They were in a far better position to understand the facts than I am hearing your summary (which may be biased). If this verdict is unreasonable, then the decision should be appealed, and put b…
/r/MensRights03/10/13 06:21 PM
7

Falsely claiming sexual harassment might be able to be argued as a form of sexual harassment - but we can also just call it fraud.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 06:12 PM
2

We believe that gender politics is not a zero sum game. We can accept that every single one of your women's issues are problems that society should seek to correct. That, in no way, detracts from some of the real and legitimate gender issues that men face (issues discussed on this forum). That being said, let's tackle everything you mentioned. White men, which is presumably what you all are, live the best and most privileged lives on the Earth. Men have been, for millennia, more privileged in ev…
/r/MensRights03/10/13 06:04 PM
1

It's not grammar and punctuation. It's word choice. You did not use enough words to properly convey your meaning. People can't understand what you don't say.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 03:31 PM
-1

I work in family law. I do see this. Suspending licenses is one of the best tools child support enforcement agencies have to force dead-beats to pay. The problem is when the dead-beat is doing their best, and their license is necessary for them to earn an income. Take away the license - no income - no money getting paid anymore. My best advice is to be as cooperative with all the people involved as you can. Most enforcement officers aren't evil zealots. Their job is to enforce court orders, and …
/r/MensRights03/10/13 03:13 PM
1

We have to start trolling and making up fake shit. No. Have you ever heard of something called the 'high road'? If you see trolling here, downvote it. The only way MRAs look good is if they act good. So go act good. Don't be petty.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 02:55 PM
3

There's nothing quite as persuasive as something that can be explained to a five-year-old.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 02:53 PM
5

I do not make it a secret that I dislike AVFM. I think they are deliberately sensationalist and antagonistic, and hurt the movement more than they help it. But this "In his own words" series on male victims of domestic abuse is, dare I say, superb journalism. This is exactly what the MRM needs to be doing. These stories are important stories that get no attention. They deserve attention - and AVFM is bringing them to light. Bravo AVFM. Keep this up.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 02:48 PM
-1

I do consider myself a feminist, and an advocate for gender equality. Yes, you antagonized the situation a little, and you can be forgiven for feeling frustrated by her response. How do you deal with these people? You make very diplomatic and reasonable post explaining your position. You don't make any digs into her, even if she's being completely insane. You then stop arguing all together. In my opinion, as a feminist, she's is not a feminist. Men and women can be feminist. The whole point of f…
/r/MensRights03/10/13 02:44 PM
1

I like your article far better than hers. I agree, I think that what your wrote is what she meant, but it is not what she said. And frankly, I really take issue with her blaming 'feminism' for devaluing the nurturing of children. I agree that this has happened, but I would argue that capitalism is a better culprit. Further, the answer is not 'less feminism, more women in the home', it's 'more feminism and MRM - more men and women in the home'
/r/MensRights03/10/13 02:34 PM
1

It's not the fact that you have 4 "now's" in one sentence, its that I don't actually understand what you mean. ACA is now legal. Health insurance is now the responsibility of every individual. I understand this quite clearly. That being said, if the primary caregiver, mostly women, is now responsible for healthcare and the care of children, should it be the responsibility of the man to wreck himself now to provide insurance that the woman can now and now legally have to provide? I do not underst…
/r/MensRights03/10/13 02:30 PM
3

Don't despair, OP. There are actually a lot of moderates on this sub who want to advance the MR cause, and we try to balance out some of the hate and vitriol that exists here. Like you yourself pointed out, there's a lot of really good Men's issues talked about here that even the most hardcore feminists have a hard time refuting. There's a lot of good work being done by this community. The best you can do is to be involved. Comment, vote, and educate in the real world. If all of the moderates fl…
/r/MensRights02/10/13 09:00 PM
-4

The term feminazi exists for a reason. Like most fascists, they seek to subvert every aspect of culture -- movies, video games, television, books, fashion, education, governance and civil society -- to service their ideology, and not art or the broader culture in general. This makes them dangerous. Their movement will never end, because it has no real goals save those of total and utter cultural domination You are the reason some people don't take MRAs seriously.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 08:45 PM
5

It seems that Mr. Bolen and I have different definitions of the term. A lot of people have different definitions of that term. He didn't, for instance, name or quote any of you. There's no 'attribution'. I agree with you though, off the record should mean "you don't get to write about what I tell you".
/r/MensRights02/10/13 08:44 PM
4

I think you made a lot of typos - because most of your sentences don't make a lot of sense. If you're really upset about the ACA, tell your politicians you want universal health care like we have in Canada. That way, you don't pay more if you're a man, you pay more if you're rich (funded by taxes instead of premiums). And seriously, life is way better if you've got free or insured healthcare. If you get hurt or sick, you go to a doctor. You get better. You don't get worse because you can't affor…
/r/MensRights02/10/13 08:41 PM
2

I don't really care for this article 1) Women outnumber men in universities = "We've won". Yes, women outnumber men in universities. This doesn't mean that women are equal. This means that women have achieved parity (and then some) with men in post-secondary institutions. There are a host of other issues facing that are unfair and need to be corrected. 2) Canadian National Anthem "True patriot love in all our sons command" "The patriot love in all of us command" This change is meaningless, and f…
/r/MensRights02/10/13 07:19 PM
1

Yeah, I don't have any statistics on hand. Anecdotally, however, I see this every time I'm in court.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 06:32 PM
9

This isn't even necessarily 'sweet' justice. In Canada, this is the only acceptable outcome for the given facts. If dad stays home and cares for kids while mom gets a medical degree, he will almost certainly (1) get the kids, (2) get child support, and (3) almost certainly get spousal support (alimony) . Most of the family court 'bias' isn't against men per se, rather it's biased against the working parent. It just so happens that men are the working parent in the vast majority of cases.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 05:49 PM
11

The change to the anthem is so minor, and the anthem has been changed before. The particular line in question was not even in the original lyrics! I don't think any of us would have difficulty making this tiny adjustment when singing the anthem - and the reason for changing it is good. Why should true patriot love only be commanded from our sons? Why not everybody. Finally - the people calling to change the anthem aren't calling it offensive. They're not angry women protesting in the street. The…
/r/MensRights02/10/13 02:09 PM
4

Rich boys can also inherit tons of money from their parents. While I think there is an argument to be made that women have the choice of earning money on their own, or relying on someone else (whereas men must always be self-sufficient), this article does not support that argument. The article is about rich people, not genders.
/r/MensRights02/10/13 02:04 PM
1

Yes, it's not a healthy dynamic. I feel that the male perspective is missing from conversations about consent. Too often men are characterized as these slavering beasts who can't help but rape women given the chance - when in reality we're desperately seeking companionship and validation resulting from consensual sex. The problem is not just with men who don't look carefully enough for enthusiastic consent, but also with consenting women who aren't enthusiastic enough.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 07:41 PM
3

Shouldn't this be posted in /r/feminism? What does popular conceptions of feminists have to do with us? Or is the intention for all of us to join in a circle jerk where we mock the hygienics of feminists?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 06:02 PM
2

Actually, the author is saying that refusing the fund the ACA amounts to an attack on women (never uses the word 'sneak'). The author also doesn't claim the shutdown is an attack on women. Rather, the author is critical of some republican members who have (apparently) pushed through an amendment that allows employers to abstain from providing women's preventative health care based on 'moral' grounds. Really, all you did was take several words that appear in the article out of context and then st…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 04:33 PM
-1

I disagree - I worry that posts like this only reinforce people's perceptions that MRAs are about women-bashing. If we're trying to get rid of the view that women are morally superior - we should be finding instances of people making that claim, and deconstruct those claims.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 04:15 PM
1

Men also inherit money from wealthy fathers. And like Mytecacc says - this is a strawman. I don't think any feminist would get upset about a parent leaving their money to their children - regardless of gender. I simply fail to see how this news story has any explanatory value whatsoever in dealing with the rights of men and women. It's about rich people.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 03:35 PM
-1

People do accept that women can be violent. Very few people still cling to the notion that all women are saints.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:59 PM
10

So the only way women can be super rich is if they inherit wealth from their dead fathers or husbands? Maybe this belongs in /r/feminism?
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:35 PM
2

Why are you crossing out Feminazi? If you made a mistake, why didn't you just delete the word altogether? Also, have you considered the possibility that the largest barrier to MR issues getting more coverage is not feminists actively trying to thwart us, and perhaps that changing generally held views in society is hard, and that many of our most vocal activists alienate moderates? (in part, by using stupid words like 'feminazi')
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:33 PM
4

Now that we've established that there has been a female serial killer - let's get back to discussing Men's Rights.
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:30 PM
10

There are far worse campaigns out there. I don't see anything wrong with promoting "enthusiastic consent". I do agree that 'If you have to convince them, it's not consent.' maybe takes things a bit too far. The problem with sex right now is that men are socialized to believe they need to obtain it, and women are socialized that they need to withhold it. The result is a situation where men are expected to 'extract' sex from withholding women. Enthusiastic consent is important for both men and wom…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:28 PM
-6

Seriously. Feminism is not some evil empire commanded by a secret board of feminist man-hating elites. It's a hundred year old movement that aimed to equalize disparities between the sexes. Yes, there are some people who take things too far - and the movement has done far too little to help men (and in some cases, don't far too much to hinder it). But that doesn't mean that the first goal of MRAs should be to destroy and dismantle feminism. Both movements are ultimately after the same thing. The…
/r/MensRights01/10/13 02:22 PM
11

I also get what AVFM is doing. I get what MensRightsEdmonton is doing. They get MRAs noticed, but they do so at the cost of people taking us seriously. All they do is enrage the base that already supports them, and alienate everyone else. Take OP, for instance. He thinks that I get don't "get" AVFM, and therefore I should STFU. This is the same black and white dismissive attitude that permeates too much of the MRM. The title implies that OP is right, and I'm an idiot. In reality, we disagree abo…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 11:11 PM
1

All good points - though you should add that some of the most vocal and visible MRAs use trumped up rhetoric and either come too close or cross the line into woman/feminist bashing. People then assume that all MRAs anti-feminist traditionalists instead of progressive equal rights activists. But - and I can't stress this enough - your points are bang on. Especially 1 - 5.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 09:57 PM
3

Then, by all means, get behind the "do more harm than good" crowd.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 07:43 PM
3

I haven't downvoted you, but - just wondering - what do you feel is this article's relevance to Men's Rights?
/r/MensRights30/09/13 07:43 PM
0

Anti-Intellectual? Feminism started with suffragettes (wealthy, educated women fighting for the right the vote). It flourished in academic institutions, and feminists continue to tend to be college educated. You are free to disagree with it - but it is, and always has been, an "intellectual" movement. Marxist? Do you even know what that means? If so, please explain it to me in your own words. Then explain how it being 'Marxist' is problematic. Supremacist? Hate movement? This depends entirely on…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 07:05 PM
-3

I've actually read a significant portion of Marx's writings. He never used phrases like "Exposed to the Sunlight of the World's Gaze". That sounds like a bad google translation.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 06:48 PM
10

"The Anti-Intellectual, Marxist, Supremacist, Hate Movement called "Feminism" Must be Exposed to the Sunlight of the World's Gaze and Held to a Stern Accounting for its Grievous Transgressions" Am I the only one here who is embarrassed to be associated with people who write this stuff?
/r/MensRights30/09/13 04:58 PM
4

I'm an MRA that is still a feminist. I'm not sure if that counts.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:29 PM
6

Oh I agree. He shouldn't have to. But OP was asking what he should do. He should prove his innocence. Like I said, it's not fair, but that's gotta be his priority.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 09:30 PM
21

He has the right to talk to an attorney in Massachusetts. We can't tell you what rights he has. We can tell you that it sounds pretty awful, and that this is becoming more and more of a problem in American Colleges. One word of caution for you, though. Just like some women lie about being sexually assaulted, some men lie about being innocent. It's entirely possible that he did abuse her, and he's telling you it was her "psycho-ass friends" who made the complaint so that you stay his friend. Ulti…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 06:58 PM
1

I don't get it.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 06:53 PM
1

Thank you for posting your comments. Those are indeed, pretty benign.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 06:52 PM
0

I think it's a great idea, and it's been suggested often in the past - though I've rarely seen anything come of us.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:28 PM
4

Right, but we don't know that. They could be feminists, they could be men, they could be republicans, they could be Rastafarians. My point is, we have no idea who those people are or what they represent. We only know that they're morons (and bigots, frankly). Let's call them bigots, and leave it at that.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:26 PM
1

While most people here will instantly agree with you - I'd like to see what you wrote. I've found that often people claim they were being reasonable and civil when in reality they aren't. That being said, I've also seen some pretty benign shit get people condemned.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:24 PM
1

It might be. But it's never a good idea to make assumptions - especially on the internet.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:15 PM
8

Original thread title called them feminists. OP changed it. Now this is an awesome thread pointing out a ridiculous double standard.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:12 PM
2

I think we should just go so far as to call him a hero. I don't think we need to drag the paedophilia presumption into it. There are so many good examples of men presumed to be child abusers. This is just an instance in which there is no such presumption.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 05:08 PM
2

And did the media run that image? Did they label the image "have you seen this man accused of sexual assault"? I'm not disbelieving the story at all - I just feel that this information needs to be included in the thread.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 03:09 PM
2

What kind of title is that? Seriously...
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:46 PM
2

I'm always interested in information about primary, secondary and post-secondary achievement gaps. I think they are one of the best MRA traction issues. I'm not a huge fan of this graph though. Most of the data is really old, and I have no idea what the units are. +2 whats?
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:45 PM
2

A general piece of advice for infographics is to be very gentle about the point you are trying to prove. It's better to show than to tell. Let the reader reach their own conclusions about what the images mean - just make sure that the images leave only one rational conclusion! Your last infographic was actually very good in this regard. You didn't say "MALE PRIVILEGE IS BULLSHIT". You simply said "Male Privilege". I reached the bullshit conclusion on my own by looking at your charts.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:42 PM
3

I'm no fan of AVFM, but As usual, AVFM has warned men’s advocates not to respond physically to the violence of protesters, never to engage in violence themselves, that if they are attacked they are to immediately leave or (if they are on the ground) curl up in a protective position, I cannot fault them in the least for this article. This is exactly the right message. I hope this event is successful, and I hope that the only people who make fools of themselves are the protesters. Be calm and be c…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:35 PM
2

I'm pretty sure that the problems with Congress have more to do with the political parties than the genders of the it's members. There are both men and women in congress, and all of them are failing miserably to manage the country.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:29 PM
2

It's good that she's facing charges for her false report - but the article you linked makes no mention of the innocent man's picture being used in the media. Can you please link a source that indicates his picture was published?
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:27 PM
3

So women take, on average, 4.1 sick days per year more than men. I guess that might justify a small discrepancy in terms of the wage gap. But there's other issues here. First off - many employers don't give personal days. They only have sick days. So if your kid needs to see the doctor, you have no choice but to take a 'sick day'. So if a Mom does that a couple times a year, then you make up that difference pretty quick. In any event, I'm not sure what you point is. Can you explain to us what yo…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:23 PM
4

Please explain how this is exploitation. All I see if a young boy posing in a picture with what look like cheerleaders.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:18 PM
19

How do we know that the two anonymous comments were made by feminists?
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:17 PM
1

The rabid hatred is comment is more representative of the sub as a whole than the replies to my comment. My bigger concern is the way that different opinions and perspectives are immediately (and often condescendingly) dismissed. Whenever I take a position that is critical of this sub, the comment is inevitably downvoted to the point where it disappears. How can we criticize feminists for being dismissive if we are no different? Anyone voice on this sub that doesn't tow the party line - namely, …
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:16 PM
1

Maybe you're right. Maybe that will happen. But then again, maybe it won't. You're just speculating at this point.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 03:18 AM
3

Quite the contrary. Reddit is made up by and read by millions of people. It's a huge distributor of information and ideas.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 03:14 AM
1

On Reddit, stories like these are almost always met with support. Your example of normal discourse is actually getting increasingly rare. We just need to keep raising awareness that abuse of men exists, and pretty soon it will become common knowledge. Common perceptions are changing.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 03:09 AM
6

The thing is, I get it - men are also rape victims and getting custody of their children shouldn't be such an uphill battle. I don't believe these things just because they are facts and I have empathy. As a feminist, these men's rights problems also relate to society's warped notions about women: that they can't be aggressors, that they are always better at childcare than men, etc. When I point out in men's rights circlejerks that 1.) I get it, and 2.) I'm a feminist, I get downvoted to the bowl…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 03:07 AM
1

Exactly. We don't know that these people are feminists. Also, a good deal of people there were actually critical of her cheating. You're getting worked up over nothing.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 03:03 AM
2

As you can see, a lot of MRAs have rushed in here to prove my point. Like I said, there are a lot of good ideas here, and lots of good stories, research and statistics. Just be careful about how much rabid hatred there is floating around.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:55 AM
2

Look, if you choose to define feminism (as some MR sites have), as a 'hateful religion that seeks to stomp men under it's boot', then yeah, i agree. But most people think feminism is simply: women's rights. Being anti-feminist to most people means anti-women's rights. As I said, extreme feminist bloggers are not the ambassadors of feminism. They don't speak for the movement. We should not even be dignifying them with any attention.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:40 PM
-1

Exposing what is said in secret meetings is important if the people in the meeting are important. Most people care as little about these feminists as they do about all MRAs. Why fight them over petty little things? I'd rather leave them behind and grow beyond them.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:38 PM
-9

You bet your ass singling out feminists for being bigots is tactless. What AVFM is doing is either (a) taking comments out of context, or (b) highlighting extremists within a movement to create the impression that these are the opinions held by the entire movement. Regardless of whether these attacks are truthful or false, they have the same outcome. People who identify as feminists (but are more moderate, and actually agree with you) feel personally targeted. Doing things like this accomplishes…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:31 PM
32

Too many women suffer dreadfully from domestic violence and we must do more - it is clear that women are more often the victims and suffer worse levels of violence overall and I would want any man who does violence to a women to be arrested - unless it was lawful self defence. But it is also clear to me that we have not said and done nearly enough to address the needs of men as victims of domestic violence and we still don't. This pretty much perfectly sums up what everyone should be working to …
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:11 PM
-5

I am all for the advancement of women's rights. But the way some people go about is completely wrong. Don't let go of that thought. There's a lot of very toxic anti-feminism on this sub, and it seduces a lot of people. There are lot of self-proclaimed feminists who are misandrists. A lot of feminist bloggers are morons. They don't speak for feminism. Feminism is not a monolith. It's a movement comprised of lots of people with different ideas. We tend to focus on the worst examples of feminists a…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:08 PM
-19

This is such a waste of time What do we care if a bunch of people want to actively attack and undermine MR issues? Let them try. Our issues have enough merit on their own to gain traction with mainstream media, and to actually change minds among the general populace. We should be focusing our energies on promotion MR issues in a constructive way instead of what - "infiltrating secret feminist meetings to expose their hypocrisy"? Let them have their secret meetings. Let them protest events. Let t…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 06:02 PM
0

It's good to see articles like this in mainstream news outlets. The MR movement is definitely picking up momentum. I do want to point out the one critical paragraph: Indeed, there’s no question that some of the activities put forth by certain men’s groups on and off campus are not exactly constructive. For one, there was the crop of posters that showed up on Alberta campuses over the summer that made a parody of a successful anti-rape campaign. While the message behind the parody posters was a v…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 05:52 PM
25

Your story is a pretty clear example of sexual assault. While technically, you consented to the sexual act, the fact that you were threatened would "vitiate" your consent. Sexual contact without consent is sexual assault. I'm not sure I can tell you that what you did is 'wrong'. Your options at that point were (a) accept the sexual act, or (b) refuse the sexual act, and then see if she follows through with the threat. I wouldn't fault you for having chosen either of those two options. I think yo…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 05:44 PM
1

1st degree requires premeditation. You'd have to prove that she brought him up the cliff in order to push him off. Second degree is a crime of passion or opportunity. From the sounds of things, second degree murder is the correct charge.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 09:23 PM
8

So stick with it. Don't get angry, and don't make it personal. Again, you're espousing a minority viewpoint. The onus is on you to make a convincing case. Don't give up and call them idiots! Keep at it - educate them. And don't get nasty. It isn't personal, it's academic.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 09:22 PM
2

“You educate a man; you educate a man. You educate a woman; you educate a generation.”― Brigham Young Hmmm, he died in 1877. So it's hardly an over-reach of modern feminism. That's a very weird quote from that time. I wonder what the context was.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 09:18 PM
5

Yeah, too many MRAs focus purely on hatred of feminism and there are too few moderates to balance them out (and when we stick our heads out too far, we get downvoted really hard). Still, I'd like to believe that we're all interested in the same thing
/r/MensRights25/09/13 09:13 PM
1

But there was a need for an electronic monitoring device. Basically, she met the test for release - namely that she was not a flight risk, nor was she a threat to the community. She'll be tried in a court of law, and probably sentenced for second degree murder and will go to prison. This is exactly what we would want to happen.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 09:10 PM
8

You were doing really well until you called them misandrist and asked them to block you. All you had to do was link good sources (and there are good sources) to back up your claims. You hold a minority viewpoint, so you've got to expect some people to dismiss you out of hand. If someone came up to you and declared that (for example), Canada is the most violent country on the planet, you'd dismiss it out of hand, right? You know that it's not true. But what if that same someone didn't take it per…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 08:54 PM
12

My advice, don't adopt aggressive or confrontational rhetoric (as is often the case on these forums). I would strongly recommend you never use the term 'feminazi'. A great way to help in your day to day life is the calmly disagree with people spouting feminist rhetoric, or mocking MRAs. My preferred way to describe Men's Rights issues is to frame it as an extension of feminism. Feminism looks at inequality in society, and attempts to redress it. The MRM does the same thing. I like to say that th…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 08:49 PM
15

Warren Farrell remains, as always, the most balanced and thoughtful MR advocate out there. Can we start calling him the father of the MR movement already?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 08:32 PM
4

Welcome to the challenges of being a not-for-profit NGO. You are competing for public attention, sympathy and tax dollars against all of the others. If one of your campaigns didn't gather any momentum, then that's a setback. Try again. Do better. The don't be that girl campaign got lots of coverage, yes, but it did not generate any new interest in the movement. It just confirmed pre-existing biases. This campaign is more of the same. It isn't actually trying to do anything other than stir contro…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 08:25 PM
0

Source? Or did you make this up yourself?
/r/MensRights25/09/13 07:02 PM
4

Agreed. People aren't going to take us seriously if we don't take ourselves seriously. There are legitimate MR issues that could make up a platform. Why on earth would we waste energy mocking feminists when we could be raising awareness about legitimate clauses. As an Edmontonian, I am really disappointed to see this.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 07:01 PM
24

Don't read too much into this. Insurance companies (hell, all companies) want a primary residence for a person. They don't want 2 residences. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that your ex and child are living in the home you used to live in together. That's probably why your office manager received that notice. The insurance company just needs to develop standard forms which accommodate children living in post separation arrangements.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 07:38 PM
9

It's also possible that this blog was written because of the Slate article written on the same subject (and cited in the blog) from earlier this week. All internet publications are "click bait". Your post is click bait. And why exactly should I care if a feminist website drops off Alexa ranking? This is "men's rights" - not "mock feminists".
/r/MensRights20/09/13 07:34 PM
-1

The linked article is titled "Darwin Wasn't A Complete Chauvinist After All". It actually argues that he is not a chauvinist at all. And as for why some people might have thought he is, it's probably for comments (from the linked article) like having a wife would be "better than a dog, anyhow," and [He] wrote publicly that sexual selection made men "more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius" You seem to have run off on a tangent.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:25 PM
2

You're not trying to crowd source your research now, are you? :) Most people here will have never heard of her, and will have never read anything she has published.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:19 PM
3

I don't know... I feel like this is is a personal relationships issue (probably why it's posted in r/relationships). That being said, looking at some of the comments to his post I can see where the debate is going. I guess it's a legitimate question: does she have a right to be angry, does she have a right to know? His body his choice, right? I imagine, however, that most women wouldn't really give a damn if their husband/boyfriend donated sperm. That's why I'm questioning whether it's a MR issu…
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:17 PM
0

District judge William Ashworth said she had committed an “abuse of trust and power”. He added: “These four assaults on Eddie Kidd represent a pattern of violent behaviour towards your husband which, taken together, are in the highest bracket for sentencing guidelines. So basically, she was treated as severely as the law permits. Apparently that is only 5 months in jail. A man would probably have been treated similarly. There are not different sentencing guidelines for men and women.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:10 PM
0

It's good advice. Never use the word 'feminazi' if you want people to take you seriously. It's a gross exaggeration, it's flippant, and was coined by a complete buffoon. Similarly, don't ever accuse someone of going "full retard". People can be wrong, people can be misguided, but they don't go "full retard".
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:58 PM
2

Pretty much this. There are more women coming to universities and they have, on average, better grades than their male high school counterparts. There are also some scholarships that are exclusively available to women.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:54 PM
1

Can you please explain how this is a Men's Right issue?
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:51 PM
11

I can't think of a more concise way of saying what you said. I doubt anyone would disagree.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:30 PM
-3

The article is saying that Bill Nye's appearance reinforced many outdated stereotypes about scientists - namely, that they are old geeky white men with bow ties who spend their days in labs bend over a microscope. Scientists are mothers and fathers, rockers and rock climbers, some of us have tattoos and pink-dyed hair. This article is trying to promote the idea that 'science is cool'. It only briefly mentions women and minorities in STEM. The point is ancillary to this article. It's not a Men's …
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:28 PM
0

That's two posts from you in a row that are merely "woman behaves badly". This sub is supposed to be about issues facing men, not bashing women.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:18 PM
1

Yeah, she's a criminal who will most certainly be going to jail. Is there a point to this post besides "women are bad"?
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:17 PM
7

Yeah, we're going to need to see a comparable site of men making similar admissions with similar self-admonishment and advice from experts. Then we're going to need to see people screaming for jail time. I do not agree with OP that there's a gender switching argument here. This is merely an attempt for parents to be better parents. It does not deserve our criticism.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 03:23 PM
-6

You are incorrectly assuming that this trope is exclusive to women. Both genders do it to a similar extent. Again, you've failed to show a single piece of evidence that the article's intention is to gender switch.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 03:20 PM
-5

You can't claim to know what an author means if you don't read what they write. You're assuming that you understand this article better than me, and yet you can't even quote one line from the article to support your interpretation.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 02:35 PM
-3

Thank you. I tried to point this out in an earlier thread, and got down-voted into oblivion because of how 'obviously wrong' I am. I am incredibly disheartened to see so many people on this sub completely and utterly miss the point of this Onion article. Some MRAs are just so overwhelmingly prejudiced against anyone who labels themselves as a feminist, that anything said by such a person must be stupid, and wrong. Yes, I understand that some women claim they are 'too intelligent' and that turns …
/r/MensRights20/09/13 02:28 PM
2

There are far better issues to get worked up about than a couple of ladies getting handed their quizzes first.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:55 PM
2

And they'll seize all your assets in lieu of child support. I can't recommend against trying this enough. If you oppose a law, call/write politicians. Organize social movements. Do what everyone else does to change laws - don't martyr yourself.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:52 PM
-16

The irony, is that it's this thread that is misunderstanding the Onion article. The joke of the article is not that its actually women who are like this, the joke is that this guy is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. He thinks he's smart because he knows so much about "Malcolm Gladwell’s book Outliers or the British graffiti artist Banksy" and how awesome Radiohead is. In reality, he's not all that sophisticated, and never lets his dates get a word in edgewise. “Unfortunately I sometimes…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 09:48 PM
1

Fortunately for you, (and like i warned), it's not that simple. Even though you brought the debt in with you, she may not be entitled to a share of the repayments. You will need to speak with a lawyer in your jurisdiction to determine whether she is entitled to be reimbursed for those payments. Even if you don't hire a lawyer to represent you, it's still beneficial to speak with one to explain to you what factors are relevant and what their assessment is of your situation. Judge's won't immediat…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:47 PM
1

Earning double than her explains the support payments with equal custody. If you have debts from the marriage, they should have been dealt with during the divorce. Marital debt is treated the same as marital assets - you split them. If you haven't finished the property division, you should probably aim to do so. Unfortunately, child support and matrimonial property are mutually exclusive. Just because you're paying off matrimonial debt doesn't mean you owe no support (unless a court were to orde…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:42 PM
2

I am not a divorce lawyer in Michigan, so I cannot be certain of what the rules are there. 1) This is a far more complicated issue than you (and she) probably realize. A degree is valuable. It's something you pump money into that results in better earning capacity. If a couple jointly puts money into one degree, then courts will often find that the couple jointly 'owns' the degree, and the degree holder has to pay the other for half of it. Student loans are a debt like any other. In divorce, you…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:01 PM
3

First, I am not an Ohio lawyer. I can only speak generally about courts and family law. Child support payments are based on the relative amount of time the children are with each parent, and their relative incomes. I am assuming that I have correctly understood that you have the kids 50% of the time, in which case the relative amount of time with each parent factor is non-existent. This leads me to believe that your ex is earning far less than you. The courts want the children to enjoy similar s…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 04:31 PM
1

By the sounds of things you and/or your brother are older. Typically, once children get to be 15-17, they start to get their own say about who they stay with and when.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 12:41 PM
4

Most jurisdictions have laws for surrogacy. In my Province (Canada), the biggest one worth knowing is that even if you contract with a surrogate to have a baby for you, the contract cannot be binding. If the surrogate chooses to keep the child, she's allowed to back out of the agreement as it is unenforceable by the courts. From the Family Law Act of Alberta: s.8.2(8) Any agreement under which a surrogate agrees to give birth to a child for the purpose of relinquishing that child to a person (a)…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 12:38 PM
21

As far as I know, I have never heard an MRA take issue with a nurturing man. If anything, MRAs stand for the notion that men should be allowed to take on a nurturing role without being ridiculed or suspected of pedophilia. Keep reading and asking questions, and you'll certainly find out that you can belong here.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 11:52 PM
2

Rape is just a word. Sexual Assault is a crime, loosely defined (depending on your jurisdiction) as "sexual contact without consent". If someone does not want to have sex, and they are made to have sex without consenting to it, it's sexual assault. You don't need to be physically forced to have sex to qualify - it can happen other ways. I'm not certain 'guilt tripping' would count, but certainly taking advantage of someone when they're drunk, drugged or sleeping would.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 11:50 PM
0

While I certainly agree that false rape accusations are under-reported, can you provide a source or other evidence to support your claim that 50% of rape claims are demonstrably false?
/r/MensRights27/08/13 11:45 PM
-1

That's not off point at all. Your point about 'opportunity' increasing the chance of sexual assault is extremely pertinent. That's a good alternative explanation to the higher incidence of rape in the military that isn't "because its male dominated"
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:49 PM
2

It makes sense that we'd see a big defamation suit before big jail time. Defamation is civil law, which only requires a 50%+1 burden of proof to win. For jail time, you need Criminal Law. Criminal law requires "proof beyond a reasonably doubt." You could jail someone for perjury, but the standard of proof is much higher.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:46 PM
1

It's also entirely possible that MRAs downvoted the post for the same reason I cited. Avantvernacular seems to think so too.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:45 PM
1

You know, there is another explanation you haven't considered. Maybe I'm actually just a guy who is both a feminist and an MRA, with no brigade of feminist followers at my beck and call. Maybe I genuinely care about the MR movement, and want to it to be far more mainstream. Maybe I think that one of the biggest barriers preventing the movement from getting more attention is the fact that some of it's more vocal supporters frequently make misogynistic or sexist comments and give the movement a ba…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 09:41 PM
-2

Thanks for providing a summary for everyone. Bureaugamy does not have wikipedia entry and is not in any dictionary. It's a term invented by male bloggers to represent women who have become dependant on the government welfare system in place of relying on a man. for financial support. OPs study barely supports your Bureaugamy theory. As I mentioned, the study was not intended to study the differences between genders when it comes to allocating money. The discrepancy between male and female partic…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:42 PM
-2

The article is not calling men rapists. It's trying to explain why the incidence of sexual assault in the military is so much higher than the public in general. The articles isn't accusing men in general, its merely explaining why the men who do rape, rape.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:28 PM
2

All the top comments are from men who find them suddenly feeling more empathetic towards women because they realize that all women started off like their daughters - whom they love very much. It's a touching thread. Please provide examples of Feminist apologia from that thread - ideally top comments. Also, please elaborate on what you mean by "poor male role models". Do you mean that some of the posts decry the lack of good female roll models for little girls? If so, it makes sense that no one b…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:08 PM
6

It's probably ironic, but on the internet, you never know!
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:02 PM
2

To be fair, the study was no designed to look at the differences between men and women in economic exploitation. It was designed to see how 'priming' people with thoughts about science influence their behaviour. You cherry picked one line from study that has nothing to do with gender differences, based on results from 28 women and 15 men. Study 4. 43 participants (15 men and 28 women from 18 to 22 years, mean age = 19.35, SD = 1.04) from the University of California, Santa Barbara’s research par…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 06:00 PM
0

The article makes no such allegation. It’s not DNA we’re up against; it’s movies, manners and a set of mores, magnified in the worlds of the military and sports, that assign different roles and different worth to men and women. The article is making a standard "rape culture" argument - that men are culturally conditioned to devalue women and the feminine, which in turns makes them more likely to commit rape, forgive rapists, or disbelieve claims of rape. “We start boys off at a very early age,” …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:44 PM
4

I think you're conflating the image's statement that "feminist men are decent guys" with the statement "ONLY feminist men are decent guys". Really, all that image is saying that men can be feminists without being gay or using it as a device to ensnare women. They can be feminists simply because they think it's the decent thing to do.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:24 PM
1

Your point, if I read it correctly, was that deliberately offending people is endemic to internet forums. Consequently, you argue, people who find deliberately offensive rhetoric offensive should "GET OFF THE INTERNET". The problem from your perspective is the people who take offence, and not the people doing the offending. I disagree with you completely. I believe the best way to (in your words) "respond to something that absurd", is to calmly and and without malice, explain how their position …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:53 PM
1

Done.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:42 PM
31

This is encouraging to see (assuming the Judge got this one right - and I really hope he did). There needs to be serious consequences for falsely accusing someone of something with as much social stigma as child abuse. I agree with the concerns from the other side, that decisions like this one may dissuade real victims from coming forward. That's a fair concern. Obviously we want victims of any crime to come forward, and we don't want to penalize them if their coming forward doesn't result in a …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 02:37 PM
2

User challenges claim of wage gap with a lazy, one-liner without providing any evidence to back up his claim. Hate to* start an argument, but this is simply not true. User's lazy comment gets downvoted. User is asked to provide a source. User provides a source. User's post containing source is upvoted. A constructive discussion ensues.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 02:27 PM
-1

You're the one using all-caps, so I disagree with your characterization of me as going 'Berserk'. Your solution to the pettiness and name calling on the internet is to tell everyone who doesn't like it to GET OFF THE INTERNET. My solution is to encourage people to stop calling other names and being nasty. Women shouldn't get called ugly cunts, men shouldn't be called neckbeards. Both are petty ad hominems, and equally wrong.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 02:12 PM
0

Please reference the line in my post in which I state that women never troll men. Once you're finished with that, point out how many downvotes this thread has that could be attributed to this "feminist troll brigage" I'm leading. Then look how many downvotes my post has, and ask yourself which one of us is better characterized as the brigade leader.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 02:06 PM
-5

You're right that there is a distinction between being mistreated because you're a woman, and simply being mistreated (while being a woman). What's different is that when someone disagrees with me, they usually tell me I'm wrong and/or stupid (and on this subreddit, the insult is that I'm a feminist). When women get trolled, the content of the comments tend to be sexual. In your linked post, the woman was called ugly and accused of having a "sweaty vagina" because she disagreed with the majority…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 12:53 PM
1

Yeah, clever wordplay - good for a laugh - but not logically sound. In order for the lock and key to work argument to work, you have to accept the premise that men sleeping around is good, and women sleeping around is bad. The analogy basically assumes that it's the goal of every woman to deny sex to men (the lock), and that it's the goal of every man to break past the woman's barrier (the key). The very fact that the analogy is based on conflicting goals with respect to sex, means that its very…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:46 PM
1

Like I said, I'm glad that we've been seeing articles on privilege coming up on this forum. It's a problematic word, and is not constructive. It merely serves to shame men - regardless of whether or not the men in question deserve it! Great post Steve - I have but one upvote to give.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:42 PM
7

Men tend to be more protective of daughters than their sons. I don't buy the whole "because men know what guys are thinking" argument. When I was young, I wasn't only interested in sex. I was interested in sex AND companionship/love/validation. I didn't consider myself a threat to daughters then, and I still don't think of my young self as a threat to daughters. Full Disclosure: I don't have a daughter, and my opinion may well change if I do. But for now, should a father want his daughter to hav…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:02 PM
2

Yeah, sorry buddy, but you really need to reflect on what you said if you really don't see it as even mildly offensive. While you did compromise a bit by acknowledging alternate viewpoints, you then went on and generalized pretty badly. "Women everywhere" using rape as a get out of jail free card? Half of the guys you know have been falsely accused of rape? Approximately 1/4 women are vindictive liars as proven by the stereotype of women as vindictive liars? Some guys get banned for some pretty …
/r/MensRights26/08/13 08:19 PM
1

Means nothing to me - you'll have to talk to someone knowledgeable in Wisconsin about that. As for lawyers in general, many do free consultations. They'll meet with you, hear your story, and then tell you what the law says and how they can help you. It's generally a good idea to understand your rights and liabilities whenever there's something important at stake and lawyers are worth contacting.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 08:02 PM
2

Yup, extension of feminism works well. Take any one of her favorite feminist issues, agree with it and say "you're right, it's not fair that X just because someone's a woman. But by that very same argument, it's not fair that men have to register for the draft and that men dominate the most dangerous professions." People take this stuff very personally, that's why we like to mudsling and call people names (dumb ass!). The best thing you can do is not take it personally. Just be calm and rational…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 07:36 PM
5

My advice, don't adopt aggressive or confrontational rhetoric (as is often the case on these forums). My preferred way to describe Men's Rights issues is to frame it as an extension of feminism. Feminism looks at inequality in society, and attempts to redress it. The MRM does the same thing. I like to say that the MRM and Feminism are "two sides to the same coin". Both strive for a world in everyone is free to make their own decisions, and be free from disadvantage or oppression for no other rea…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 07:18 PM
1

I can't speak for the Wisconsin law, but typically being a biological parent gives you standing to make an application in court for access to a child. Of course, it also makes you liability for child support. Can the child be legally kept from the father? Yes. Assuming the father has had no prior relationship with the child, and the child is residing with mom, you'd be hard pressed to get the police to enforce access to the child (and really hard pressed to explain yourself to them if you tried …
/r/MensRights26/08/13 06:51 PM
13

“Check your privilege” is an arrogant phrase that really means “I know more than you. So shut up.” This only creates division among people and makes people feel guilty about things that they have no control over. I'm glad we're seeing more articles critical of this phrase. Privilege does exist. In some cases, entire classes of people are privileged. But belonging to a privileged class does not automatically mean that everything you say and every opinion you hold is incorrect or biased. It's also…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 06:40 PM
3

Please, enumerate each way in which my post could be construed as feminist. While you're at it, explain how, in each instance, being allegedly 'feminist' is relevant in any way to the posts relevance.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:24 PM
7

OP made a lot of leaps and assumptions about the writer and the content of these articles. Assuming that the writer was writing from a feminist perspective was one of many of those assumptions. Also, on the subject of labelling, thank you for labelling me a feminist troll camping the 'new' section. And let's be fair, there are far more than the 'slimmest' of reasons to downvote this thread. I care about the integrity of the MRM, and posts like this do far more harm than good.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:21 PM
21

Thank you for pointing this out. Also, check out the sidebar ----> This constitutes a 'low effort image post'. I frankly couldn't care less if some random person on the internet holds a double standard about how women should be treated by men. Much less so if her complaint has more to do with the Princess-King false dichotomy.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:15 PM
8

Best advice you can get. Facebook is not the right forum for political discussions - especially if you're espousing a minority opinion. Facebook is not a private conversation, the comments people post aired publicly to everyone's friends lists. In a face-to-face conversation, people can ask follow-up questions that aren't being shared with everyone they know. Consequently, people are more likely to entertain your opinions. They can also get you to clarify your position, in case they misunderstoo…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:12 PM
1

Unfortunately, it's rarely that simple. Courts are not concerned about what's most fair to the parents - they care about what's best for the child. As it happens, (in Canada at least), the law says that maximum contact with both parents is in a child's best interests. As you said, if there's issue of fitness of either parent, then 50/50 is inappropriate. There's also issues the availability of each parent. Kids need to be dropped off and picked up from school. They need to be fed, taken to activ…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:31 PM
5

I'm afraid you're going to have to provide a lot more specifics. All you've told us is that you lost a trial, have no lawyer, and a judge said that you showed aggression through text messages. There's not much to comment on. Also, if you lost at trial and are appealing - keep in mind that an appeal is not a do-over. Your job is not to convince the court that you were right, but to convince them that the Trial Judge made an error in fact or law.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:22 PM
33

Did you read either of those articles? The writer, who is not identified as a feminist, is unimpressed by the situations in both articles. She does not approve of either of them. And nowhere, does she state "it's men's fault". These two articles are completely harmless, and having nothing to do with Men's rights. Edit: Commenters have correctly pointed out that the writer is identified as a feminist writer in both publications.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:14 PM
1

Well, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who can give you a 'birds eye view' of child support laws around the world. Most North American/Canadian jurisdictions use very similar systems in which child support is based on each parent's respective income adjusted for the relative amount of time the child resides with each of them. Typically, base child support amounts will be supplemented with 'extraordinary expenses' such as medical/dental costs, extra-curricular activities and post-secondary e…
/r/MensRights25/08/13 06:20 PM
2

Your question is more or less irrelevant. The laws that govern child support will almost always be the laws of where the children are situated. If you move, the laws won't change (it just gets logistically more difficult for your ex to drag your ass into court). But why are you concerned about this in the first place? Are you being ordered to pay too much? If so, put your financial information in front of a judge and have your child support adjusted to be in line with your income. If you object …
/r/MensRights25/08/13 03:22 PM
6

From our sidebar: "The Men's Rights subreddit is a place for those who wish to discuss men's rights and the ways said rights are infringed upon." This is not a subreddit for "lol, feminists suck" memes.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 02:54 PM
1

Maybe you linked the wrong article? This story is, if anything, a critique of feminism's ability to represent women and color or of lesser means. And their discussion guidelines are pretty much "constructive posts only, no trolling". I really fail to see what you're criticizing.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 11:56 PM
1

Is there a chance? Yes. In my jurisdiction the likelihood of a parent to facilitate access is a relevant factor to consider when assigning custody. Add in the fact that he living situation is constantly changing, there's a good chance the court will see a reason to change the parenting arrangement. That being said, your brother would also need to show how stable his arrangements are by comparison. He has an uphill battle because the child has been with mom for a couple of years. A court does not…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:04 PM
1

Lawyers are supposed protect your confidentiality. You should not need to worry about the fact that you have seen a lawyer 'getting to them'. But I don't know your city, or this family, so I can't know if that's a concern. If you get a lawyer from a different city, be aware that the cost will increase if they need to travel to court.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:02 PM
3

Not a very robust survey with all of 3 questions...
/r/MensRights23/08/13 07:20 PM
4

You are discussing high level property and divorce law. You will not get any advice from this subreddit that will help you decide what to do... except this: Go talk to a lawyer. In your case, go talk to an experienced one. If her family is wealthy, they will have arranged all of their affairs very deliberately. The fact that you are living in a house owned by her father, rent free, is very telling. Add in the complexity of her being the beneficiary of a trust, and you've got a very complicated c…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 07:17 PM
27

Yeah, I think the phrase they were looking for is "sexually discriminate" not "sex discrimination". Still, I can't imagine why this is relevant to start grad studies...
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:34 PM
0

Hi SAM, sorry you're being brigaded by the guys. Especially innocuous comments like this. My point is not that there are no health benefits, but rather that the health benefits (alleged or otherwise) are not widely known. Most of the things you mentioned would be very new discoveries. We didn't even know about HIV a few generations ago. So why did America suddenly become so pro-circumcision for no discernible reason? That was my point. As for the downvoting, sorry. You should be buried like for …
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:32 PM
3

Child support in most jurisdiction is based on the relative and absolute incomes of both parents, and the relative amount of time the children are in their care. If both parents have 50/50 custody, and earn the same among, no child support is payable. So long as you have some custody of your children (I think above 10% is required in my jurisdiction), then fluctuations in your partner's income will affect how much you pay - both up and down.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 04:46 PM
3

It's important to remember that it isn't just deaths, but also minor, major, and disabling injuries that are most common among men. I've had the recent misfortune of injuring a finger while playing sports. As a result I have been attending physiotherapy twice a week. Unsurprisingly, around 90% of the people also receiving treatment at the same time as me for hand injuries are also men. I asked one of the therapists this morning if this was always the case, and he confirmed that most of the peopl…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 04:42 PM
2

That may because they didn't think it was fair to include military service as a "job", but it also might actually be because fatality rates in the armed forces are lower than these other professions. That wouldn't be especially hard to check, but I'm at work!
/r/MensRights23/08/13 04:35 PM
2

This is the important point. Other campaigns may imply that all men are rapists, but this campaign is guilty only of using a gendered pronoun. Replace "hear what she's really saying" with "Don't Hear What you Want to Hear" and this is a good sexual assault awareness poster.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 04:33 PM
2

Awesome and concise video. I love his point about blacks and earnings - 'if you look at college educated married black couples, they actually earn more than college educated married white couple. The problem is that there aren't enough black people in that category. The same is true, I believe, about the wage gap. It's not that there is salary discrimination, it's there are imbalances in the categories that earn more or less.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 03:28 AM
3

The one thing her defence lawyer correctly pointed out that just because someone threatens to falsely accuse a man of abuse, doesn't necessarily mean that actual abuse didn't occur. In all fairness, the guy could have taped the threat, and then gone ahead and beat her knowing he could use the tape to discredit the resulting 'true' complaint. Of course, that's most likely not what happened, but good lawyering all the same.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 09:44 PM
8

The article's argument is flawed in that it relies women's perceptions about workplace discrimination. Just because you don't perceive something doesn't mean it isn't taking place. That being said, the onus should not be on workplaces and opinion writers to disprove sex-based workplace discrimination. The onus should be on those claiming that it's happening. You can't point to statistics comparing women and men working different jobs with different hours earning different amounts and claim that …
/r/MensRights22/08/13 09:41 PM
1

Until we start treating men as capable care-givers, men are not going to start taking over responsibilities in the home. Until men start taking over responsibilities in the home, women will not be able to reach the highest positions in the public and private sectors. The needs of households haven't changed. There's work that needs to be done. Until we let men do those things (and don't mock them or treat them with suspicion for doing them), women are going to required to do these things. Househo…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:12 PM
1

There's always a possibility of the reddit story being made up. The bigger issue is the hearsay. You're telling us what someone else told you happened to them (and in part of the story - what someone else heard from the police about the woman in question). Because the story has been filtered through so many others, there is too much of a chance that people have lied, misinterpreted, mischaracterized, or omitted information. When we talk to people, we are always selective in what we say. We tell …
/r/MensRights22/08/13 05:07 PM
34

I am uncircumcised myself, and I honestly had no idea that the practice was so widespread until I was in my mid twenties. I had always assumed that it was something that only certain religions did. I was completely shocked to hear that majority of men in the US are circumcised. What amazes me the most is that there doesn't appear to be any reason for it. There are no medical education campaigns promoting its benefits, and there are no fashion magazines extolling its appeal. It's like it's just t…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:54 PM
14

I've read about this treatment a couple times. It's pretty amazing to have near-perfect male contraception from just one injection that last 10 years, and can be easily reversed with another injection. However, as far as I know, this treatment isn't available anywhere yet (still in clinical trials, I'm guessing). I suspect it will be very popular One word of caution, however, this just blocks babies (like the pill). Condoms are still important to prevent you from the host of other surprises that…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:48 PM
1

Yes, I don't understand this article. There was something posted on this subreddit in the past few months about how incredibly poorly boys were doing compared to girls. This article, if I can summarize, says "Boys are not outperforming girls, rather, both boys and girls are achieving the highest grades at almost the exact same rate". What I know to be the case is that while some boys are performing as well as girls at the top, boys have a near monopoly of the worst grades throughout the western …
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:41 PM
30

The_McAlister got downvoted into oblivion, so here's a fresh comment: The claimed wage gap is that women earn between 70 and 80 cents for every dollar a man earns. The 70% number that gets quoted only accounts for the annual salary of workers and their gender. It ignores hours worked. If you account for hours worked, the wage gap shrinks to somewhere around 83% (in Canada, anyway) Even if you account for the hours worked difference between sexes, there is a still a male-female wage gap! That bei…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:34 PM
1

edit: comment moved
/r/MensRights22/08/13 04:19 PM
2

It would sink her credibility on parenting issues. If she claims that her guy is an unfit parent and shouldn't have the kids, this text cast doubt on her credibility. She openly admits in this text that she will oppose his access to the child for no other reason than she does not like him. So long as other arguments about fitness as a parent aren't well substantiated (if you like in a crack house, for instance, this text would not save you), this would be a bit of an ace on the hole.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 12:52 PM
2

Before we get too excited, you'd probably have to earn a lot. In Canada, two children hits $1,875 per month once you're earning $133,000 per year. So really, this cap doesn't protect men so much as rich people.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 10:06 PM
25

That's a very interesting point on the subtly of the difference in language. I had never actually noticed that before. I wonder what the phrase is for 'female genital mutilation" among people who don't consider the practice abhorrent. I'm sure it's as innocuous as "circumcision"
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:59 PM
2

In most of these "I got banned by feminists" threads, the guy kinda deserves it. Not at all in your case. That was actually a very detailed, non-aggressive and constructive post. You're right to be floored by getting a ban for it. My guess is that you got banned for being male with an opinion. From their rules: "3. Check your privilege. If you are a member of a privileged class of people, be humble and open to the perspectives of people who are not. Continuing to assert an opinion from a privile…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:50 PM
0

You're right, I was incorrect in that characterization. Thanks for catching it.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:25 PM
7

Append them as an exhibit in an affidavit. Just make sure those conversations are relevant to what you're asking for. You can't use text logs of your ex being a bitch and then ask to pay no child support. But you can use them if, for example, she admits that the children don't live with her anymore and you're asking to not pay child support.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:22 PM
0

5/5. I'd give you gold if I had any. This is my point exactly. We can't decry people for jumping a bandwagon condemning an accused man if we jump on a bandwagon to condemn someone for making things up.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:19 PM
1

Look through my post history, and notice how well down-voted my critical posts are. Hell, look at my post above. Down-voting and banning critical comments are no unique to the feminist subreddits.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:18 PM
-2

Thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 09:16 PM
8

bad judges are bad judges. That's not a gendered problem, however. Men and women are equally affected by judges ignoring evidence.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:06 PM
13

I know, right? It's almost like I took our standard response to sexual assault accusations and applied it to another instance of unsubstantiated claims. It's like I'm being consistent in what I advocate!
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:05 PM
31

I'm going to need some (any) corroboration of this story. Because all this is is OP telling us --> what a his brother has told him --> about how his ex-girlfriend's mother's friend allegedly accused the brother of rape. To top it all off, it's from a throwaway account titled 'Falsethrowaway'? There are so many layers of hearsay to this that I cannot take it seriously without some sort of corroboration. Yes, men get falsely accused of rape sometimes, but this unsubstantiated story is meaningless …
/r/MensRights21/08/13 04:59 PM
1

The site is fantastic! You've done a very good job compiling a lot of the good information out there about issues facing boys and men in primary, secondary and post-secondary education. My favorite part is that you did all of this while keep a calm and objective tone throughout (except, maybe, your bit about the "war on boys" in education. That's a little too 'Fox News' sensationalist for me!). The name is strikingly similar to AVFM, and some people are going to assume that your site is a subsid…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:56 PM
-8

You were trolling. The question was "What is the Definition of Feminism". Your reply was "Feminism is just half of the solution for human problems and issues". Your post didn't answer the question or add to the discussion, instead you tried to refocus the thread and make it about the MRM. What you could have said was: "Feminism is a political movement that attempts to eliminate disadvantages women experience solely because of their gender. I do think, however, that Feminism is limited to women's…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:42 PM
75

Yes, it's rage-inducing. But the great thing about text messages is that you can pull their transcripts and put them into an affidavit to bring with you to court. A text like that would really sink her credibility in court.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:08 PM
0

This right here is the advice that can ruin your life. Do NOT run from the courts. Stand up for yourself and speak the truth. Pay what you legitimately owe to help support your children, and adjust that amount as your income rises and falls. If you walk away, the debt will grow, and interest will accrue. They can cancel your drivers license, prevent you from getting a passport, or put a warrant out for your arrest.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 02:40 PM
0

If bashing one woman isn't bashing all women, then pointing out things certain women do to men isn't representative of how women treat men. Either these stories are bashing women, or they're isolated incidents that have no meaning in a broader context. Either way, they shouldn't be in this sub. Also, thanks for revoking my 'MRA' status. Am I allowed to revoke yours too?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:28 AM
6

First of all, learn to write in complete sentences and use paragraphs. If you can't coherently articulate facts on reddit, you cannot do it for a judge. Second, for ongoing child support and spousal support, the amount payable is based on your income. If you're earning next to no money, and making an honest effort to obtain reasonable employment, your support obligations will be similarly low. That is the law in most jurisdictions, and probably is in Colorado. Third, if you're owing arrears (and…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:15 AM
-4

You asked me to provide examples of posts on this subreddit which bash women. I provided you examples. Getting cheated on in marriage is a men's issue, if the article is about how men get cheated on in marriage (there was a great globe and mail post the other day on that subject). Posting articles about a single woman cheating isn't a Men's issue, it's a "this woman is bad" post. It's bashing her. Being force to pay for children that aren't yours is a men's issue. Posting an article about a woma…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:02 AM
10

Well, actually, they did different things. OP used specific anecdotal experiences to generalize about women as a whole. Mccaffrey used specific anecdotal experiences to prove an exception to the generalization of OP. OP's argument uses a specific case to argue the general case, and Mccaffrey used a specific case to argue a specific case. His argument is more logically coherent. And what the hell? Why does Mccaffrey get downvotes for correctly pointing out the error in OPs reasoning? Downvotes ar…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 02:55 AM
-6

From the main page today: I Cheated On My Husband To Secure Better Genes For My Children A story about a woman who is a serial cheater, and has concealed from her husband that he is not the father of his children. Nowhere is feminist mentioned in the story. American women hate the fact that I married a Filipina. Selfpost that basically states that all American women are awful because they want to be like men, whereas Filipina women know their place in a relationship. Had she been a man, she'd ha…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 02:46 AM
1

Not only was she arrested, she was sent back to jail, which infers that she was not only put in jail before for this, but is being sent there again. So, just like a man, she gets arrested for this conduct. Would a man get arrested sooner for this? I have no idea. If you're going to suggest that, at least provide a comparable situation in which a young man released from prison for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old was sent back to jail for attempting to resume that relationship…
/r/MensRights20/08/13 09:46 PM
3

I really don't get this at all... what does this have to do with this subreddit? There's already plenty of decent wiki entries describing feminism in far better detail on reputable wikis. I have never even heard of the Ethics Wiki. This stub is poorly written, lacks sources, and is in many cases completely wrong. "Feminism started off as rebellion of girls against their Femininity". What does this mean? Source? This is under the History heading? This subreddit should be about Men's Rights issues…
/r/MensRights20/08/13 09:40 PM
25

Congratulations on finding a compatible partner in life. Now can you explain why its so important to you that she does not "Americanize?" What do you mean by this term?
/r/MensRights20/08/13 09:31 PM
15

The post isn't bragging about the egalitarian image of the /r/mensrights logo, it's directly comparing the logo to the 'feminism fist' - the implication being that /r/mensrights is reasonable and egalitarian while by comparison /r/feminism is unreasonable and combative. There are a lot of legitimate MRAs on this sub who are unimpressed with this subreddit's obsession with bashing feminists, feminism, and women in general. Yes, many feminists are bigots - who cares? Let's spend more time advocati…
/r/MensRights20/08/13 09:26 PM
2

Yes, not real courtrooms, and not real judges. In these shows, the parties sign documents agreeing to a filmed binding arbitration. The 'judge' is merely an arbitrator wearing robes whom the 'contestants' call "your honor". There are no lawyers, and they don't uphold the law.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 02:47 PM
8

That's actually a pretty decent point - I'll look into that for you. Edit: I can only speak for the Province of Alberta, in Canada, but yes, you are correct! Under the Family Law Act, s.50(3) In an application for a child support order, the court may, on the respondent’s motion, add as a party any other parent who may have an obligation to provide support for the child. I found a grand total of zero cases that have referenced that particular section, so it clearly is not used often. That being s…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 06:21 PM
12

Be sure to check with him to make sure he agrees with you before you do it. He might want a say.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:15 PM
1

There lots of undesirable things you need to deal with as a man. Women have their own share of gender-specific problems (read feminist sites/forums/blogs to learn about those). You can possibly claim that its better to be a man or woman. More importantly, the question is irrelevant. People can't change how they're born. All we can do is try make it so that things people are born with (like gender) have as little impact on a person's quality of life as possible.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:12 AM
2

Don't think of it in terms of worth, think of it in terms of roles. Historically, men and women had very strictly defined gender roles. Marriages were survival focused. Each gender specialized in what it did best. Women have the unique ability to conceive, carry and bear children. Remember, birth control is a very new phenomenon. Up until very recently couples had very large families because that was the inevitable result of having sex. Women were often pregnant or caring for young children. The…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:22 AM
3

The answer you're looking for is 'Male Disposability' as described by Warren Farrell. If we can assure the safety of half of a group of hostages, we save the less disposable ones. It's the same idea behind "women and children first" on a sinking ship (which I understand is somewhat of a myth). If someone has to die or suffer hardship, men are socialized to accept that role.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 05:39 PM
2

I'm not a fan of gender quotas any more than I am a fan of buffoons in politics.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:59 PM
6

What I hate the most about these statements (gendered or not) is how flippant they are about the issue. As if the only reason rape happens is because people carelessly and thoughtlessly rape. Not sexually assaulting someone isn't like wearing a seatbelt. You can't "remind" people to not sexually assault someone. People don't "forget" that sexual assault is bad. The right answer to your question is far to complicated to fit on a powerpoint slide.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:55 PM
26

Punishment is very poorly correlated incident of crime. Compare crime rates across jurisdictions with or without capital punishment, and there's no statistically significant different. But yeah, this type of 'education' is completely useless.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:51 PM
2

What I am doubtful of is the criteria of "good behaviour" being applied evenly across all races and genders You got me there.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:49 PM
4

I believe those criteria are the same for men and women. Most discrimination in sentencing results from the discretion exercised by prosecutors and judges. In this case, she is being released pursuant to a mandatory law regarding early release. I do not believe that this release provision only applies to women. My guess is that its a gender neutral law. If you can show me otherwise, I will of course admit I'm wrong! The fact that the article mentioned that this law is mandatory is a pretty good …
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:36 PM
1

Of course, civilians are both men and women I already acknowledged your point. Yet the majority of civilian casualties tend to be male anyway. While you're probably right, do you have a source? In any case the civilian/combatant dichotomy is not that old and is not some natural state of affairs - it takes huge effort and a broad societal consensus for it to exist at all. it's not surprising when it breaks down - if it ever existed in the first place. You're absolutely right about that. It's amaz…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 04:33 PM
3

First, from the above article. The pediatric nurse who inspired Stephen King's novel "Misery" by killing dozens of young children is to be released after serving only 35 years because of a Texas state law granting mandatory release to inmates with good behavior. Not because she's a woman, but because all inmates with good behaviour are granted mandatory release. Second, here's a male serial killer who was out on parole Third, here's a female serial killer who was denied parole I don't feel parti…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 03:40 PM
1

Yeah, we get it, women also commit violent crimes.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 03:19 PM
14

Ok, how about we read the rest the paragraph you quoted: Boys don't benefit, she said, from learning to be demeaning toward girls or to treat them as sexual objects. She said boys often expressed a desire for a deeper connection with girls, but felt confused about how to make it happen. They are "yearning for intimacy that goes beyond biology," she said. "They just don't know how to achieve it." I think that sums pretty much my teens. I didn't want to objectify, demean or fuck girls, I wanted to…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 03:10 PM
2

There's an argument to be made that war can be as bad for women as men. The civilian/soldier distinction has completely broken down in modern conflicts. A century ago, the vast majority of deaths and casualties in wars were the soldiers themselves (and therefore, overwhelmingly men). Now, targeting civilians either carelessly or systematically is incredibly common. Here's a study commissioned by the Red Cross (which is hardly a 'feminist' organization by any means). http://www.icrc.org/eng/asset…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 02:59 PM
1

Though we don't talk about it much on this subreddit, the fact that the overwhelming majority of homeless people are men is one the best arguments in favour of the male disposability theory. Seriously, if you're ever having a debate with a feminist about the validity of Mens Rights activism, don't lead with issues like false accusation or the wage gap 'myth'. Lead with homelessness and workplace fatalities. It's extremely difficult with argue against these two points, as even without seeing stat…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 01:17 PM
11

Let's be fair, the idea of promoting inclusiveness for only half of the population is fairly 'radical'.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:42 PM
29

I agree totally. Assuming that he's some victim of sexual trauma is completely inappropriate and over the top. That being said, if the cause is, like you said, depression, stress or a built up fear of failure, he should probably see a psychologist or talk to someone - if for no other reason than he is unhappy.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:40 PM
2

I think that the wage gap is as overstated as most people here, but this is not the best example for a number of reasons. First, the difference between salaries here is not 0.03% as is implied - it's 50%. The Apple executive's compensation is 50% higher once pro-rated for company net income. Women's groups claim that women are making 73% of what men earn for the 'same job', and in this instance, she's earning 66%. Second, the obvious counter argument to this comparison would be "ok, so if the tw…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 12:33 PM
-1

I did the same thing as you -- lots of downvotes for providing information left of out the article. I guess Mens Rights is as much of an echo chamber as the feminism subreddits.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 02:38 AM
23

A law firm marketing itself to prospective clients. Truth be told, you could hire just about any lawyer to "fight for your rights as a man" and they'd be all equally willing to do so - provided you pay for it. Still, it's cool to see their facebook website. They're making an effort to not only represent clients, but help cope with the transition and build a rewarding life after the divorce. That I can respect.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:19 PM
-3

I'm not saying I agree with the appeal court's decision, but this article is pretty biased and hardly gives a balanced account of the story. I read the published decision, and here's what was left out of the article. At the time, Jon was earning $327,000 per month (though it was argued that his income should have been measured at closer to $700,000), with monthly expenses of $29,000. The $10,000 support payments equalled between 1- 3% of his income. The divorce judgement had the child of the mar…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 02:47 PM
1

As far as property division goes, you only have to worry about property that increases in value during the cohabitation. If your house is worth $300,000 when she moves in, and $350,000 when she leaves, you only have to split up the $50,000 increase. Things both of you own prior to the cohabitation are exempt. Also, inheritances and gifts that each of you receive during the cohabitation are exempt. So for example if your parents give you a gift, or if you inherit from one of them $100,000, then t…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 01:15 PM
-1

I don't think you can fairly claim that one person on Facebook can represent feminism as a whole. That being said, she sure sounds like quite a judgemental and self-righteous person.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 06:39 PM
3

To be clear, the parents in question were fighting over the last name of the child (mom's or dad's most likely). The judge then, for apparently religious reasons, changed the first name because 'only Jesus Christ can be called the Messiah'. I fail to see how this illustrates a Men's Rights issue. Edit: Child Support Magistrates are apparently a thing. Why they are allowed to hear application for names changes is beyond me. Sure, the judge sounds a bit wacky, but gender does not play into this st…
/r/MensRights12/08/13 03:11 PM
0

Feminist critical theory has contributed a ton to our understandings of society. If you ever cite Warren Farrell (he's the guy with the book at the top of our recommended reading list on the right side of the screen) you are citing a huge proponent of feminist critical theory. I find the 'male disposabilty' theory to be absolutely brilliant, and he's using the same techniques to rationalize it has first and second wave feminists. There's a big difference between academic feminism and jezabelle/s…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 09:18 PM
0

Most women I meet in person or on forums are initially resistant to a lot of MRA arguments, but we almost always find common ground. My wife and I have discussions about it all the time, and she's about as resistant as anyone else I've met. We're still happily married. In my experience, I am just as likely to be shot down and ridiculed by MRAs as I am by feminists when bringing in an opposing viewpoint. Keep having conversations - but don't approach it from a perspective of "I'm going to explain…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 09:12 PM
0

I've come to expect this from him.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 07:46 PM
-3

But are they vilifying men because they're feminists, or because they're jerks? We have plenty of people on this forum who vilify women and feminists - are they that way because they're MRAs, or because they're jerks? Men's Rights is about promoting men's issues, not tearing down feminists ones. Feminists are not natural enemies to Men's issues, rather they are potentially the closest allies. It's just the most extreme and vocal feminists (and also tons of people who don't describe themselves as…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:33 PM
4

That string of tweets is outright pathetic. The man is clearly having a complete mental breakdown.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:11 PM
0

Gender politics isn't a zero sum game. You can believe that women shouldn't be oppressed or victimized by their gender and believe the same for men. Just because some self-described feminists hate men doesn't mean anyone who considers themselves a feminist has to do the same.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:06 PM
1

I feel you. I studied a decent amount of a gender politics and philosophy in University. "Feminist" techniques and tools of deconstruction are incredibly useful for revealing gender issues that would otherwise go unnoticed. Unfortunately, most MRAs here are, as you say, into the "Oppression Olympics", and treat Feminism like a swear word. What people fail to realize is that people like Warren Farrell (far and away the 'MRA' I respect the most) are feminists. They're just using the analytical too…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 06:03 PM
1

It's an interesting excerpt. The judge clearly disagrees with the state of the law that required a husband to prove that a woman, who has abandoned the family and since disappeared, was guilty of adultery in order to divorce her. His solution was a good one - sentence the man to 1 day of prison after he had already served 3. That being said, this has nothing to do with mensrights, as it is based on an old law no longer in force is any modern jurisdictions that applied equally to both men and wom…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:34 PM
1

The criticisms raised against the video mostly have to do with the images in portrays, and not its lyrics. Specifically, it's the fact the topless women serve little purpose in the video other than to be naked. Their being naked has nothing to do with the lyrics of the song. Rather, they are there to make people watch the video. On top of that, some of the images are a bit demeaning. The three biggest ones are (1) the singer blowing cigarette smoke into a woman's mouth, (2) the car driving on th…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:29 PM
1

All of these factors can be summarized as "physical differences" between the two people in question. While I certainly agree that the physical attributes associated with gender are already covered by 'size' and by 'physical capabilities', I did go ahead and search section s.34(2) of the Criminal Code on the Canlii database. While there were 331 citations of this section, after a brief scan I did not notice any cases that appeared to hinge on the gender of the parties. It doesn't look like the wo…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:19 PM
3

Your problem is extremely common, and I see it all the time in Family Court. As for affording a lawyer, so long as your are employed there are probably no pro bono options available to you. You either bite the bullet or your on your own. a) see my kids more: Use the phrase "best interests of the children" as often as possible. It's in all children's best interest to have a relationship with both parents. Have a good house for them to visit, and do fun wholesome things. Leave no room for your ex …
/r/MensRights02/08/13 05:28 PM
53

The title is more than a little misleading. Davis was given credit for the 474 days she has already served, and is expected to be released from Orange County jail within a week She spent 16 months in prison before trial, so she actually served her sentence. The title should read "Statutory Rapist sentenced to 16 months prison, released after serving 16 months" We're free to criticize the short sentence, but she didn't get out early.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 01:17 PM
8

Right. A group of feminists crashed the lecture by basically sitting quietly during the presentation? It's almost as if... they didn't crash it at all.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 03:41 AM
3

I'd go so far as to say that in most jurisdictions that is the case. I actually don't know of any that don't have this rule.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 09:56 PM
17

Moving out is not to your advantage. Men will typically volunteer to be the person who moves out because they are the ones who can afford their own place, and because men are socially conditioned to volunteer for hardship. The problem is that when it comes to courts, the status quo is a very powerful thing. A court's default position is to "do nothing". In order to convince a court to change the current circumstances, it's up to the person who wants that change to provide enough evidence to the …
/r/MensRights01/08/13 07:14 PM
1

Thank you - MRAs need to focus on the message, not the messenger.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 01:55 PM
1

Yeah, I was referring to the reproduced search abeartherewas posted. Not the OPs chart. Percentage is meaningless if the actual number is pathetically small.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 01:47 PM
4

Here's a gem from an article on my city that's been in the news recently: http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/feminists-target-lecture-on-boys-education/ Could it be that Brittany and her friends just absolutely hate little boys, and want to deny them any effort that might be made to improve their circumstance within the education system, or are they maybe planning to hijack Dr. Brown’s lecture and distract from its intended purpose just to draw attention to themselves? The entire article is ri…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 09:46 PM
-1

Thank you - so in January of 2013, 93 people searched "how to control a man" on google, and 47 searched "how to control a woman". Quite the epidemic there.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 08:27 PM
7

Don't overreact to what you read here. Contrary to what some people here think, false rape accusations are extremely rare. The Men's Rights issue is that while they are rare, the issue is not taken very seriously by the media and society as a whole. Most relationships work out just fine. Most hookups are mutually consenting and fun encounters. Personally, I've had over a dozen relationships and no one has ever accused me of rape. That's the norm. That's almost certainly what will happen to you, …
/r/MensRights31/07/13 08:08 PM
16

I hate to say, but A Voice for Men does offer a steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing. Their points are almost all valid and their statistics good, but the delivery is (with few exceptions) snide, derogatory, and often childlike. The critique that the MRM is "prone to toxic rhetoric that subverts its valid points and alienates potential supporters" is dead on. This is by far the biggest weakness of the movement right now.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 08:00 PM
9

Though most people don't believe this, it's actually very difficult for a completely fabricated story to hold up in court. Judges can usually see through bullshit, false testimony rarely holds up on cross-examinations, and fabrications tend not to have any corroborating evidence. The police on the other hand don't have anywhere near so high a standard of proof - false accusations can gain a lot of traction if the accuser is sympathetic and sincere.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 07:55 PM
5

"The problem is that patriarchy theory assumes the hierarchy is always >male or mostly male, and does this for the benefit of all males. This >means that all men are to blame (any harm they receive is unintentional), >and no women ever at fault (any benefit they receive is unintentional)." The problem in this statement is that the hierarchy is actually mostly >male. There are far more men in power than women, and our system in >general favors men. For a specific example, in the Texas abortion >d…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:56 PM
-2

If you don't mind, I want to circumvent your question. Why does it matter who initiates more divorces? I get the impression that MRAs who spout this statistic assume these women are initiating divorces against the husband's will. In my experience, most divorces are initiated well after the couple has separated. It isn't like married women wake up and decide one morning: "I hate my husband, I am going to go file for a divorce and take all his stuff today." What actually tends to happen is that he…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:16 PM
6

It's refreshing to see the civil, intelligent and moderates posts upvoted to the top (I hope this stays here). To expand on this answer: Some of the more academic MRAs (like the above poster) employ the same "feminist" techniques of criticism and deconstruction to find instances of a gender bias and inequity levelled against men. Warren Farrell (check the sidebar) writes from this perspective. He points out that just as women have historically been socialized to be subservient and to stay in the…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:48 PM
-2

Your internet reliability sensor should be going off when something ends in this: "There is a secret elite the rules this world and they understand the power of manipulating the male and female principles in a specific and esoteric matter. We also touch upon 'The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America.'" Feminism is not an international conspiracy.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:29 PM
10

A consultation and a 30 day wait is hardly onerous. A Vasectomy is an irreversible medical procedure, it makes sense that they'd want to make sure you met with a doctor to get fully informed, and that you take a month to make sure it's what you really want as opposed to something you're doing on a whim (like a tattoo, for instance). When they said "it's an insurance thing" they don't mean your insurance. They mean their insurance. They don't put people under the knife until that person is given …
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:19 PM
0

If you invite friends over for dinner, you don't hand them a bill for the food. If you invite someone out to do something, it's common courtesy to offer to foot the bill. In a dating context, historically men would always pay for everything on dates. The two main reasons are because (1) men were always the ones doing the inviting, and (2) men want to show off their ability to support someone. Now, women ask out men just as much. Most women expect to split 50/50, or to take turns.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:33 PM
4

If she was told this by lawyers, it was most likely meant as a cynical comment about how these things turn out. It's not a comment on what the law says. Any assault is against the law, regardless of sex or gender. The issue comes down to proving it. To answer your question, it is not ok for a man to hit a woman, nor is it ok for a woman to hit a man. It's also not ok for either a man or woman to hit back, regardless of who hit them first.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:25 PM
6

Speak with an attorney. These amounts do strike me as a bit high for your income, but I don't know what child support guidelines are for your jurisdiction. (I practice law in Canada)
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:20 PM
2

Pre-nups hold up just fine. The exceptions are you can't contract out of child support (child support is the child's money, not the parents'), and you can't contract custody. Otherwise, pre-nups can be challenged if they fail to address certain things. This is why in the following paragraph the writer refers to areas that "remain up for negotiation". The bulk of the pre-nup is still in place. They are only fighting over the holes in it. "Although the Murdochs signed a prenuptial agreement and tw…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 05:16 PM
4

I practice Family Law in the Province of Alberta, Canada, so I can't definitively say how things are handled in PA. In Canada, we would approach these facts as follows: Mom earns $160,000 per year: she pays child support to the husband based on her income level. That number is $1,393.00 per month. We then multiply that amount by the proportion of the recipient's parenting time. He has 50%, so she pays $696.50 per month in child support. Dad earns $165,000 per year: he pays child support to the w…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 04:39 PM
-1

This article is making a mountain out of a molehill. Child Support Enforcement is a government body. Bureaucrats have to follow the procedures established by legislatures. They've told this man that he either needs to pay support through them, or get a court order stating that he has already paid. All he has to do is go before a judge, show him the cancelled cheques with his ex-wife's signature on the back, and the judge will grant the order without hesitating. Instead this guy is complaining to…
/r/MensRights16/07/13 05:14 PM
1

This article has nothing to do with feminism. It's written deliberately in an attempt to provoke a response, not to push any political agenda. There's another thread on the front page right now where MRAs are criticizing the overreaction by feminist writers to the Onion article about Chris Brown for not being able to take a joke. This is a joke, and harmless one at that.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 05:57 PM
2

Comments like this give MRAs a bad name. It isn't helpful.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 05:47 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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