TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

IncrediblyFatMan Archive

View 1 post and 286 comments by IncrediblyFatMan on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

IncrediblyFatMan/r/MensRights16/09/11 12:35 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

Bingo. Which is exactly what forcing child support on a man who never wanted children is. That is exercising control over a man's body by forcing him to labor to pay for that child.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 09:48 PM
2

I commented but was downvoted with no response because my post was not gynocentric. Typical, really.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 09:46 PM
9

Also it ignores the fact that there's nothing really in marriage for men anymore. Someone downvoted you but I upvoted you.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 09:44 PM
3

Wow. I just poked around the articles there and that blog is a jackpot of hate towards male-to-female transexuals as well. The content is so horrible that it likely violates wordpress' rules.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 05:18 PM
3

Feminists aren't anti-male, guys! They aren't! Honestly. ... yeah right. Look at this comment from the blog's author: Optimistic, but rarely works. Most of the stark raving misogynists, rapists, woman-killers, ALL had ‘mother love’, and look how they turned out? And the majority (not all, but the clear majority) will, once Nigel is caught doing any of these things, defend Nigel to the hilt. Sorry, but it is delusional to think you can change ‘your little Nigel’. Tobi Hill-Meyer has to be Exhibit…
/r/MensRights01/10/11 04:56 PM
1

Aerik once again fails to read the article linked and makes bogus statements with no evidence. Feminist debate 101.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 04:29 PM
2

Of course. He cherry picks anonymous comments from blog comment sections.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 10:32 AM
1

Does someone have stories on this type of vigilante "justice" when it found out the woman was lying (not even the times they just picked the wrong guy). I saw quite a few about a year ago but forgot them. There are several covered on False Rape Society.
/r/MensRights01/10/11 10:24 AM
1

http://jezebel.com/5844838/campus-mens-rights-group-kicks-screams
/r/MensRights01/10/11 02:25 AM
3

The point still stands that statistics bear out that women are convicted far less often and for less time when they are convicted for the same crimes as men, but in this specific case the punishment does fit the crime.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 05:38 PM
11

Sure they have, but in the same vein women also have derogatory terms for men they find physically unattractive. The difference is that homely women seem to care a lot more about it than homely men do about it and the women affected think they deserve special treatment.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:53 PM
3

20 years is justice served for that crime.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:43 PM
3

How am I wrong? This has nothing to do with whether monogamy is natural or not. Let me say right now: It's not. It's also natural to shit on the ground, to murder one another, to do all sorts of shit we find unacceptable in civilized society. That is besides the point. Read a little evolutionary theory. Males naturally instinctively refuse to commit their time and resources to women when they have no assurance the children are theirs. This is indisputable. Males who did not adapt to the reality …
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:37 PM
3

Exactly. The common man didn't get their vote until shortly before women, and get this: It's only because the elite took a little pity on those they were using as cannon fodder for their wars and decided that hey, maybe they should get a little say in how the country is run seeing as they're dying for it.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:28 PM
3

In sentencing 21-year-old Muskan Balaggan, Magistrate Nanise Ratakele said her actions sent a message to the community that women could actually lie about being raped and indecently assaulted. It's amazing how so many people seem to be under the impression that rape accusations are some sort of magical truth serum when they must know that people lie about all sorts of other things all of the time. Why wouldn't it be possible for a woman to lie about rape? This is a typical result of feminist ind…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:20 PM
7

They are not even examples. Let's take a couple here because if I were to rebut every single one of them I would be putting far too much effort into what anyone who isn't a feminist-indoctrinated ideologue can see plain a day: If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex. Ah, yes. Sexist comments from boorish slobs. This is privilege! If you don't know the meaning of the word, of course. Surely you'd …
/r/MensRights30/09/11 03:02 PM
6

This entire list doesn't touch on any single tangible privilege that can be defined and shown in the real world. The legal privileges women have over men are codified into the very laws themselves and can be shown. You have linked what is by and large a list of "my team isn't as interested in X as the other team. Boo fucking hoo." The effect of affirmative action backfiring on you when you are assumed less competent due to the existence of it is a consequence anyone with a half brain could have …
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:52 AM
4

Don't be so simple. If someone likes to have a lot of sex with a committed partner, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. If someone likes to fuck a bunch of people but isn't in any kind of serious relation, that's also fine--but don't expect men to ignore that kind of history and commit, because men are the ones who do not get any assurances of biological parentage. The standard feminist line is that it doesn't matter and of course to women, it doesn't matter because they are given by bi…
/r/MensRights30/09/11 11:40 AM
1

Clinical terms and proper language: They're funny, folks.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:12 AM
3

You must be fucking kidding me. What advantage are homelesss males proffering? You still won't define it and give any example of it. It is a childish device of weaponized argumentative hot air which only works only fools who buy into sophistry. And I hate to tell you this: Many of us are wise to it over here.
/r/MensRights30/09/11 04:08 AM
3

I wouldn't be so sure. The entire article is dripping with sarcasm about the kinds of caricature strawmen arguments feminists make about men in crass attempts to justify their otherwise indefensible positions.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 11:30 PM
2

For the same reason that female teachers who are caught with their pants down are characterized as having "seduced" their students into a "love affair" rather than called pedophiles as males caught in the exact same situation are, I imagine...
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:57 PM
2

First the makeup troll, then this. Maybe learn a little subtlety before you try to quotemine or whatever it is you're wasting your time doing.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:36 PM
29

It's amazing how many women don't know what the term "chauvinist" really means and its origins. It's become a sort of slang term to mean "any male behavior I don't like, even if women do it too." And they certainly do. Women judge physical appearance at least as discriminately as men do.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:20 PM
19

Here's what's really happening: Feminists cannot stand the fact that men are instinctively wary of committing to promiscuous women, and for good reason. Before DNA testing, if you did not have a reasonable assurance of a woman's sexual fidelity, you could not be sure any children she bears are also your own. Thus, committing to promiscuous women was a losing mating strategy that would likely end your genetic line. Devlin put it best: Nature imbues women with a sort of "erotic blinders" that make…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 09:59 PM
5

They aren't even anarchists. They're statist, fascist feminists who far from being against government, welcome government violence being levied to meet their own agenda.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 09:47 PM
-2

"I hate you if you have a penis, once had a penis, or are planning to have a penis one day."-What feminists would say if they lifted the thin veil on their hateful screeds.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 09:25 PM
2

People who buy sex are usually a little pathetic, sure, but... Let's analyze this horrible article. It's obviously feminist ideology-ridden, for a start. You can see this in that male sex tourism is talked about (and in part sensationalized), but not female sex tourism. Sex tourism is scummy. Scummy as fuck. Those who do it are exploiting the poor to satiate their sexual urges and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. But it's dishonest to characterize this as something only men do. Further, v…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 08:32 PM
0

It would make sense from an evolutionary psychology standpoint that men would feel more attached to children that they absolutely have no doubt are theirs and therefore would be instinctually driven to help them succeed so they can reproduce as well. And in the case of sperm donation, you can be exactly 100% sure that children conceived from your sperm are yours. Women recieve far more chances than do men to pass on their genes and this is beared out by the fact that we are descended from twice …
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:34 PM
6

This is a cool troll and all but you should know that the film business has long used makeup on men. Just not to the extreme caricature you're trying to paint here with the eyeshadow and eyeliner.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:27 PM
2

A half-truth, at best. Yes, men want to make sure children are their own. There is nothing wrong with that. DNA testing is revealing that these instinctive concerns of paternity are not at all unfounded or unreasonable. The leap here is that that is somehow connected to domestic violence when only a small percentage of men use violence to attempt to control women from meeting other men. Of course, he leaves out the well-documented implications of women's naturally exploitative behaviors that evo…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:21 PM
3

Well he would be right. Equal rights are anti-feminist by definition of the political action of feminists like himself who prove they want equal rights only when it is convenient for them to do so, but privilege and supremacy for women wherever they can get it. He's a rent-seeker who's looking out for his own economic interests here. Nothing more, nothing less. He would be out of a paycheck otherwise.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 02:06 PM
3

It's defined nebulously and as something that cannot be proven with any kind of actual evidence as it is betrayed by real world facts such as the ubiquitousness of the homeless being male. It is an article of faith. "Oh, you can't see it because you have it." Let's say you meet someone who claims that there's purple unicorns flying around the room you're in and you just can't see them. Well, you can't prove that they don't exist, can you? An article of faith, once again.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 01:59 PM
5

When policies are created to economically, socially, etc. help "Women are minorities" who do you think is excluded by them...? These are policies created from collectivist PC caricatures that are betrayed by the reality that "rednecks" and "white trash" do exist in the real world, that the reality of socioeconomic standing isn't as simple as the politicized clowns masquerading as academics would have you believe. This idea that males and especially white males are somehow universally privileged …
/r/MensRights29/09/11 11:53 AM
6

Ah yes, male privilege. That thing no one can really define or prove even exists with real world examples.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:24 AM
1

It gets worse. Nah, they're right you see. It's not like sexual activity is and has been required to continue the existence of the human race or anything and so there isn't any kind of innate instinctive biological drive for it.... except it fucking is and there is. How fucking stupid can these people get.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:22 AM
3

No, those are things that women find attractive in men, and so men strive to become in order to be sexually selected. It has nothing to do with bogus, nebulous patriarchy hypotheses.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:19 AM
3

In our western, first world society, women are not a marginalized group. Everywhere you go, it's women' this, women's that. There's all sorts of government offices specifically just to cater to what women wants and need, and of course none for men. Men are in fact facing codified discrimination in our society. It's right in the legislation. You have countries like Sweden that were seriously considering a... "Man Tax." As in the idea wasn't laughed right out for being bigoted. You might have a ca…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:16 AM
3

People called on their bullshit. See also: "Oh this is triggering" as a way to weasel out of addressing anything. It's just one of many slimy ways to try to divert attention off of the subject at end.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 10:10 AM
2

That was your argument. Your argument was a stack of sophistry built on this idea that males are stronger and therefore can cause more injury and therefore, well, the numbers don't matter and it's still a male on female problem. You are the delusional one. Enjoy spending hours scouring blogs for comments. You're pathetic.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 08:08 AM
27

Retaliation is absolutely warranted when an aggressor kicks you in the balls. Fuck the legal system on this one.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 08:06 AM
5

Everyone is judged by how they look. Everyone. Every single person in the world is treated differently based on physical beauty or the lack thereof.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 08:01 AM
6

Aka the argument of... Women can't be sexist/You can't be racist if you're black/etc News flash: They can and this woman is.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:59 AM
6

If feminists could say what they wanted to say and get away with it, it would be simply this: I hate you if you have a penis, you once had a penis, or are planning to have a penis one day.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:56 AM
3

I'm sure he's projecting. After all, he's on his ... how many now? 4th?
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:55 AM
2

Anyone who reads them will come to the same conclusion. Your argument is built on the premise that men are stronger and therefore the numbers don't matter. You were soundly thrashed in that argument.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:47 AM
3

Here's what it boils down to: Your so-called "real feminists activists" like yourself don't really exist. You don't publicly call out fem-supremacists. You just can't find any activism from these mythical feminists. All you can find is activism from the other feminists, the ones who push an agenda of hatred. I also don't really know what you mean by "disgusting policies". Could you elaborate? Lowering the standard of evidence creating a situation of guilty until proven innocent with the campus S…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:46 AM
4

Because so-called "real" feminist activists like yourself have done absolutely fuck all and have publicly said nothing about what the actual feminist activists that exist who actually do things are doing with their fem-supremacist special pleading policies that are anything but equality. The real feminist activists are the ones who sit in office and make these disgusting policies. They really exist!
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:24 AM
2

Welcome to /r/mensrights. This isn't an echo chamber for demagogues like yourself. Anyone can go read exactly what you said as the whole thing is still up: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/a-debate-on-domestic-violence/ Have fun hunting for comments and crying "misogyny" while turning a blind eye to worse on your own blog's comments. What a charmed life you lead.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 07:04 AM
0

"Dating" is a now outmoded concept generally used by some women to get free meals/entertainment out of guys they aren't even interested in. Don't "date."
/r/MensRights29/09/11 06:59 AM
3

You mean where you lost your temper and used a childish argument that women's violence is fine and somehow not comparable at all because "men are physically stronger"? Oh. That one. Good show old chap.
/r/MensRights29/09/11 06:55 AM
3

There's plenty of it. You can read almost any feminist site which uncritically accepts the notions of "patriarchy" (this is almost all of them by the way) and you have plenty of misandry due to the nature of the claims. You're the one who's terrible at debate. Like that time you went off in a huff after a bout of special pleading in the Paul Elam domestic violence debate. Remember that?
/r/MensRights29/09/11 06:27 AM
1

Is that the only example you have? Well, pretty much any feminist article which uncritically accepts and works off of antagonistic, baseless and universally nebulous "patriarchy" hypotheses which are, well, almost all of them. Men are universally privileged and above the status of women--that's why they take up nearly all of the positions at bottom of society and all, with the low of the low, homeless, being ubiquitously male. Then there's the comments you're so fond of harvesting! That's your t…
/r/MensRights29/09/11 06:08 AM
3

See also: "bigorexia"
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:47 PM
3

Not sure. All I'm seeing in that thread is rationalization for the poor treatment of men they find unattractive. When women say they like "nice guys" what they mean is they like these qualities in men that they are already attracted to.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 06:15 PM
5

More men of my generation and the up and coming generations will be like this than people think. We grew up seeing how the game worked. We saw uncles, neighbors, friend's fathers, even our own fathers get shafted by the current system. These young guys may not know or if they do even consider themselves to be "MGTOW"--In fact I just heard about the term recently myself-- but we certainly are exactly what is described by it. We're not going to repeat the mistakes of those we saw crushed by the sy…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 04:30 PM
6

Correct. The current human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 04:23 PM
4

I challenge you to find misandry on my site, or on any of the feminist sites I link to in my "antidotes" sidebar. Cite something specific. give a link. That's pretty easy. They can look at the comments. Like you do.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:46 AM
5

Here's the thing, fatter-man: Pretty much every single one of those I've read is better than any feminist blog where the actual articles, not just one-off cherry-picked comments (which is really your whole pathetic shtick) are full of bile that makes you shake your head. You know, like good ol' Jezebel and its article in which they talk all willy nilly about how they abuse their boyfriends. Things like that.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:44 AM
3

Well that would be optimal and would of course give men the same kinds of rights that women have but we live in a society in which the common man is truly considered an expendable workhorse and has next to no rights.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 11:11 AM
2

It's all in the old pre-no fault divorce laws. Feminists pushed no fault divorce because it gives women the upper hand in all situations. The man almost always ends up becoming an indentured servant, no matter whos conduct caused the break up. This allowed women to monetize divorce as they currently do.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:14 AM
2

It is feminist revisionist history to believe that actually happened in the west. What really happened was that men AND women would try to hire private investigators to prove adultery to get the upper hand in court. A man who was able to prove adultery could eject a woman from his life without owing her anything, and a woman able to prove it would make off as women do currently in our society no matter what the circumstances--even if she cuckolds him.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 09:03 AM
1

And more importantly of course, it's actually happened here.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 07:39 AM
1

We always link to these people's statements. The proof of it is all there. What happened to this broad that made her so fucking bitter and insane? "I could kill you, guy-who-smiles-at-me, look how powerful I am!" For most of them? Decades of feminist indoctrination and bigotry. To them, we're just like "niggers" to 1800s land-owners. That is how deep the hate runs. Anti-feminists don't make this stuff up. The truth is even worse than any kind of fiction you can imagine.
/r/MensRights28/09/11 12:43 AM
0

Right you are, however NOW still uncritically pushed the notions that; A) John Bobbit was somehow a rapist. If John Bobbit were a rapist, why then would Lorena have been so concerned with his performance in bed? When she was arrested, that was what was complaining about. Somehow, I doubt that women who are really raped care about that. Even when Mr. Bobbitt was found not guilty of marital rape, that didn't change the feminists' view that, of course, he was really guilty. Kim Gandy of NOW said th…
/r/MensRights28/09/11 12:38 AM
7

What this means is that 43% of men who thought their wives or GF's were sleeping around on them were wrong and owe them an apology. Only if you're dumb enough to not read the article and think that all or even a majority of those tests were performed for this reason. Dr McChrystal said there were many reasons why people got the DNA testing done and results were often a shock to people who had not even considered their child’s paternity. She said: “The thing that we have to take into account is t…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 05:19 AM
4

Just like you would never see, even in the middle-fucking east, a television program where men celebrate and sit around joking about mutilating women's genitals. You know, like happened in our culture about 20 years ago with the Bobbit scandal where a woman chopped off her husband's penis and tossed it out of a moving car and the news was full of disgusting women gloating about it and feminist organizations like NOW calling her some sort of "hero," and more recently, with those empty-headed cunt…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 04:51 AM
7

Here's a hint: Aerik likes to make things up and attempt to misrepresent others in lieu of having any actual points.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 02:12 AM
5

Yes this literally already happens. PC drones and feminists are upset that these bake sales, which have already happened before on other campuses by the way, shine a little light on this subject which is understandably uncomfortable for feminists and PC drones.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 02:08 AM
9

This was already posted. To rehash: The sample size is pretty small. Larger sample sizes (in the millions) show about 3 in 10. Which is still really disgusting and unacceptable.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:27 AM
6

-OR- How to try to indoctrinate them young.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:17 AM
1

There are white knights/pussy beggars, sure, but then there's also rent-seeking scum like Michael Kimmel who push lies and made-up statistics in order to keep their literally worthless jobs going.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 10:37 PM
9

I'm a unicorn named Scooty and you're not going to tell me otherwise.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 10:36 AM
3

The whole "triggering" nonsense is yet another way to attempt to weasel out of honest discussion of a subject.
/r/MensRights26/09/11 10:25 AM
3

Fine reasons to not get married straight from the horse's mouth since the majority of these seem to involve women and their workhorse husbands they fuck around on.
/r/MensRights25/09/11 06:51 AM
1

Your implied assumption that all women are immature and shallow enough to chase after money is rather insulting to women in general. I guess reality is insulting to women in general. As are their own admissions of such. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8237298/What-women-really-want-to-marry-a-rich-man.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119760031991928727.html?mod=hpp_us_inside_today That's not a counterargument. I'm sorry, was linking to a dumb internet meme your idea of posing one to b…
/r/MensRights24/09/11 10:59 PM
3

Bullshit. The only way for that to be the case is if the ratio of men to women in the population were severely unbalanced. It's called hypergamy. Maybe you should learn about it and all of the evidence associated with it such as the fact that women are after guys that are their social and economic betters. I.e. marry up. Guys at the bottom rung of society aren't "up," by the way. Rule 43: The more beautiful and pure a thing is, the more satisfying it is to corrupt it. Still nothing to do with se…
/r/MensRights24/09/11 10:29 PM
3

Rape is primarily about sex. And it's more about powerlessness than power. Why do you think that rape happens most in impoverished, inner-city areas, committed mostly by impoverished men? Those men have the least chance of actually getting laid legitimately. Furthermore, why do you think the vast majority of rape victims are young women at the peak of their sexual attractiveness? Not about sex? Don't kid yourself.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 09:29 PM
1

Well, men certainly do buy sex and as long as we have women who talk out of both sides of their mouth about equality while still appraising men's finances and demanding men pay for all of this and that it's not just the kind of prostitution we're talking about here. It's also the De-facto prostitution that the whole dating game is about and that these anti-prostitution moralists engage in and are trying to "protect" from the encroachment of those who sell sex for straight-up cash money with thei…
/r/MensRights24/09/11 09:21 PM
5

I thought that was known troll Cliffor that made that subreddit.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 06:24 AM
1

The question is really, does he have to pay child support for this? He shouldn't.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 05:18 AM
8

Right, and even though these women are not only ignoring their husbands but fucking other guys on the side, the man still ends up having to pay if he ends it or she just decides she wants to permanently go ride some other guys dick. Seen that play out several times. That's how fucked up the law is. Anyone who knows what's what refuses marriage.
/r/MensRights24/09/11 04:12 AM
1

How much does it take for a man to lose visitation with his children again? Unproven allegations.
/r/MensRights22/09/11 06:40 AM
21

No, this doesn't make sense at all. Some taxi drivers end up being falsely accused due to some women not wanting to pay the fare. Cameras inside the vehicle as with police vehicles would make more sense.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 04:32 PM
1

The worst part about the white feather campaign is that it was done by the proto-feminists. Hypocrites even in their day. Wanting equal rights to men but not wanting to do anything to earn those rights as the men had to by being forcibly used as cannon fodder.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 04:29 PM
2

The only one who isn't subject to anything in the existing battery of tests is the purported father. You seem to be fine with all of these tests, and probably even circumcision. Yet you're against this one thing, completely irrationally, which is essentially just yet another test. It doesn't make sense unless you have some kind of personal agenda at play here.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 04:23 PM
2

Yes, 30% is still very unacceptable. But that is the same general ballpark number that laboratories held to strict testing standards come up with year after year with a million or more tests run per year for various reasons, whether it be court ordered, a man wanting to find out, "family tree" type people who want to find out if they're really related to that famous person of centuries past that they think they are.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 03:34 PM
1

Yes, even many liberals are even becoming anti-feminist nowadays.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 07:46 AM
3

Don your tin foil hat once more and imagine this: If your government wanted to go to such lengths to acquire this info from newborn children, they could do so using samples already collected for the existing battery of tests.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 07:11 AM
8

A medical procedure? There is no medical procedure unless you believe swabbing a cheek for some cell samples is a medical procedure. By the way, hospitals already do a battery of tests during pregnancies, many of which are based on using those same genetic materials that can be used to acquire a DNA profile anyway. I don't see you complaining about those.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 07:06 AM
2

As you well should.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 07:04 AM
3

No they're right you see. Just not in the way they think. Men are getting less of it. Men are the ones facing the inequality. It takes a little bit of math (math is hard) Women comprise 50% of those living with HIV. However in 52% of those countries, there was budgeted support for women-focused/only HIV program funding. Which means-- get this---less available for men than there is for women.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:08 AM
0

The point is that they take his and find out he was drunk as well and then arbitrarily decide that he's somehow a rapist because he was "less drunk". What is that.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 05:00 AM
0

The editor has feminist leanings and believes that any questioning of rape hysteria and the associated propaganda is "belittling."
/r/MensRights18/09/11 10:16 PM
14

It's a small sample size. "Hundreds" -- not all that many men even know about paternity tests. Ironically in the US those who are the demographic of shows like the Maury show are more educated about their existence. Most are taken due to court ordered reasons, I would think. In larger sample sizes, that is, millions, around 30% show the man not being the father.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 09:17 PM
1

You are attempting to play semantics games to rebrand it as rape. "Less" drunk? How do even quantify that. This is charming and classy, too But like many in this thread he seems to have subscribed to the idea that men have to fuck every vagina which bats it's eye at them (willingly or no, as we'll never really know) and went for it when he should have clearly known it was a bad idea.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 08:57 PM
4

That's not proof, dolt. That's a feminist attempting to make that connection with zero evidence in a transparent attempt to enforcing their totalitarian blog commenting moderation because they cannot win any kind of open debate.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 05:37 PM
5

Except they would have to furnish proof of it and cannot, whereas there is a wealth of quotes, official statements, and the actions of prominent feminists, feminist politicians, feminist journalists, and feminists in academia. Want a great example? Remember the Bobbit case? Well I do. http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/06/this-date-in-history-lorena-bobbitt.html
/r/MensRights18/09/11 05:11 PM
8

Both parties drinking at a party and end up having drunk sex? Well you see, the male is a rapist. There's no double standard or different standards at play at here at all in my George Orwell "equality" feminism. Great post.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 04:59 PM
3

Sure they can, if they assume that most men who want to oppress women are Males Rights Activists, then they can easily say that you have a unified front and control over everything. Except there's no proof of that whereas there is with organized feminism. Whoops.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 04:56 PM
1

Ok so I upvoted you but this is what you don't seem to get: The indoctrination stations known as women's studies (sometimes renamed "gender studies" even though it's the same thing) is where most every feminist comes from. Their core beliefs are incompatible with any kind of social or legal equality. To them, you are what they call "fun feminists"-- you like the label and what you think it means, but you have no idea where it originates.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 03:55 PM
4

Irony, really? When those feminists are the ones who hold public office, sit in academia, and have their articles are published in major publications it's very hard to say that the majority of feminists are not like that.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 03:49 PM
4

Specious argument since feminist funding is by and large from the government.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 03:45 PM
19

There are at least as many trolls and downvoters as regular posters. It comes with the territory of going against a sick ideology that has become the orthodoxy. You don't really need to worry about it.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 05:05 AM
7

The difference between someone like NickRausch and Andrea Dworkin however is apparent. You had plenty of feminists who actually agreed with the revolting garbage that came out of Dworkin's mouth and women's studies departments that would use her materials to indoctrinate with. It's not even a real equivalence. The guy's comment is downvoted to boot.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 04:31 AM
6

Let me go cherry pick a random comment from the various feminist subreddits and offer it up as proof of inherent misandry. Ha ha, just kidding. Why would I do that when I can draw from a wealth of disgusting quotes, articles and actions of feminist journalists, academics and politicians? Real people, not just random anonymous internet postings. This is the laziest attempt to discredit us in a while, but when you have to resort to trying to make shit up that you know wouldn't fly due to things we…
/r/MensRights18/09/11 04:22 AM
9

None of them really are.
/r/MensRights18/09/11 03:09 AM
10

That's something that often doesn't get talked about when it comes to men and women working the same jobs, as well. Men often have to or are at least expected to shoulder most or all of the physical parts of that work because the women won't, and the men aren't paid any more to do it. It's even more apparent and inexcusable when you go into work that requires physical strength and size such that it even excludes a good number of men who simply don't have the physique for it. Military, firefighte…
/r/MensRights18/09/11 03:07 AM
19

Wow. That's a whole lot of of boo-hooing that more women aren't into those things than any sort of quantifiable "privilege." I guess I should complain about there not being more men in nursing or the cosmetics industry or something like that and try to term at as some sort of "privilege" by being a nitwit who doesn't know the meaning of the word. A peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or…
/r/MensRights17/09/11 10:30 PM
13

Are you going to try to say that this accounts for the kind of 9:1 ratio of homeless men to women we see? I think not. The lack of assistance available to men, lack of shelters, the "others first" (that is, everyone else but men first) policies. Those all contribute to it in a major way. People reinforce the idea that nobody cares about it by, well, not caring.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 10:23 PM
11

And also have access to all sorts of government assistance and shelters and such that men do not.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 10:19 PM
8

It's almost as if you're totally unaware of workplace sexual harassment policies that have been around for decades and are trying to make things up.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 07:41 PM
81

Feminists have no actual response to the fact that men overrepresented in the homeless and imprisoned. This is where their cognitive dissonance kicks in and they try to blame it on the mythical patriarchy which--oh my--is supposed to be benefiting these men rather than leaving them to sleep on the fucking streets. The entire concept of "male privilege" is unproven garbage that goes against observable reality such as this.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 07:23 PM
50

Feelings more important than reality. News at 11.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:48 PM
5

Yeah, that never happens and if it did it would end in a losing lawsuit for those who fired such a woman. People who call her a slut would be the ones being canned.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 06:25 PM
1

The idea that "patriarchy hurts men too" is bullshit. Factory made a good video about that.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 04:00 PM
3

I wonder if this is related to women working less hours than men. Can't be.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 03:45 PM
3

Oh please. You and I both know the when a woman doesn't get custody it's because they don't want it. That's how the family court works. It's a racket to get the most money out of those who work the most hours, those being men. Instead, women kill their children for other, and really petty reasons. And then someone points the finger at a man. It's really the man's fault, as you know.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 03:04 AM
2

I would probably have more sympathy for her if she didn't lie about her own age as well.
/r/MensRights17/09/11 01:25 AM
-4

Is calling her a bitch for being a bitch "misogyny?" I don't think so at all. You seem to be a glutton for abuse. You take all of this abuse from women who talk out of both sides of their mouth about "equality" or "sexism" and so on and keep coming back for more, nodding your head in agreement with them like one of those drinking birds.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 11:45 PM
2

Almost every single comment consists of: Oh no! They called her a bitch for actually being a bitch who writes scathing posts about guys she dates treating their hobbies akin to having an infectious disease or being a sexual predator. Misogyny! Misogyny for calling a spade a spade! Nevermind she was a transparent gold digger who thought he was "normal hedge fund guy." (That means he has a lot of money (Money, hedge fund guy)) and how dare he even approach her being a disgusting nerd who isn't her…
/r/MensRights16/09/11 11:41 PM
8

A step in the right direction, though I'm sure feminists will complain about it as always as many of them believe women are entitled to do this.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 10:17 PM
3

Well, no. Stretching the definition of rape is what has gotten us into this disgusting situation we have now where extremist ideologues control public discourse about the subject and are strangely enough attempting to have more and more men thrown into prison under this saturated definition of "rape" while ostensibly being "rape victim advocates" who do things such as provide misinformation about rape statistics and tell rape victims that it's pointless to report rape. Men should be able to opt …
/r/MensRights16/09/11 09:57 PM
1

Well, it's a pretty good piece of proof of the very societal attitudes we talk of when men commit a crime vs. when women do.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 09:50 PM
12

It's too bad you uncritically buy into the bunk patriarchy hypothesis which doesn't stand up any kind of observable reality. You're sort of being honest about how the majority of women view the majority of men, though you're stuck with a hefty bit of cognitive dissonance thanks to your feminist indoctrination.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 03:15 PM
3

Mandatory testing solves almost all of these problems.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:15 PM
6

Feminist blanket downvoting on everything posted in this subreddit.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:14 PM
3

They couldn't find a cause of death, but... She never informed anyone of his death. She (or someone she knows) buried him in her fucking backyard, and then built a barbeque pit over where his corpse was buried. I assume she had previously been questioned on his whereabouts given he had been missing for over half a year, given that she eventually, through her lawyer, told police where he was buried. It's safe to say she lied to police previously. I really don't think you'll be able to convince ma…
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:12 PM
2

Another astounding example of the pussy pass.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 12:36 AM
1

It's great how the only way you even attempt to discredit us is to form some sort of strawman caricature. That is how indefensible politicized rape hysterics are. You can't even argue from anything approaching rational.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 06:34 PM
2

Bingo. They have a choice between low paid drudgery shitwork like, oh, just about everyone else and a high paying option like sex work and suddenly the sex work becomes "exploitation"? Are the guys (come on, when's the last time you saw a female garbage collector) who pick up your garbage every week exploited? Because let me tell you, I doubt very many of them enjoy driving a smelly garbage truck or picking up your reeking trash and placing it into that truck. How about those who work in sewage …
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:09 PM
0

It's funny how they managed to shoehorn the wage gap myth into there.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 05:11 AM
2

There is a difference between equal rights and being pro male. From what I know of China, it is very patriarchal (not talking about the "patriarchy" but rather the idea that wealth and ownership passes through the male in families) and male oriented. This is true but males are also expected to do more and take more responsibility.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 04:02 AM
1

This is pretty old news. Corporations and governments love feminism. Corporations since it promotes at the very least more available labor, which drives down wages for the laborers over time due to the huge surplus. Governments love it because it drums up more taxpayers. What do you think the end result of all of this is?
/r/MensRights14/09/11 03:12 AM
4

You'd think people would be happy that little girls are not being indoctrinated that pink kitchen playsets are more suitable toys than bright red fire engines, and that little boys are being shown that it is equally fine to play with dolls than with swords. Are you suggesting that the use of "him" and "her" is always concomitant with these things? How so. By the way I highly doubt there's no indoctrination behind this. It's just in the way those who have power find acceptable. In the current cul…
/r/MensRights13/09/11 02:57 PM
2

No, a woman wouldn't get prison for this at all. Drinking, playing a sexually charged game and suddenly only "finding out" once you find out that there are pictures/videos of you naked floating around out there a few months later? The case would be so suspect that when levied against a female, they would throw it out. Due process actually exists for women. The Casey Anthony trial is proof of that. Remember that guy Scott Peterson who was convicted of killing his wife? He probably did do it, but …
/r/MensRights13/09/11 02:44 PM
3

Devlin's articles are really good stuff. The detractors to them usually try to ad hom him by talking about the publisher as if that has anything to do with the relevance of his points made.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 07:27 AM
6

Are you suggesting that teachers are reading the equivalent--books a bout sex-based segregation to children? This is PC quackery to the max.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 07:15 AM
15

The number changes with each telling, really.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 06:57 AM
11

I don't give a fuck who pulls me from a burning building as long as it is the best motherfucking firefighter available. Right. As long as they can actually do the fucking job. ... but these lowered standards in things like the military, policework and firefighting are absurd. As is the sex-based affirmative action present in those lines of work. It's a double whammy, they're being paid equal money for clearly not equal work and then given preference in promotion as well? What is that.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 03:45 PM
3

And by poor parents, they mean poor men. Poor men who cannot get their spuriously imputed court-ordered payments lowered even though they no longer or perhaps never even did make enough money to pay them.
/r/MensRights12/09/11 03:41 PM
0

She lives in the area. How long do you think before she acts out her psychotic fantasy? Probably never. She's merely the latest in a long line of hatemongers produced by indoctrination, and probably has no guts whatsoever. Just like the jarringly awful racists you can see in various documentaries. Free speech and all. It wouldn't be so bad if our places of higher learning didn't churn these people out with the feminist chokehold over academia. You could just sort of ignore them for the most part…
/r/MensRights12/09/11 03:36 PM
2

If rape shield laws were not in place, men would actually get a fairer trial when accused of rape. Not sure how you can make a statistic based on un-knowable information, though. The underreporting canard is well-documented.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 05:55 PM
19

... the 'What Women Want' meeting ... Oh, wonderful. They're not even trying to hide it anymore.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 04:41 PM
1

Are you trying to deny feminist jurisprudence's role in locking men up before any evidence is gathered, based on accusation alone? Are you going to deny the existence of rape shield laws as well...?
/r/MensRights11/09/11 04:38 PM
1

How exactly are they not. The male character costumes often look like they're painted on.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:30 AM
3

Well, they are lesbians. But that's besides the point. I watched this a few months back. Look at the crazy indoctrination into the belief that there are secret satan worshipping pedophile networks out there. Look at how they treated someone who questioned their crazy shit. Look at how they hand out pamphlets containing parts of Valerie Solanas' SCUM manifesto. How someone who runs a fucking domestic violence shelter was caught on tape saying men are animals and supporting this kind of shit.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:26 AM
3

You know as well as I do that it will be laughed out of court.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:18 AM
10

Scapegoating men you say? Gadzooks.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:14 AM
-1

At least you succeeded in getting your genes secured. ... Maybe. He also said: The mother and I got pregnant when we were using birth control and were pretty much just having fun -- not in a committed relationship and the mother had originally said she was going to get an abortion -- she didn't.. I was upset while the mother was pregnant because something that was supposed to be lighthearted and fun suddenly became a lot more serious.. Either way, if what his girlfriend posted about his attitude…
/r/MensRights11/09/11 11:11 AM
3

for every one black woman who reports rape for example, fifteen more keep quiet about it because they don't want to be called sluts or nuts. You are making this shit up. Stop divining rape statistics on the spot. I don't believe in letting them all suffer because I few idiots cry wolf. You don't believe in punishing actual rape liars as proven by the investigation? Well then. Let's make this clear because you are, like every other dishonest feminist, trying to misrepresent us here. Once again, w…
/r/MensRights11/09/11 10:42 AM
2

Yes, yes I saw it, and he was considered guilty UNTIL he was proven innocent. Just like the Duke and Hofstra cases-- remember those? She couldn't even keep her story straight. Why did he spend a single day in lockup based on her allegation alone? I think you will not answer such difficult questions because they betray your narrative.
/r/MensRights11/09/11 10:34 AM
2

Here is how feminists deal with false rape accusations, actually: Lisa Longstaff, of the campaign group Women Against Rape, said: "It is awful that a girl so young has been prosecuted in this way." In response to someone actually being prosecuted for a false rape claim.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 11:19 PM
0

statistically, rape claims are still systematically treated with exactly this level of suspicion and disbelief, Every single media televised rape accusation disagrees with your position there. Reality is not on your side.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 11:15 PM
3

This is what happens when you let ideologues hold important positions in the judicial system.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 10:45 PM
7

It's cute how you made another account just to spend hours posting the same old boring, unimaginative shit.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 10:18 PM
1

True also in Australia, USA, UK and others.
/r/MensRights10/09/11 10:16 PM
1

Yes. Really. Why else do they attempt to silence, shut down and control the discourse anywhere they can?
/r/MensRights10/09/11 09:16 AM
1

Yes, the real story involves stupid internet memes and smug feelings of superiority. Thanks for this incredible post.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 11:34 PM
3

The funny thing is that it's not even really a preponderance of the evidence standard. Evidence isn't even going to be weighed. Have you seen the sick "guidelines" that came along with this? It's like rape shield laws on steroids. What we have here is kangaroo mock courts where any sort of trial is just for show, and accusation = guilt.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 12:48 PM
0

Things like this showing up in the mainstream media are proof positive that men's rights activism is having an affect on breaking the stifling fascist feminist regime that has controlled public discourse on such subjects for decades.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 12:44 PM
11

Men would never get such light sentences for doing something like that.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 12:30 PM
2

Yes, they're chest thumpers who think that because they have the ability to get laid like just about every other guy out there, that they're "alpha" and thus above the "betas" they believe the men's rights movement to be.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 12:26 PM
2

Yes. However, to prevent it from becoming a society-wide problem, laws were enacted. You can see the kind of issues it creates in the middle-east where it has been a commonly accepted practice.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 11:26 AM
3

Yes and as you can see there's a ton of comments trying to say it totally isn't the same thing when women do it. ... Except it is.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 10:14 AM
9

The problem with polygamy is the social unrest it creates with the males who are left out. You can see this in any polygamous culture, for example the "Lost Boys" of Mormon polygamous groups in North America
/r/MensRights08/09/11 09:20 AM
3

Yeah, paternity testing is good because it protects men from wrongly being declared father of a child that's not biologically his. Right. That's exactly why I think this is good. But from reading the article, it seems that the only reason they are considering this bill is for women's interest. I wonder if they considered things from a men's viewpoint; and whether they know that women are capable of infidelity or deliberately accusing the wrong man of being the biological father. I have to wonder…
/r/MensRights08/09/11 09:12 AM
4

Sounds good to me.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 07:41 AM
1

That is a bad argument. Those things are done for religious reasons.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 07:34 AM
2

Also, your article is referring to groups of Jews, not primitive, hunter-gatherer Stone Age tribes... and not about paternity, but about markers proving they're related to original Hebrews.... Yes it was about old Jewish tribes and it was tested on people currently alive. 98.5% is really high, by the way. Especially given how Jewish tradition even states that they can always be sure who someone's mother is.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 07:33 AM
6

redditor for 1 hour Nice troll.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 10:41 PM
1

redditor for 1 hour You're replying to a troll who knew this but made an account just to troll here.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 10:41 PM
1

What's natural isn't always what's good for you or for society. Such a claim is what's known as a naturalistic fallacy. It's natural to just shit any old place. Do you take a dump on the floor in your home? Probably not.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 09:27 PM
1

Or of men, especially of men who happened to be born with white skin.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 09:23 PM
15

A better response: Why then do companies not hire all women? Do you honestly believe they would rather hang out with dudes at the office than make money hand over fist?
/r/MensRights07/09/11 09:06 PM
1

So what you're saying here is that you have no objective criteria. It's just groups you like vs. groups you don't like, and treat them accordingly.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 09:04 PM
1

http://www.cohen-levi.org/the_tribe/kohanim_forever.htm Here is one example. 98.5% certainty. I've found others previous but google is currently saturated with links to articles about "partible" paternity which are a result of myths being propagated in mostly non-primitive societies. but even in primative societies there may be consequences, even drastic ones, to "fooling around". Of course, which flies in the face of all of these ideas of "like free love, man!" As I'm sure you know, in this day…
/r/MensRights07/09/11 08:57 PM
2

This couldn't be because men are the ones who work the most hours or anything, though. I'm going to bet they were since they were poor. Ever heard of peasantry and aristocracy? How about the indentured servitude that often came along with that arrangement? My mother's ancestors were from Ireland. Do I get some perks for the racism the Irish suffered? If not, why not? Preferred groups only, hm? If you go back far enough, I think you can find that just about anyone's ancestors were being "systemic…
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:55 PM
8

It's because men work more hours.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:47 PM
2

Nyet! Prehistoric man didn't live in family groups, we lived in tribes. And we still have some Stone Age foraging (as in, not agricultural--agriculture is only 10,000 years old, drop in the bucket) tribes, and here's a surprise: not a one of them is monogamous. In fact, the more primitive the society, the less you find monogamy. But it's not about roaming seduction, it's about being like bonobos--sex as social bonding activity. How do you explain surviving primitive tribes actually having lower …
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:36 PM
1

Why no, I don't think that at all. Even our society sure doesn't adapt to it. It just funnels the resources of the men to women by force.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:33 PM
0

More along the lines of "I have no reason to do anything positive for a society that treats me as a disposable workhorse"? Edit: By the way it's nice that you have no etiquette whatsoever and downvote everything you disagree with while throwing out strawmans.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:26 PM
1

Yeah, it probably is in this case. Looking to get rid of donor anonymity is a stepping stone to trying to sue donors for child support. I don't see why the clinics can't privately handle a limit on the number of children conceived by one donor. That's fine. It's not like there's a shortage of guys willing to jerk off into cups for money if they know they aren't going to get nailed with child support by feminists looking to get rid of donor anonymity and use that change to press on to making dono…
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:19 PM
1

Oh, I know where these policies come from. I'm just wondering why those responsible in this scenario haven't been sacked and/or seen prison time for their fraudulent behavior and the false accusations they employ to oust those who refuse to play ball with their sick politics.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:13 PM
-1

In what way does an animal mating paradigm (that is, discarding monogomy) that breeds violence and resentment and where those Male Persons who actually want to have children (see: future generations) will have a high chance of being duped and therefore not want to invest into society somehow benefit future generations?
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:11 PM
2

You seem to think people in general will go out of their way to advance a society which actively disenfranchises them. You are wrong. Men who's contribution in this day and age only goes as far as their own self-interest are the rule, and there's a very good reason why.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:02 PM
2

Was going to write pretty much the same thing.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 06:48 PM
2

There were, [citation needed] I think you need to read up on a lil' something known as "The Underground Railroad" and find out its destination before you use peabrained arguments like "lol slavery dude." America is not the world and attempting to use shit that happened in America ~140 years ago as justification for discriminating against a group even if that group doesn't even reside in America is about as scummy as you can get. You are essentially saying that because I am a white male, that I d…
/r/MensRights07/09/11 06:42 PM
1

Such as? They are an exception.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 06:36 PM
1

He was awarded $50,000, but it took 2 years and it appears the fascists who abused their power and ran him out are still free to do that to anyone else who doesn't toe the line.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 04:30 PM
0

Obviously it's cultural, but without it you won't have a lasting civilization. Men who do not have a reasonable assurance that a woman's children are actually also their own do not and should not have any reason to invest in society. That is the bottom line.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 04:14 PM
2

Ah yes, this thing that hasn't gone on for about 140 years and then only happened in one country of the many countries in which this bogus concept of privilege is used to justify real discrimination proves your point. Except it doesn't. For example, say I live in Canada where there were no enslaved blacks. Whoops. Looks like it doesn't apply then, does it?
/r/MensRights07/09/11 04:00 PM
1

This concept of "privilege" you use seems to be nothing more than a way to justify your own bigotry and personal wants to discriminate against certain groups, since you can't define it and can't give real world examples of how it's supposedly helping those who have it. Funny that.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 02:57 PM
16

I wonder if this will turn out to be yet another thing that will only be enforced when men are the violators.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 02:01 PM
2

Men are also starting to develop that same mentality based on how "The perfect man" is presented in media. "Starting"? You're off by about 40 years here. Normal guys using steroids, the whole "bigorexia" thing.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 01:07 PM
2

the utterly corrupt child support system right now (including men being forced to pay support to rapists) (and for children that DNA tests prove aren't even theirs)
/r/MensRights07/09/11 12:52 PM
3

Seriously? How many female presidents have we had again? What percentage of CEO's are women? So you only want parity with the top 0.1% of men is what you're saying. What percentage of the homeless are men again? Workplace deaths? Those working dirty, shitty jobs? Whoops, when you look at the bottom of our western society you find out that men aren't exactly in the fantasy land positions that feminists would have us believe we are. How does our culture make women feel, particularly past age 25 or…
/r/MensRights07/09/11 12:46 PM
1

Get this: All whites (males only of course) have been historically rich and there was never any kind of white working class. I learned this from women's studies.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 11:54 AM
6

"...and a re-examination of the anonymity that cloaks many donors." Oh, I wonder why they would want to do this.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:58 AM
3

That's a mirror.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 07:53 AM
-3

For "once in a blue moon" issues we sure seem to find everyday examples of them in the news. Good show trying to make the leap to associate us with racists and "misogynists" in pointing them out though, idiot.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 12:25 AM
2

Yes these things that happen every day like paternity fraud, family court injustice and etc. and pointing them out is really bigotry. Good show, idiot.
/r/MensRights07/09/11 12:25 AM
1

Revenge politics? Check. At the very least, you believe in visiting the sins of the father on the son. That is despicable. What's worse, you do this on an article of faith that men have somehow all been historically privileged and not by and large the ditch diggers, cannon fodder and other bottom of the barrel exploited labor they demonstratively have been and which usually supported these so-called "oppressed" women you speak of as these women were not being exploited in this way. False equival…
/r/MensRights07/09/11 12:09 AM
2

do tell me how hard it is being a straight white male. i'm listening. Who's the bigot now? Right, it's you.
/r/MensRights06/09/11 11:48 PM
4

Another spin on the old Man Tax bigotry that came out of Sweden, I see.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 10:11 AM
6

Not only is the well-debunked wage gap myth employed there but so is the feminist desire for parity with only the top one in a million men-- CEOs and the like. The Apex Fallacy is displayed front and center by implying that somehow men as a group are represented by this tiny percentage of men.
/r/MensRights05/09/11 10:05 AM
5

If he had shot her, he probably would have been applauded for it with many people saying something to the effect of, "she made that choice before breaking and entering with the intent to steal." No no, that only applies to male criminals. She'd still be played up as the victim even though there's no real victims in that story, just criminals. Just a thief and a blackmailer.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 11:00 PM
-1

No, it's really just blackmail. GJ trying to use a saturated definition of rape though, though.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 10:50 PM
13

Right. The only possible thing they could get him for if our legal system isn't completely corrupt is blackmail. He didn't rape her if she willingly sucked his dick in order to avoid him turning her in.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 11:05 AM
2

The man didn't even rape her. He blackmailed her with turning her in. It's in a totally different category from what the woman did. What she did was objectively worse, though.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 10:02 AM
23

Once you understand that things like sex offender registries, and indeed prison itself are designed to target men--look at the living conditions in male vs. female prisons and the rates of male vs. female conviction for the same crimes-- all of this starts to make sense. Look at the reluctance to even charge female pedophiles with crimes, much less throw them in prison. This sick society preaches equality, but it sure doesn't practice it.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 08:50 PM
3

What happened here shouldn't even be legal. What is going on here is a corrupt family court judge making it up as they go along and doing whatever the fuck they want. Family court judges routinely get away with doing this sort of thing. You COULD do what you describe if you want by giving someone unofficially, off the books that kind of support, yes. That's legal.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 09:14 AM
2

This isn't even alimony. This is the court disregarding the already biased and disgusting actual actual laws which they could not apply in this case and forcing this guy to pay money to a woman who doesn't have primary custody of a child under the guise of "child support." This woman even remarried another man and ruined that marriage as well, which is why she wouldn't qualify for alimony. What you have here is gynocentrism, plain and simple. An arbitrary ruling to benefit a lazy woman who simpl…
/r/MensRights03/09/11 05:48 AM
6

Real institutionalized/codified discrimination as a response to paranoid conspiracy fantasy cooked up by feminists, you say?
/r/MensRights03/09/11 12:48 AM
7

Homeless men also outnumber homeless women to the tune of something like 9 to 1. So now that women have been shoehorned into the dominant position with affirmative action and quotas and the like, it's quite clear they aren't willing to take care of men as men did women.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 12:39 AM
7

Feminists attempt to saturate the definition of things like rape or misogyny so much that they essentially mean nothing.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 11:48 PM
3

Which is pretty much almost all of them to begin with.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 10:05 PM
2

Read his name backwards. Can't believe people keep taking this guy seriously.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 09:43 PM
3

Had the genders been flipped I don't think the man would be getting any money under the guise of "child support" since he wouldn't have primary custody.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 10:31 PM
7

She should be getting 0% of his income since he has primary custody.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 10:10 PM
1

Yet another case of children used as human shields to avoid the consequences of one's actions. Burn down the courthouses. There is no more justice.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 04:23 AM
26

"I could not understand what these old men were saying." -Borat
/r/MensRights31/08/11 11:44 PM
8

Let's make shit up and try to silence anyone who doesn't agree with my made up shit instead. Like feminists.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 02:40 AM
7

They are fascists who will not be "placated" and try to stamp out anything that goes against their narrative. Don't even try. Be unapologetic about it.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 02:39 AM
5

Yes, for a whole 20 months for accusing a man of a crime that would probably have gotten him 20 years if he didn't have photographic evidence proving the accusers liars. Yes, good show indeed, idiot.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 01:29 AM
3

And yet where would he have been without his photographic evidence? Sitting in jail awaiting trial right now no doubt, on nothing more than he-said-she-said. Just like the Duke and Hofstra guys were before there was evidence proving their innocence. Guilty until proven innocent.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 01:25 AM
2

She also delves into armchair psychology with one of the women she dated. The point here is even this woman, this feminist woman who buys into bullshit like "patriarchy" didn't seem to think much of this supposed "male privilege" and thought everything to be much harder for her when she temporarily pretended to be a man when compared to living all of her life up to that point as a woman.
/r/MensRights31/08/11 01:17 AM
2

I wonder when men as a group will wake the fuck up and stop allowing this innate animal protector instinct to cloud their judgment of women committing crimes. I guess I'm really asking when humanity at large will stop acting like animals and start acting like they claim to act by their own words, but don't in practice. This is the crux of the pussy pass and by and large why women receive such light sentences. That and feminists who've infested the legal system with feminist jurisprudence and now…
/r/MensRights31/08/11 01:05 AM
7

The worst thing is that this kind of thing still happens to this very day, contrary to all of the bogus claims of "rape culture."
/r/MensRights31/08/11 12:57 AM
11

Literally everything posted here gets a bunch of downvotes from obsessive totalitarian feminists who can't stand any dissent.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 08:02 PM
21

If it were real, yes. It's not, though, so feminists would have you believe that corporations would rather hang out with dudes at the office than make more money while continuing to be a True Believer of the wage gap myth, though.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 07:59 PM
2

Thanks, trolled u mad damudellort
/r/MensRights30/08/11 07:52 PM
8

What they mean is the small percentage of men they're attracted to. See also: Women rate 80% of men as below average.
/r/MensRights30/08/11 05:10 PM
13

With the amount of time you spend making really shitty posts predicated on the premise of calling other people lifeless, I'd probably think that's your present.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 09:58 PM
8

Can't we acknowledge that young men certainly handle sex a lot differently than young women? If I was 14 and a cute 20 year old wanted to bang, oh fuck yes... I think in some of these instances we need to acknowledge the extreme developmental differences between girls and boys. Differently how. In my high school some of the 14-15 girls talked about wanting to fuck a good looking teacher in his late 20s. You are just looking to uphold a double-standard in which women are excused for this sort of …
/r/MensRights29/08/11 08:53 PM
3

tl;dr: It's fine when women do it. But throw away the key when the sexes are reversed.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 08:48 PM
0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lITBGjNEp08
/r/MensRights29/08/11 08:46 PM
16

Last I checked, bail is absurdly high for practically any minor crime. So why is a sexual molestation case given a tiny bail? Because she's a woman and there is no equal justice in practice. It's pretty simple.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 08:13 PM
1

It's 16 downvotes.
/r/MensRights29/08/11 05:40 AM
13

You forgot that they must be fat and/or a number of other Internet cliches that would paradoxically also apply to you since you're using the internet. Way to suck at trolling.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 06:46 PM
-2

The guy is a troll. Don't bother.
/r/MensRights28/08/11 08:40 AM
1

It's sort of like a TV show a lot of people watch. You should know by now how effective feminist indoctrination through media infestation has been. Even if the guy is pretty vapid and annoying, at least he's not toeing the same old feminist line.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:42 PM
1

Nobody really gets that many views from just random links. It doesn't mean he's great, just that he has a large audience.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 05:35 PM
1

His video has over 450,000 views in just one day.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:41 PM
8

Not a damn thing because I'm not perpetrating it.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:38 PM
1

You must be fucking kidding me.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 08:45 PM
5

Of the three women who did the podcast, two of them believed that men should be allowed to waive their parental responsibilities in exchange for waiving their parental rights. Well then they basically have the same views the vast majority of this subreddit does, that men should be able to opt out if they never wanted to have a child and that women should have all of their abortion rights. It seems they misunderstand us or were simply given bad, second-hand information.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 10:52 PM
6

Are people like this trying to suggest the past of the accused isn't used to create bias? Rape shield laws deem that the past conduct of the accused can be used to assassinate their character even if it has jack shit to do with rape, but that the accuser's past conduct cannot? Look at the Strauss-Kahn and Assange cases as recent examples. That these men were seen as "playboys" who were with plenty of women was completely irrelevant to the accusation of rape, but was played up as if it made them …
/r/MensRights24/08/11 12:01 PM
10

Or someone could do the math themselves based on the actual number of reports rather than an ideologue's advocacy research where they stretch the definition of rape so that it's so saturated that it basically means nothing and where they define women who actually say they weren't raped as raped. And come up with.... http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667--one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven Something like this.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 11:25 PM
8

Oh really. You wouldn't have any evidence for your wildly unsubstantiated claims, would you?
/r/MensRights23/08/11 09:07 PM
1

Most good liars do.
/r/MensRights23/08/11 07:04 PM
17

China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren't going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 11:26 AM
3

tl;dr: All men are rapists. When accused of rape, you're guilty unless found innocent, and then still guilty in the court of feminist public opinion.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 11:21 AM
12

Yes, really who cares. It's just the next logical step once all of the appropriation methods (goodmenproject etc) have been complete failures.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 10:32 AM
3

Originally, no. But post no-fault divorce yes it is by design that it works that way. All part and parcel of feminist jurisprudence.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 10:26 AM
5

The author of the article did, actually. It's the title of the article.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 10:18 AM
5

Well, except when you reverse the genders of course. Then it magically becomes OK.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 04:57 PM
13

It is designed precisely to allow women TO lock a man into financial commitment through the use of the divorce industry and the scum lawyers who are also benefiting from this arrangement.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:36 PM
4

In all fields. The problem is of course that women have sky-high entitlement issues and rate 80% of men as below average.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:34 PM
5

Men are judged just as much for their looks as women are. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Consider that HR departments are almost entirely populated by women. http://www.livescience.com/9038-attractive-women-hired.html The results showed that the resumes of "attractive" males received a 19.9 percent response rate, nearly 50 percent higher than the 13.7 percent response rate for "plain" males and more than twice the 9.2 percent response rate of no-picture males. However, among wo…
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:26 PM
5

Well that's exactly where they're going with that. They believe it is OK for women to do it, but not for men. "Rules for thee, but not for me!"
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:09 PM
2

Unfortunately for them they are wrong. It's worse than in the US in Canada and Sweden, at the very least.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 09:47 AM
16

Feminist ideologues have an unchallenged hegemony in academia.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 09:12 PM
9

By your own definition he could not have consented to sex either due to his inebriated state! And because she willingly had sex with him at the time, she too is guilty of rape as per your own definition! You are quite clearly trying to uphold a double standard here where women are held to be legal children.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 09:06 PM
1

Since when did "talking a woman into bed" consist of ineptly and awkwardly asking a yes or no question that in no uncertain terms underscores your desire to have sex with her and and then demanding an answer? When's the last time you went outside?
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:56 PM
13

They did not consent, because you cannot consent when you are dru Cool, then she's a rapist too. Good to know everyone who's ever had mutual drunk sex is a rapist. This must be the "Rape Culture" I hear so much about, people drunkenly fucking each other. No! You are confusing consent with intent. You can intend to commit any crime while drunk. You can commit murder, theft, drunk driving, or rape. You are in this way responsible for your actions, even while drunk. Cool, she's still a rapist along…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:51 PM
8

What would he have had to done to satisfy your twisted concept of consent? Get a notarized contract signed by her? Ask her an awkward question that literally no one who ever goes outside would ever utter and demand a yes or no answer before he proceeds to put it in? By the way, how exactly did the story you linked lack consent in any way? Both parties were drunk, both consented while drunk. She changed her mind later--but you cannot retroactively remove consent for prior sexual acts.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:48 PM
6

So if a woman goes through the motions and is enthusiastically participating in the act but didn't say "yes" because you didn't ask an awkward question and press for a yes or no answer, then you're a rapist. This is what you're really saying. I know the internet is full of social retards and all but let me be the first to tell you that pretty much no one goes ahead and asks "Hey can I fuck you? I kind of need a yes or no answer before I whip it out here." and certainly no one shows up with a not…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:42 PM
6

What exactly does this have to do with the linked story where not only was "No" never uttered, but the issue is that the lackwit OP believes that when both parties are drunk and consenting, the man is a rapist but the woman is somehow not.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:35 PM
4

Women are sexless creatures are only tricked and cajoled into the act by The Patriarchy.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:26 PM
10

You believe a man who was drunk and had sex with a woman who was drunk is a rapist, even though both of them consented at the time the sex took place. So to you, inebriation only means you're still fully responsible for your actions if you have a penis, but does not if you don't have one.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:25 PM
10

I'll pass that memo along when we live in a culture in which women share equally in the initiation of the courtship process.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:21 PM
18

Ahahah yes I see, when both parties are drunk clearly it means the male is a rapist. Thanks for this post, idiot.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:16 PM
2

I wonder if Jackson Katz counts himself among that problem that he believes is "men" rather than the tiny percentage of actual rapists that contrary to feminist claims of rape culture are seen as so low that even in prison those who have been convicted of rape are at the bottom of the hierarchy, subject to all sorts of abuse from their fellow prisoners. Rhetorical question of course, because he surely believes himself to be the One Good Man.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 07:17 PM
1

Oh my god! He's challenging the PC sacred cow of "everything is a social construct!" The nerve!
/r/MensRights20/08/11 10:03 AM
7

In Canada, feminists used the Marc Lepine incident as a springboard for all sorts of political bullshit like this which have continued to this day over 20 years later.
/r/MensRights19/08/11 09:01 AM
7

She's unfortunately the only "real" feminist I've ever seen according to the utterly worthless dictionary definition that those who cry "No real feminist would do such things!" like to bandy around.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:48 PM
7

I'm not obese... I'm Incredibly Fat.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:46 PM
3

Yes, NOMAS. With winners like Barry Goldstein who had his law license suspended in New York and was disbarred in Pennsylvania for various types of misconduct representing them.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:45 PM
2

"I thought all niggers men just communicated by grunting like apes. I'm not racist sexist or anything though."
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:28 PM
5

I am a flying horse named Cheerio of indeterminable gender and how dare you tell me otherwise.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:25 PM
7

Well... sort of. Christina Hoff Sommers, for example, who was disowned by the mainstream feminist regime for actually caring about the equal treatment of men and pointing out where and how the mainstream feminist establishment has stepped over the line. That's pretty much the only example I can name, though.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:24 PM
20

While they may have been able to avoid the truth while she was off at work during the day, it came back to haunt them at night. “Sexuality is based on respect and admiration and desire,” says Anna. “If you’ve lost respect for somebody, it’s very hard to have it work. And our relationship initially had been very sexual, at the expense of other things. Straight from the horse's mouth. This is why things don't work out when the man earns less. Not because the man feels his "masculinity is threatene…
/r/MensRights18/08/11 04:07 PM
5

Help! Help!!! The men are not lining up to become husband appliances anymore once my biological clock goes into full swing!
/r/MensRights18/08/11 01:43 PM
1

Are women who engage in rape hysteria aware that that they are many times more likely to be in a fatal auto accident than they are to be raped? If so, I wonder if they act around automobiles.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 09:16 AM
2

Unreasonable fear of men conditioned into them by the feminist indoctrination that western society has been going through for decades.
/r/MensRights18/08/11 08:55 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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