TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

kit-kat315 Archive

View 1 post and 1,544 comments by kit-kat315 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

Discussionkit-kat315/r/AntiFeminists17/06/22 01:39 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,544 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
7

My nephews have their own, court appointed, lawyer because their parents can't agree on anything. The kids' lawyer makes sure their interests are represented.
/r/MensRights12/05/26 06:02 PM
5

Yeah, men need equal parenting leave. It's better for the father, the child and the mother. The problem here in the US is, who pays? Under the Family Medical Leave Act, both parents can take up to 12 weeks, but it may not be paid. Maternity leave is generally covered by an employer's disability insurance, which wouldn't apply to the father. Here in NY, the state pays for any FMLA leave not covered by the employer/employer's insurance. So, paternity leave is covered, and both paternity and matern…
/r/MensRights03/05/26 10:55 AM
6

They're saying the quiet part out loud.
/r/MensRights24/04/26 01:22 PM
1

Right? It's saying the quiet part out loud. That a woman's only worth = being a gf and having babies.
/r/MensRights24/04/26 10:41 AM
1

I think it's more like parents are waiting to finish college, have a steady job, comfortable apartment and a bit of savings. Average age for women to have a first kid is 27 in the US. Median age for first time homebuyers is mid 30s. I went from having a SAHM to being latchkey kid partway through childhood. Did not like. Obviously, latchkey kids can turn out fine, but I wouldn't want my kid to have the same early life struggles I did. My point is, having just one kid is becoming more popular, sat…
/r/MensRights19/04/26 06:08 PM
2

In the US, number of children people have is a U shaped distribution. Middle class has the fewest, while poor and rich are both having more. Money is definitely a factor. Middle class has the expectation to provide a high standard of living for their kids, but without the wealth of the upper class. So they have fewer kids.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 03:29 PM
0

Because it's all relative. A family living in a poor country is more likely to see children as a source of labor and a safety net in their old age. Children are a net economic benefit. A family living in a more prosporous country is expected to raise children to a higher standard of living, including sending them to college. Moms with higher paying jobs lose more potential earnings by stepping out of the workforce. People are expected to support their own old age with savings. Children are a net…
/r/MensRights19/04/26 03:12 PM
1

If I'm honest, the decision for us was more about the money. When ours was small, we couldn't afford to comfortably support a second kid. We definitely didn't want kids growing up in poverty like we did. And the costs went up exponentially in high school. She's a first year med student now and we're still paying for healthcare, car maintenance, clothes and a stipend for her apt. But, that support helps her focus on studies and sets her up for success in life. There's not really a "right" or "wro…
/r/MensRights19/04/26 02:58 PM
2

I think you misunderstood me. I never said raising an only child was "minimal parenting." It's that people are choosing to spend the resources they do have (time, attention, and money) on one child instead of splitting between multiple kids. The number of families with single children has doubled in the last several decades as more people take this approach. My husband and I raised an only child and were the super involved parents. There for every concert/competition, playing chauffer, chairpeop…
/r/MensRights19/04/26 02:25 PM
2

Tis true. Everyone knows lesbian couples just have too many sandwiches and no one to eat them /s
/r/MensRights19/04/26 01:58 PM
-1

It's much more complicated than just "feminists bad." The demographic in the US with the biggest drop in birth rates is teenagers. Basically, sex ed and easily available contraceptives have tanked the teen birth rate. Which is a good thing! And then, people are waiting until later to start families- once they've finished college and gotten established in a career. So the window of time to have children is smaller. And the opportunity cost of pregnancy/motherhood is higher for working women than …
/r/MensRights19/04/26 01:44 PM
0

You can still meet that "biological desire" for children with just one. Wait until you're established to marry, have one child, then pour all your care and resources into giving them the best possible future. I'm seeing that become much more common over the past several decades. But it's still less than replacement birth rate.
/r/MensRights19/04/26 01:29 PM
2

Ok? I never said one was worse. Literally just trying to guess which 2 dirty jobs the previous poster was referring to.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 01:16 PM
2

They already do 2 of the top dirtiest jobs I was replying to this. As in, which of the two dirtiest jobs were they referring to, that women already do. Just curious if we had the same two in mind. Being in contact with feces, vomit, blood and pathogens seems pretty dirty to me.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 12:55 PM
2

My last employer (foodservice distributor) did a great job of bring your child to work day. Tour of the offices and executive boardroom, warehouse (including ice cream storage w/taste testing), sit in a truck cab and honk the horn. It did get the kids pretty pumped at the thought of operating a forklift or truck.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 10:50 AM
-1

Healthcare and childcare?
/r/MensRights15/04/26 10:49 AM
5

Agreed- draft for all or draft for none. But they'll have to reinstate the different fitness requirements for women vs men in the military and actively favor hiring women to get to 50%.
/r/MensRights14/04/26 05:00 PM
1

If men aren't owed sex, women aren't owed protection How could this be in reference to anything except personal relationships? Who could women possibly "owe" sex to,if not their partners? It just seems like you're stretching to make a post about couples be a broad commentary of society. I re-read the posts you linked, and really don't see what's sexist about them. Women should be choosy about partners- everyone should. Pick the right partner and you only have to do it once. And that calculator i…
/r/MensRights01/04/26 09:58 PM
1

Because it entirely ignores the many, many ways men protect you daily and which you take for granted. Because that wasn't the topic of the original post. OP was talking about personal relationships. Why would I go off on a tangent about whst jobs people do? My previous post criticizing the "Female Delusion Calculator"? Oh, the horror.
/r/MensRights01/04/26 09:30 PM
1

I'm honestly not even sure why you think my original comment was sexist. A little tongue in cheek, but the logical conclusion to OP's post. Given: women not giving sex = men not giving protection A trade is implied, so it follows that: women giving sex = men giving protection Therefore, any woman who gave sex but did not receive protection got shorted. That's not misandry, it's taking a silly intial premise to a funny, but logical, conclusion.
/r/MensRights01/04/26 08:54 PM
1

Men working the jobs that cause them to be some 80% of serious workplace injuries could be considered to be protecting you Were we supposed to be paying them with sex? I thought they received salaries? Obviously the OP was talking about romantic relationships if lack of sex = lack of protection. Since you took the time to scroll sooooo far back, you saw that I've been married for 25 years. As I said, I've had plenty of sex with my husband, but never needed his protection. Did it never occur to y…
/r/MensRights01/04/26 08:13 PM
-1

Good question. I have literally never needed a man to physically protect me. But I've had a lot of sex- can I get a voucher or something, to make up for all the protection I didn't need?
/r/MensRights01/04/26 07:17 PM
1

Being poor is its own punishment, tbh.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 01:09 AM
18

They aren't. I'm married and used Medicaid for prenatal and delivery medical coverage when my daughter was born. Also qualified for WIC. It's based on household income, not relationship status.
/r/MensRights08/03/26 09:04 PM
1

I think the gap is not so large once you can tune out the "noise." There's a lot of money to be made by playing on women's fear of aging. It's not about value, it's about companies wanting to capitalize on insecurities to sell a beauty treatment, dietary supplement, meal plan, exercise regimen, etc. They have to make women feel bad about themselves to make money. When you can see that, it takes away most of the pressure of looking young. Regular people don't expect flawless.
/r/MensRights07/03/26 11:53 AM
2

Honestly, this reminds me of a couple I know. The overhead light in their bathroom broke and the husband insisted on fixing it himself, but kept putting it off. Whenever the wife brought it up, she was "nagging," and he was insulted at the suggestion of hiring an electrician (I can do it!). They used a desk lamp as their bathroom light for 6 months, and it only got fixed when they were putting the house up for sale. Neither gender has a monopoly on this kind of nonsense.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 11:55 AM
2

“Easily” and divorce dont go together Unless "easy" means hiring a lawyer, attending mediation and court dates, arguing about division of property and child custody/support and splitting into two households. Then going back to court after the divorce when both spouses can't agree on parenting issues. My BIL and SIL recently divorced and the process took 2 years.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 11:47 AM
1

Do women ask strangers for help shoveling? It doesn't seem likely. I've asked family members for help. I've accepted help from neighbors who offered because they have snowblowers. Once I hired some guys to clear the driveway when there was a blizzard. But I would never ask a random man for help with it. That's a strange thing to do.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 09:31 PM
1

I will say, it's interesting the different reactions to a woman out shoveling vs a man. If I'm out, a neighbor will often come over with a snowblower to help out. My husband, only once. And it's been the same wherever we've lived.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 03:47 PM
2

The majority of EMTs are male also. Where I live, EMT is a volunteer position. So,I'd be more impressed by someone doing that position vs a mechanic or factory worker. But still, EMTs are 70% men.
/r/MensRights15/02/26 04:02 PM
5

I guess I don't see form fitting clothing as inherently sexual. Athleisure wear is super popular because it's casual and comfy. Leggings/yoga pants are what women wear for hanging around the house too. Because they fit like a dream. No matter how you move, if you gain or lose a couple of pounds, if you're retaining water- still comfortable. I'd say the equivalent for men would be great sweatpants, fitted tank tops and silky workout tees. Attractive, if he has a nice body. But I wouldn't assume t…
/r/MensRights15/02/26 03:09 PM
5

If one spouse is raging at the other about anything, they're not compatible. Move on. Honestly, this really boils down to people not being able to have adult conversations with their partner. My spouse and I hashed this out by about year 2 of marriage (out of 25 years). Add up each person's hours spent on: commute, paid work, childcare, household work and errands. Adjust until equal. Accept that there will be times one partner or the other does more, but it shouldn't be the norm.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 02:05 PM
2

Streaming on Peacock.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 02:16 AM
7

Men's figure skating was on today. You could have played a drinking game with how many times they called Ilia Malinin the "quad god." I loved the enthusiasm.
/r/MensRights08/02/26 02:14 AM
1

It seems like no one cares if you watch anime in the US anymore. it's so mainstream now. I have a couple of nendoroid figurines on my desk at work and have met some other anime fans that way. Including two who share the double geek-dom of anime and musicals (hello Deathnote!). Even people I know who don't watch anime have heard of big ones like Demon Slayer and Apothecary Diaries.
/r/MensRights06/02/26 04:45 AM
3

No thanks. I don't want to have sex only for procreation. I've only got one kid (by choice). That would be a heck of a thing to just be abstinent for the rest of my life.
/r/MensRights03/02/26 12:33 PM
2

I guess it depends on what happens if the bc fails (user error or otherwise). I'm in a right to abortion state. I would absolutely trust my husband to handle birth control, knowing that there's still a safety net. I don't know if I would be comfortable with that decision if abortion weren't an option. But then, we'd probably double up on methods in that scenario- I got pregnant while on the pill.
/r/MensRights03/02/26 12:16 PM
1

The same policy also caused Plato's "Symposium" to be banned from the philosophy curriculum. So, mixed results, I guess. I'm with the other poster- just change it to "gender studies" and widen the scope.
/r/MensRights31/01/26 01:38 PM
1

Yep! Run away from a partner like this (any gender). Every one has a computer in their pocket- there is no excuse for not knowing how to do household tasks.
/r/MensRights30/01/26 01:01 AM
2

I guess I don't see what point you're trying to make here. The original argument is that women have the choice whether to abort, but men do not, thus they need paper abortions. If women don't have the right to choose abortion, the reasoning for paper abortions falls apart. Medically necessary abortions have no impact on the question of child support. There is no child, therefore nothing to support.
/r/MensRights27/01/26 04:27 PM
1

All 50 states. In theory. The news out of Texas shows otherwise. But why are you making the distinction? OP is clearly talking about on-demand abortions, which are not accessible for a good portion of the country.
/r/MensRights27/01/26 04:15 PM
4

Not all states. Women have the right to on demand abortion in about 2/3 of US states.
/r/MensRights27/01/26 12:16 PM
2

For horror, I'd recommend Sinners. It is tough to get away from the Final Girl tropes in that genre.
/r/MensRights27/01/26 11:04 AM
3

Love Hercule Poirot. Also, the Knives Out series has a similar vibe with a modern setting.
/r/MensRights27/01/26 10:59 AM
4

If she gets pregnant, it is within her every right to abort the pregnancy. Depending on location. 17 US states have abortion bans that are total or within 6 weeks (which is basically a total ban).
/r/MensRights27/01/26 10:56 AM
1

The question was "what benefits are available to married people but not other relationships." FMLA leave is a concrete example. I don't know why people are acting like this is something you would only use if your spouse is on their deathbed. A good chunk of people who are on temporary disability from work, their spouse would qualify for care leave. Like- surgery for carpal tunnel. Or being wheelchair bound with a broken ankle. Even in my case, my husband was back at work when the 12 weeks were u…
/r/MensRights09/01/26 02:45 PM
-1

For starters, divorce takes longer than 3 months. You wouldn't even be split before the leave was up. So you'd still use that benefit. But, let's look at this from a purely financial standpoint. Say, someone in my position, but their marriage is just a financial arrangement. Scenario A: husband is diagnosed with cancer, needs 7 weeks outpatient treatment, and has a very high chance of recovery. In the interim, he receives full disability payment and spouse receives 67% of income. After his recov…
/r/MensRights09/01/26 11:40 AM
-2

That doesn't match what I see in real relationships. If someone has a surgery or an injury that causes mobility issues- the spouse takes leave to help them with recovery. I know a half dozen people who have used FMLA to help their spouse. And one was a guy with the same kind of cancer as my husband, oddly enough. Seriously though, it would be stupid to run out on a partner who will recover in a few months. Even from a financial standpoint. We're much better now, thanks. Chemo and radiation have …
/r/MensRights09/01/26 10:56 AM
-5

FMLA leave is very useful. If one spouse becomes ill, the other can take up to 12 weeks leave from their job, per year, to act as caregiver. Here in NY, the leave is paid. I took leave a few years ago when my husband had cancer. He received the benefit of full time care without having to hire someone, and the state paid $12k to cover part of my wages while I did it. It was a huge financial help. Also, being able to use a spouse's health insurance plan. Being able to pick between 2 employer optio…
/r/MensRights09/01/26 09:56 AM
12

Yeah, that's frustrating for women too. When our daughter was in school, dad was listed first on the contacts, and we advised the school multiple times to call him first for issues (he worked closer to the school). But I still got called first nearly every time. Also, it drives me straight up the wall when people say a dad is "babysitting." It's really minimizes his role, and perpetuates mom as "default" parent.
/r/MensRights03/01/26 08:03 PM
1

Dont NP required additional schooling on top of RN? Yes. NP requires a master's. Nurses and RNs can have either associates or bachelor's, with a requirement to complete a bachelor's in 10 years to keep the license (at least in my state). Most of the increased education in nursing is at the NP level. Regular nurses can start work after attending community college.
/r/MensRights02/01/26 11:47 AM
1

Ok, I see what you're saying. Yeah, I could see that getting more male applicants for hs positions, where your bachelor's is the subject you teach. For elementary school, though, the bachelor's is elementary education. What are the chances there's a bunch of people with that degree who are just being held back by certification? Like I said before, I think the issue needs to be tackled further up the pipeline. As in, programs to get more men into the right degree programs for early education.
/r/MensRights02/01/26 10:55 AM
1

In the US, nurses are often serving in roles that used to be filled by doctors. As in, you "go to the doctor" but you're seen by a nurse practitioner, not a doctor. My primary care provider is a nurse practitioner, as well as about half the providers at the family doctor's office I use. If I go to an urgent care center, it's always a NP. It's common to be seen by a NP for routine care, and only be escalated to a doctor for more complicated issues. A big part of the change is there are not enough…
/r/MensRights02/01/26 10:18 AM
1

So you think less accreditation would result in more male teaching applicants (as a proportion)? Why? I can see nurses having higher education/certification requirements than in the past, since RNs and NPs often take the place of doctors (another shortage issue).
/r/MensRights02/01/26 03:29 AM
5

Here in NY, there's a teacher shortage, and it's getting worse as boomers retire. There aren't enough qualified people, of any gender, to fill the positions. It's similar with daycare- centers struggle to fill positions because of low wages and poor benefits. So the problem needs to be tackled further up the pipeline. How can we get more male applicants to these jobs? Or, failing that, enough applicants to fill the need.
/r/MensRights01/01/26 10:05 PM
15

Garth Brooks- Papa Loved Mama
/r/MensRights24/12/25 12:01 PM
1

It sounds like your friend group is extraordinarily unlucky to all experience such an uncommon event. I'm not going to worry about an event with such a small chance of happening. I'll save that worry for actually dangerous animals- like deer. That's the most dangerous animal in the US, according to the CDC.
/r/MensRights23/12/25 04:02 PM
1

There's like 800k black bears in the US and there's an average of one death by black bear every other year. Getting hurt by them isn't something I ever worry about. Grizzly and polar bears don't live where I do. But the difference is kind of the point to my post. If I encounter a bear in the woods, it doesn't pose much risk to me. Someone in Alaska would be talking about a very different kind of bear.
/r/MensRights23/12/25 02:47 PM
2

I've always wondered "which kind of bear" when people talk about the man vs bear thing. I mean, there's grizzly bears, which are huge and aggressive. But black bears are relatively small and avoid humans. I've seen black bears while out in the woods. They ran away.
/r/MensRights23/12/25 11:44 AM
1

That is not an equal responsibly situation, only one party changed their mind and forced the situation onto the other without their consent. But also not an equal responsibility situation because of biology. There woman carries all the physical risks of pregnancy or abortion. If she even can get and abortion- they're banned in 30% of US states.
/r/MensRights15/12/25 09:49 PM
2

That is interesting- especially how the differences in scores close a lot for matriculated students. Looks like more women are applying when it's a long shot. And, like you said, men have higher scores overall. Of course, there's a lot of factors in a med school applications that are tough to measure. Like volunteer work, leadership positions, research and publications, being from a medically underserved area, etc.
/r/MensRights15/12/25 06:41 PM
3

Looks like about 45% of matriculated med school students are men. So, just a touch higher % than applicants. U.S. medical schools enroll record number of students in 2025 | AAMC https://share.google/OMcDNWVwlI40hyXyc
/r/MensRights15/12/25 06:02 PM
12

Blame the government for the shortage of doctors. Residency positions are the bottleneck. Residency is required to receive a medical license, and the number of subsidized residency positions has not increased since the 90s. Congress would need to pass a bill to increase the number of spots and funding for them. Until that happens, the shortage of doctors will continue, and nurse practitioners will be used to fill the gap whenever possible. My daughter is in medical school and a huge consideratio…
/r/MensRights15/12/25 02:14 PM
1

I was just thinking that. So much of social services is for children. It's the parent's name on the check, but the kids are the actual beneficiaries.
/r/MensRights11/12/25 09:54 PM
1

So, what about kids? I mean, they're one of the biggest groups using public assistance and services. For example, it's 21k/year per public school student in my state. So, does one gender just not get to attend if the money runs low? Or go hungry? Or be homeless?
/r/MensRights11/12/25 09:51 PM
4

Sounds like someone got dragged along to see Wicked. Eta- Wicked isn't really new anyway. I mean, the musical has been playing on Broadway for over 20 years. And the book came out in the 90s. So, more early 2000s culture than anything.
/r/MensRights05/12/25 11:57 AM
1

That answers the question that I asked whether you fantasized about someone at some point without getting to know them. I already answered that question...multiple times. No. if you're really really into someone, you're gonna want to have sex with them as soon as possible and wil be thinking about it You keep acting like your experience is universal. The first several dates are still "getting to know you." At that point, I don't know them well enough to be really really into them.
/r/MensRights01/12/25 10:04 PM
1

I'm not sure why this is so puzzling. I don't like the thought of sex with strangers. People don't fantasize about things they don't like. Therefore, I do not fantasize about sex with strangers. To be honest, fantasizing about a person I know IRL but am not in a relationship with feels a little disrespectful. So I generally stick to romantic partners or erotic fiction. You're proving my original point, though. Everyone's different. There's no one timeline for intimacy that will suit everybody.
/r/MensRights01/12/25 09:39 PM
1

Eventually, after I got to know them.
/r/MensRights01/12/25 08:48 PM
1

Not really. I mean, I've certainly been attracted to people right off the bat. But the thought of hooking up with someone I just met is off putting.
/r/MensRights01/12/25 08:44 PM
1

Arbitrary rules are just silly in general. Everyone's going to have a different comfort level for intimacy. I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable sleeping with someone I barely know. I knew each of my partners for months before dating, so 3 dates sounds way too short. But you're right about feelings. Sometimes the feeling is "I don't know you well enough yet."
/r/MensRights01/12/25 07:01 PM
1

Then aren't we also talking about "males" rather then "men." It's a like to like comparison, right?
/r/MensRights26/11/25 04:05 PM
2

Divorces are filed based on residency. So, whichever state a couple currently resides in. Or a choice of states if the spouses live separately in two different states.
/r/MensRights23/11/25 08:47 AM
2

That's what everyone's doing, isn't it? Deciding whether the rewards of a particular arrangement outweigh the risks. It's a personal choice. I will say, being married (instead of cohabitating) meant $14k in paid caregiver leave while my husband had cancer, and roughly $15k in health insurance savings ($600/year x 24 years). So, nearly $30k so far by leveraging the legal benefits of marriage. It's worked out well for my spouse and me.
/r/MensRights11/11/25 03:28 PM
1

I can't speak to you- I don't know your local laws. Here, it's all the things I described. Protections if your spouse becomes ill or dies, and a well defined and predictable division of property if the marriage is dissolved.
/r/MensRights11/11/25 12:26 PM
1

You asked for the benefits of marriage, from a woman. I listed several that are factual and easy to verify. Why some people choose not to take advantage of those benefits is a whole other discussion. Also, birthrates in the US are higher than EU- 1.7 vs 1.5, respectively.
/r/MensRights11/11/25 12:17 PM
1

I really don't understand how these marriage laws benefit women? Any woman can clarify it to me? I'm in the US, so obviously, some legal benefits are going to differ from yours. Being married provides a secure framework for building a family. For example, when our daughter was small, I worked fewer hours and at a lower paying job to have the flexibility to be the "on-call" parent. That allowed my husband to focus on advancing in his career. But there's a lot of risk in this scenario for the part…
/r/MensRights11/11/25 11:46 AM
1

Tradwife content creators are just LARPing at being housewives, with some cottagecore thrown in. Most actually traditional wives are just going about their business- it's not some dolled up performance. I know some Mormons- they're like that. Or the quiverfull couple who sell amazing bread at the farmer's market. I kind of think "tradwife" is a bit of a misnomer anyway. For most of history, women were actively contributing to supporting the family. Through agriculture, help with the husband's wo…
/r/MensRights09/11/25 12:09 PM
-6

I think the point is that "cat lady" isn't really an insult. Being single by choice with a couple of cats is a pretty sweet deal. If anything happened to my husband, I would happily get another cat (have 2 now) and lean into being a "cat lady." I use the possibility as a teasing reminder for him to visit the doctor.
/r/MensRights23/10/25 02:20 PM
1

Would they screw their own children over for what they want in the short term? I think most women would argue that equality for their kids isn't "screwing them over." I also care about results- for my child. My wider career choices brought more money for my spouse and I to better raise our kid. And she's had the opportunity to go to a top notch college and is currently attending med school. A lucrative career that she's passionate about will be a net positive in her life.
/r/MensRights22/10/25 08:54 PM
1

It's so pervasive that I find it refreshing when the main characters break the "hot and rich" mold. There's a romance author I really enjoy who writes more realistic men. Short men, ones with physical or mental disabilities, poor ones, ones a bit older (mid to late 30s), etc. They seem like real people- it's delightful!
/r/MensRights03/10/25 07:49 PM
1

Since when are sports the only "hobbies or disciplines?" Even then, there are physical hobbies where women outperform and (often vastly) outnumber men. Like dance, cheer, yoga, gymnastics, and equestrian dressage. Just the fact that more women participate in those activities makes it more likely that they'll excel.
/r/MensRights01/10/25 10:51 AM
19

I've experienced this vs coworkers with small kids, regardless of gender. They get a lot more leeway with start/stop hours and work from home, vs people with grown kids (like me) or no kids.
/r/MensRights19/09/25 05:33 PM
12

Why? Pay should be based on how valuable the employee's work is to the company, not belonging to a particular demographic group.
/r/MensRights19/09/25 10:28 AM
1

Lions are pack animals. Strong and interdependent?
/r/MensRights14/09/25 10:06 PM
2

In the US, it's common for whole categories of "essential items" to be excluded from sales tax, such as clothing, groceries and medical items. So the complaint is 1) menstrual products should be considered essential and 2) other items that serve similar purposes are exempt from tax. It differs from state to state (no national sales tax). So, if I went into a drug store here in NY I could buy condoms (medical item), baby diapers (clothing) and a coca-cola (food) and pay no tax. And menstrual prod…
/r/MensRights12/09/25 11:38 AM
2

NOT having a sales tax on tampons would be sexist and incredibly unfair to all the male tax payers who would then be subsidizing the products. Hard disagree. Generally sales tax doesn't apply to medical items. Prior to 2016, my state had a sales tax on pads, but not bandaids, or adult diapers. How does that make any kind of sense? if women weren't willing to happily pay more for products that marketed towards them, or designed for them, then they simply wouldn't So, clothes that fit properly. Ye…
/r/MensRights12/09/25 10:08 AM
2

My footwear for work has been ether steel toed boots Those reinforced toes are so costly, too! At my last job, they were required for anyone entering the warehouse. So all the Purchasing team would have to change out of their loafers/ballet flats into reinforced toe shoes to deliver paperwork to the shipping warehouse. We suggested just emailing the documents so the company could stop buying shoes for office workers. Nope, not allowed.
/r/MensRights12/09/25 09:34 AM
3

It's not always as simple as "just use the men's option. "Tampon tax" (sales tax on menstrual products) is a form of pink tax. Still happening in 18 states. Women's clothing tends to be more expensive for similar items like t shirts or jeans. My husband and I both wear Levis, but mine cost about $15 more (501s, Levis website: $80 for men's, $98 for women's). Also holds true for kids clothing- the girls dept is more expensive. Cheaper "unisex" clothing is really cut for men- the women's version i…
/r/MensRights12/09/25 08:31 AM
1

You literally asked for one example. I'm not going to write you a history of the US. 🤷‍♀️ struggled to find a job at a law firmly sorry, that should have been "law firm." I corrected the typo.
/r/MensRights09/09/25 12:27 AM
1

Well, there's Sandra Day O'Connor. Graduated with high marks from Stanford in 1952, but struggled to find a job at a law firm because of discrimination- she was only offered legal secretary work. Had to work for free to secure a job as a deputy county attorney. And she was the first women appointed as a US Supreme Court Justice- in 1980. As a member of the court, she ruled on several pivotal cases regarding gender discrimination
/r/MensRights09/09/25 12:03 AM
1

Harvard, Dartmouth, and Georgetown didn't even admit women into their medical colleges until the 1940s. Jefferson Medical College didn't allow women until the 1960s. In 1900, 40% of US medical schools didn't admit women. And just the med schools. In the first half of the 20th century, women were also denied residencies, admittance to medical organizations and employment in hospitals because of their gender. Women couldn't serve as military doctors until 1943 (but have served as military nurses s…
/r/MensRights08/09/25 11:44 PM
0

1950 is the era I was already speaking of- ie using my grandparents as examples. But I agree with you, women had even fewer opportunities in earlier time periods. I'm curious, are you honestly saying that, all other factors being equal (race, class, familial wealth), a woman and a man attempting to become a doctor in 1950 would have equal opportunities? Bear in mind that women were still being excluded from medical schools, medical associations and hospital internships for the first half of the …
/r/MensRights06/09/25 06:34 PM
0

Women didn't have the same opportunities as their generational male counterparts either. My point is that, in the 1950s, a man would be easily accepted as a manager in a factory, or a doctor. A woman would not be. It's not a question of whether women were allowed to work at all. It's whether they had the same occupational opportunities available to them as men. And, for most of history, they didn't. To go back to my grandparents example, one grandfather was an electrician and the other was a del…
/r/MensRights05/09/25 03:07 PM
0

Women didn't have the same job opportunities they do now, though. Yes, it was common for women to work, but only in certain occupations, and generally not those with higher salaries. For example, I work as a mid level manager for a manufacturing company, and my daughter is in medical school.. But that type of work wouldn't have been available to my grandmothers. One was a factory worker for a shoe manufacturer, and the other was a lunch lady at a school.
/r/MensRights05/09/25 11:08 AM
1

it’s a duty of any human being to preserve, protect and develop their culture and continue their species Why, though? We have an instinct to reproduce, and the intelligence to ignore the instinct (if we choose). I don't see how duty comes into it.
/r/MensRights14/08/25 08:57 PM
1

Yeah, I'm not sure the "works for three days" thing is a plus. It's much easier to remember to take a pill at the same time every day than to take on every couple of days.
/r/MensRights13/08/25 09:49 AM
5

well, who exactly are you going to get to test this? You could test on any men with partners who are ok with getting pregnant. Literally anyone who would like to have a child but wouldn't mind waiting a bit for the sake of science (and the stipend for participating in a medical study). Besides, as another poster pointed out, the first step in testing would just be checking sperm count.
/r/MensRights13/08/25 09:45 AM
1

The percentages are there in the breakdown: $1500 - housing. A bit high for an apartment here, but not in nearby cities. $450 - transportation. Seems reasonable expenses for a newish sedan. $400 - food $375 - healthcare. Insurance, copays and prescriptions. Just those 4 categories are 75% of the expenses
/r/MensRights12/07/25 09:45 PM
1

Interesting that the women are actually spending less per month, on average: $44,832.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 05:39 PM
13

Where does the extra 16.9% of purchasing power come from? I'd guess family. My 23 year old daughter and her girlfriend are in college and have an apartment. They get financial help for both sets of parents. Honestly, I think all of my daughter's friends are getting some kind of assistance from their parents. Plus, I'm not sure their counting loans as "income" but it's what a lot of students live on.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 05:31 PM
1

paper abortion is the unilateral choice to dump the responsibility on the other party. And taxpayers. Paper abortion shifts financial responsibility from fathers to society overall (through social programs). I'm convinced this is why more people don't support paper abortions.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 05:25 PM
7

The decline in men attending 4 year colleges is a huge factor here. I attended my daughter's college graduation last year (she starts med school this year) and there were noticeably more women graduating with degrees in bio or biochem- two of the main BS degrees for med school applicants. Also, the preparation for med school really begins in high school. Not just grades, but building the foundations for research, leadership roles and community service that med schools want to see. For example, H…
/r/MensRights12/06/25 05:48 PM
1

It's still pretty bad, to be honest. And hyperbole. Half the population brings literally nothing to their relationships? Come on. As a person in a long, happy marriage, this comes across as a very unhealthy view of relationships. First, it's dehumanizing. I know you meant to be criticizing women, but you've reduced men to a source of cash and services. It's not a great feeling for anyone for their partner base their value them on what they can provide. It makes partners seem interchangeable, as …
/r/MensRights11/06/25 10:22 PM
1

"Not a good romantic partner = worthless" is a wild take. It says a lot that you don't realize this.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 07:10 PM
1

You sound very cold. The point to anyone being in a relationship is a mutual desire to be together. That's it. Let's be honest, all the benefits you listed are easily replaced with money. And if that's how you see a partner- a source of cash and services- yikes. Ii just can't imagine thinking of my spouse as anything other than an irreplaceable individual. Someone I'm lucky to spend time with, year after year.
/r/MensRights10/06/25 10:22 PM
2

I totally agree! Long parental leave is good for the parents, the child, and society overall. 12 weeks is all you'd get here, and that's unpaid in a lot of cases (especially for men). It says a lot about how little parents are valued, IMO.
/r/MensRights10/06/25 09:36 PM
9

There is likely some good reason for some additional leave to recover from the very physically taxing and sometimes injuring process of giving birth It's the entire reason maternity leave is paid more often than paternity leave in the US. Maternity leave is technically a short term disability and is paid by disability insurance (not the employer). Here in NY, the state runs a leave insurance program that everyone pays into. Anyone taking an FMLA leave (including parental) gets paid.
/r/MensRights10/06/25 07:55 PM
18

I thought that too. It's normalizing (even praising) husbands sacrificing and suffering silently. It just doesn't sit right with me. Absolutely women should value their partners. But not by continuing to enforce harmful expectations.
/r/MensRights09/06/25 04:25 PM
1

As if honest communication, emotional expression, and sincerity are not only possible but expected in a healthy relationship. What would the alternative even be? A relationship built on dishonesty and insincerity? I don't see how that could be considered healthy.
/r/MensRights09/06/25 04:20 PM
5

Re: marriage rates https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-most-educated-women-are-the-most-likely-to-be-married/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/09/14/as-u-s-marriage-rate-hovers-at-50-education-gap-in-marital-status-widens/ https://www.axios.com/2025/01/31/marriage-gap-women Re: divorce rates https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8980992/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/12/04/education-and-marriage/ https://divorce-education.com/divorce-rate-by-education-level/#chap…
/r/MensRights09/06/25 01:54 AM
5

Women with higher levels of education are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce. So, no. The evidence does not support the idea that attaining education = planning to divorce.
/r/MensRights09/06/25 01:32 AM
0

What do you want someone to do? They're both well established at this point, with a logical reason to happen in June. Pride Month started out in the 70s as a series of marches to commemorate the Stonewall riots, since that was such a turning point for gay rights. The events gained in popularity over time, becoming less protest and more celebration. Pride became a recognized month in the US in 1999 by presidential declaration. Men's Mental Health Month started as Men's Health Week by an act of Co…
/r/MensRights08/06/25 10:03 AM
1

Low 30s is minimum wage here (NY state). Less than minimum for a salaried employee. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to be frustrated that their spouse (any gender) isn't trying for more than that. And it sounds like there have been opportunities that he chose to pass on. For the initial question, alimony laws are mostly just a calculation based on relative income and time married. If more women are breadwinners, more men will be awarded alimony.
/r/MensRights30/05/25 10:48 AM
2

Was there any explanation of why it's propaganda for a woman to change her name? I can't see the logic. I will say, everyone in the US should give some real thought to changing their names as long as the SAVE Act is in play. As the bill is written, someone with a legal name change would need a passport to be able to vote. Lower income people especially would be better off keeping their birth names for the lower documentation requirement (birth certificate and photo id).
/r/MensRights26/05/25 09:40 AM
1

I don’t judge them. Come on, we both know that's a lie. Just look at your comments to other posters on this thread.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 02:54 PM
1

And neither do you. It's silly to continue this conversation- we're just repeating at this point. Obviously, you can live your life how you like. And others are going to judge you for it.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 02:49 PM
1

Exactly. You have the ability to be there for your child . And the time, since you don't have a full time job. You just choose not to.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 02:38 PM
2

Splitting the rent, lol With the kids? This doesn't make any sense. You've said again and again that you're happy being a part time parent and don't want to live with your kids. That's not being a good parent. Kids need a father who's present for the day to day- nursing them through sickness, helping with homework, teaching life skills, demonstrating good behavior and morals. I can't respect someone who's ok with just showing up sometimes. My BIL and SIL don't live together, and have two childre…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:24 PM
1

Living apart together with small children I can only see benefits of this. It's not cherry picking when it's the entire point of your post. Why are you expecting small children to make decisions about living arrangements? You are the parent- what have you done to get additional custody? I'm going to guess nothing, since you said (repeatedly) that you prefer not living with them. they are welcome to stay in my apartment for free As opposed to what? Charging them rent?
/r/MensRights23/05/25 12:50 PM
2

You literally listed your "fatherly" activities as playing and taking them out to dinner, and said being a part time father is perfect. And you don't want to live with your kids because it would interfere with: sleep, relax time, exercise and eating what you want. I am 100% judging you for not choosing to be an active parent to your children. As a parent, I could not imagine not wanting to see my child every day.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 12:10 PM
2

It's perfect for you- not for them. You just want to swoop in for the fun parts. It's just playing at bring a parent. A good parent is there for the difficult parts as well as the fun ones. You sound very selfish, and immature.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 11:43 AM
2

So you just want to be a part time dad and partner? I mean, if you visit your fiancee and kids a few days a week, but don't eat there (point 10) or sleep there (point 8), that's a couple of hours a week. That's not being a family- it's playing house. I would not need to work full-time and take on a mortgage to satisfy her materialistic desires. This one doesn't even make sense. How could it be cheaper to have two separate households?
/r/MensRights23/05/25 11:15 AM
–

Well, yes. Arguing about lit is more entertaining.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 06:33 PM
–

I only want to engage with the comments about Jane Austen- so I have. Your second point is valid, and one I made in another post. Austen's works are a poor example to support OP's point.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 06:25 PM
–

I'm not sure what point you're making here. It's not like lower class women had better prospects.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 03:30 PM
0

It's a tongue in cheek way of acknowledging that people were going to throw their daughters at wealthy men. And, again, that's the POV of the parents- not the young women. A main theme of Austen novels is how limited women's financial options were because of their dependence on male relatives. So, clearly, the men aren't really property. I'm really just here to talk lit today. Austen in general and P&P particularly are poor examples of the women are gold diggers narrative.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 01:08 PM
1

That line isn't even about the expectations of women. It continues: "...this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters." In other words, it's about parents securing a good future for their daughters. Familial expectations to marry wealth or rank (for both men and women) feature in every Austen novel. What about the dudes who are not in possession of a 'good fortune'? Jane Austen only wro…
/r/MensRights16/05/25 10:59 AM
2

You know what, I like the way you think. We should just use two historical classifications for authors- "already dead" and "not dead yet.' Seriously though- I'm not sure how you can look at an author writing about the Napoleanic Wars (Austen) and one writing about the US Civil War (Alcott and contemporaries) and say they're basically the same. They lived in very different worlds.
/r/MensRights15/05/25 09:10 PM
5

It is comedy. And a great opening line for a book. Also, the main character turns down two lucrative marriage proposals because she's determined to only marry for love.
/r/MensRights15/05/25 08:04 PM
1

The writing styles from the Regency era aren’t that different than the Victorian era. They are, though. There were huge changes in science, technology and society that affected the tone of the Victorian Era. An Austen novel is very different from one by a Bronte, or Louisa May Alcott.
/r/MensRights15/05/25 07:36 PM
2

“Does this writing sound Victorian & Bitchy?” Regency. Jane Austen wasn't even alive in the Victorian era.
/r/MensRights15/05/25 07:19 PM
1

That's going to vary a lot by family. Basically, anything someone does that requires them to manage something can fall in the mental load bucket. In my house "men's mental load" includes, but is not limited to: Running errands Managing appts for our kid and pets Scheduling home repairs Filing taxes Paying bills/checking bank statements Handling our kid's existential crisis Remembering to take out trash and brush Mowing the lawn Playing chauffeur Planning special events for family members Making …
/r/MensRights14/05/25 09:06 PM
–

Planning a menu, making a grocery list and doing the shopping are also responsibilities, to be honest. In my house it's all just rolled up under "chores." But we try to keep it even. Each of us handles social activities for our own families, for example. One of us makes sure trash and brush get to the curb on time, while the other gives the cat his daily medicine, etc.
/r/MensRights14/05/25 07:51 PM
3

That titles kind of misleading, though. From the article and the study: men and women both reported lower relationship satisfaction when the woman was the breadwinner. It's not surprising. There's a lot of pressure for men to be the provider and people are very disapproving when they aren't. A couple of years ago I passed my husband in income, and the comments we got really surprised me. People ask if my husband minds his wife making more, or if he feels emasculated. Sometimes they'll say I must…
/r/MensRights06/05/25 09:25 PM
1

That's not surprising- people in general have a pretty negative view of relationships where the woman earns more. I passed my husband's income a couple of years ago and whenever someone finds out, their first question is whether he's ok with that. At this point we just shrug and say "I like the extra money."
/r/MensRights06/05/25 05:32 PM
1

That's not surprising- people in general have a pretty negative view of relationships where the woman earns more. I passed my husband's income a couple of years ago and whenever someone finds out, their first question is whether he's ok with that. At this point we just shrug and say "I like the extra money."
/r/MensRights06/05/25 05:32 PM
1

It sounds like he doesn't even like her. This video reminded me of a family member who busts out with something mean and follows up with "I'm just being honest" when they're called out on it. You can be honest and also kind.
/r/MensRights01/05/25 07:44 PM
1

It's about statistics, not standards. Most people are overweight, therefore most single people you encounter will also be overweight, including those recommended by friends. Everyone is entitled to whatever standards they like, as long as they aren't shaming other people about it.
/r/MensRights28/04/25 07:41 PM
-4

Could it be that they're just recommending "average" people? In the US, 70% of people are overweight or obese (men and women both). Chances are that any random friend of a friend will be overweight.
/r/MensRights28/04/25 05:20 PM
1

It's hard to compare, since I've only had 3 female bosses (1 excellent and 2 so-so). I've had about a dozen male bosses, and they ran the gamut from awesome to terrible. Overall, managerial style seems more important than gender.
/r/MensRights16/04/25 09:38 PM
4

To be fair, there are millions of disabled and retired people who don't drive or buy alcohol. It seems like this is the population that would be most harmed by eliminating mail in voting. My county requires you to sign an affidavit that you'll be out of the county on election day to receive a mail in ballot- I like that method. My husband has used it when traveling for work, and my daughter voted remotely all 4 years of college.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 09:36 PM
3

I was just replying to your comment with more information. Anyway, this affects anyone who has legally changed their name- but it happens to be mostly women who do that. For example, adoptees and trans people are also affected.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 05:37 PM
-3

I'm in NY. Non residents in the country legally can get a Real ID. Like people here on visas and green cards. The ID has a star- it doesn't say whether the person is a citizen.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 03:43 PM
2

The problem is that married women bridge the ID gap from birth certificate to current name with a marriage certificate, and the bill doesn't list this as an acceptable option to proving citizenship. The options listed are a Real ID that indicates citizenship (not all states do) or a passport. My state's Real ID wouldn't qualify, so the only stated option for married women would be a passport, which costs $130. Or not be allowed to vote. The kicker is, this was brought up before the bill went to …
/r/MensRights13/04/25 03:34 PM
21

Weirdly, Real ID requires several more documents than a passport. I haven't bothered to get one since my driver's license doesn't expired for years yet. But yeah, they all require a birth certificate.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 03:17 PM
1

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against the bill. I just don't understand how this creates an extra barrier for people behind on child support. If you don't already have a passport, you're not getting one without a birth certificate. If you do already have one- just use that to vote.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 03:15 PM
100

I think I'm missing something here. You need a birth certificate to get a passport. So, people without birth certificates won't be able to vote and also won't be able to get passports, regardless of child support payment status. Right?
/r/MensRights13/04/25 02:37 PM
2

I'm not even going to touch the "when does a fetus become a person debate. I'm just pointing out that strengthening abortion bans is the purpose of the bill. For anyone who does consider a fetus to be the same as a child, there should be no objection to paying child support from conception. There are medical expenses associated with fetal care.
/r/MensRights12/04/25 01:03 PM
1

The "why" is: to strengthen the argument for an abortion ban. Child support before birth --> A fetus is a child --> a fetus should have the same rights as a child who has been born No one who is pro choice should support a law like this.
/r/MensRights12/04/25 11:31 AM
2

You can’t expect men to suddenly change what they’ve been doing since the beginning of time just because you’re struggling with the responsibilities that came with the rights you fought for. I didn't fight for those rights. By the time I married, two income families were the norm. That's just the way the world is for people from my generation. I don't see why I should be expected to take on more labor than my spouse when we both have jobs to support the family. Each partner should be putting in …
/r/MensRights10/04/25 05:39 PM
5

I'm not sure I understand the complaint. If both partners are working and paying bills, it's only fair that they split the unpaid labor. My spouse and I try to keep an equal number of total hours worked (paid work + commute + housework + childcare). This is my ideal family situation. Or is the problem that more women want that modern type of relationship? There's still about 25% of married moms being SAHMs. There are still women out there who are happy with a traditional marriage- especially in …
/r/MensRights10/04/25 01:38 PM
1

Right! No one's clamboring to go grocery shopping, take kids clothes shopping or the cat to the vet. If men want their partners to handle these kinds of chores, they can't complain when they spend money to do it.
/r/MensRights28/03/25 10:38 PM
-10

My dude, do you really think the person I replied to is upset about unequal levels of marketing? Seriously? It's like you didn't even read the post. Regardless, the solution to your problem is simple. If men want the market to cater to them, they can take over half of the shopping and errands. But they don't, because it's work, and they're happy to hand it off to their partners.
/r/MensRights28/03/25 10:31 PM
-22

You'd still need to spend the same if you were earning that money, yeah? Why do you assume I'm not earning? My husband and I make within a few percentage points of each other. Like, assume you're the sole income earner, but had the same family, assets, interests, etc. Would you be making approximately the same purchase decisions? Let's try this. Assume my spouse did half of the household shopping, child errands and home renovation decisions. Then our spending would be 50/50, but the total purcha…
/r/MensRights28/03/25 09:07 PM
12

they are responsible for 85% of the consumer purchases That doesn't mean they're spending it on themselves. Women tend to do household shopping and shopping for dependents. Consider my family. I'm married, and do the lion's share of shopping for groceries, cleaning, prescriptions, and pet supplies. When our daughter was younger, I also handled most of her shopping, doctor's appointments, haircuts, school expenses, and music lessons. And I mostly make the final decision on home furnishings, appli…
/r/MensRights28/03/25 08:13 PM
2

Ok, so start that if you want it? My daughter and about 15 friends do Lord of the Rings Christmas every year where they have a potluck feast and drink all day while watching the director's cuts. As a family, we call the whole of October "spooky month" and visit haunted houses (with actors) and haunted houses (the "real" kind). And there is a "Star Wars Day"- it's May (the) 4th. Celebrate what you want-there's no holiday police. Galentines is only mainstream because it was on a popular TV show an…
/r/MensRights14/02/25 10:31 PM
3

Hope you enjoy it! I'm actually making dinner tonight- carbonara and brownies. Our actual "Valentine's" dinner is tomorrow because restaurants are too swamped to be enjoyable the actual day (and the service suffers).
/r/MensRights14/02/25 09:38 PM
6

It seems like Galentine's events are more like "stuff your husband wouldn't want to do." There's a local venue that does a Parisian themed night with charcuterie, petits fours and pink cocktails. Another place has a Galentine's high tea with all the fancy trimmings. My husband wouldn't want to go to those, but I've taken female friends or relatives and had a great time.
/r/MensRights14/02/25 09:34 PM
22

Yeah, it's not right to demand something for Valentine's Day. And it cheapens the "gift" if you had to ask for it. My husband and I usually go out to a nice dinner and he sends flowers, while I get him chocolates and a card. Rarely, one of us will buy a present for the other. And, that's all delightful, but I can't imagine telling him he had to do any of those things, or vice versa. It's not a test of our relationship- it's just an enjoyable day.
/r/MensRights14/02/25 03:50 PM
1

Why legally tie yourself to someone when it's easier to just walk away if things go south? Some people see that legal tie as a feature. If it's harder to walk away, there's more incentive to stay together and work things out. That added stability really provides the foundation to build a future together. I wouldn't feel comfortable buying a house or building wealth with someone who could just walk away when things get tough. And, it's a legal arrangement with benefits for things like inheritance…
/r/MensRights14/02/25 12:12 AM
1

Tests should be easy to get because it's the simplest solution to men complaining that only women have the certainty of knowing they're the parent. Not mandatory, because most won't want them and it would be a huge waste of resources. And paid for by the person who wants them- an at home test is like $100. There's a lot of ways people snoop on their partners to see if they're stepping out- checking locations, looking at social media and texts, checking financial statements, etc. IMO, a paternity…
/r/MensRights11/02/25 12:23 PM
2

I strongly disagree. Paternity tests should only require one parent's approval. Then dad can have his (infant) children discretely tested if he wants with no damage to family harmony. I really don't get where you're coming from about resentment. If a man chooses to wait literal decades to seek a paternity test, the fallout is on him. Asking grown kids to be tested is guaranteed to cause irreparable harm to the parent-child relationship.
/r/MensRights11/02/25 09:56 AM
1

If he was struggling so much with self doubt, he should have had the test done sooner. A man wanting grown kids to get paternity tested is already going to hurt them and tank the parent-child relationship. No need for mom to help with that. I agree that tests should be easy for fathers to obtain, but they should be done before the kid is old enough to realize what's going on. Anything else is just cruel.
/r/MensRights10/02/25 06:30 PM
3

Whether the kid is 40 or 40 weeks. Well, if the kid's over 18, dad will have to get permission from them for a paternity test, not the mom.
/r/MensRights10/02/25 06:04 PM
1

you can read classics or modern Eastern novels. My thoughts exactly. My reads over the last year run the gamut from The Tale of Genji (world's first novel) to the latest David R Slayton urban fantasy. There's a lot of literature out there for any interest.
/r/MensRights06/02/25 05:31 PM
8

Blind love is not healthy. That fluttery, obsessed feeling when you barely know someone is infatuation- the excitement of something new and chasing after your ideal vision of that person. You might be able to fan than spark into love, eventually. But it can just as easily fade away. True love is grown over time. It's knowing someone bone deep, respecting their values and morals, accepting their flaws, and wanting to be with them always, even through all the boring parts that make up the routine …
/r/MensRights02/02/25 04:13 PM
2

Do I think my grandparents were happier? No. My mom's parents used to drink and argue in the street until the neighbors called the cops. They had mellowed out by the time I was born, but really weren't happy being together in their younger years (but couldn't divorce). My dad's parents were reasonably happy, but very poor- one beater car and three kids to a bedroom in their 1000 sq ft house.they struggled a lot, and my grandma often did part time work to make ends meet (babysitting, sewing, cook…
/r/MensRights27/01/25 12:49 PM
1

With almost all girls being pushed into post-secondary education using a massive amount of gender specific scholarships "Massive amount" is a bit of an exaggeration, no? The highest count I could find was 1728 gender specific scholarships for women, compared to 152 for men, in the US (https://www.campusreform.org/article/exclusive-veteran-anti-male-discrimination-lawsuits-sounds-off-study-shows-disproportionate-female-only-scholarships/13620). 1.7 million students a year receive scholarships, so…
/r/MensRights23/12/24 01:44 PM
6

I think we're in agreement about each other. I can't see it working out well for you to be so reckless with your future. I guess just close your eyes, tie the knot and hope it all works out, eh? I'm just so confused why you are actively against finding out of your potential partner is actually compatible. One of my exes wanted a traditional marriage with a stay at home wife. Another had champagne tastes but beer ambitions. Both were sweet men, and we got on well, but our overall goals in life ju…
/r/MensRights15/12/24 05:18 PM
0

I've been happily married for 23 years. My partner and I knew we are very compatible because we talked about difficult topics together before marrying. Like adults.
/r/MensRights15/12/24 04:46 PM
0

You can talk about finances directly when it actually matters, as in you share a life together. That seems kind of late in the game to me. I wouldn't want to be moving in with someone and then find out they have a huge amount of debt, or a very different expectation about style of living, how to fund a family, or how much to save/invest.
/r/MensRights15/12/24 04:33 PM
-7

Your comment has me curious. At what stage would you consider it appropriate for a woman to bring up finances? Why is that the right time?
/r/MensRights15/12/24 03:14 PM
0

It's not romantic, but talking about finances early saves a lot of headaches later on. Not for a casual thing, obviously. But if you're looking for long term, it's important to find someone you're financially compatible with. And that means talking about income, expenses, debts, future financial and lifestyle plans, spending and saving habits and how you would handle finances in a marriage/cohabitation. It doesn't have to be third date, like mentioned in the article, but if you've left it until …
/r/MensRights15/12/24 03:02 PM
-1

It’s not practical to lower standards when lives are on the line. Only if the standard for women is lower than what is necessary to perform the job. There's no indication that's what's happening. Set the minimum standard as the requirement for women and make the men's requirement higher. Then everyone is qualified for the job, but the gender ratio for dangerous jobs is more equal.
/r/MensRights12/12/24 05:24 PM
-2

there needs to be a single set of standards that accurately reflect what the job needs. I disagree. Currently, men suffer the greatest number of workplace injuries and fatalities, because they hold the more dangerous jobs. Spreading that risk more equally between the sexes should be a priority, and that means getting a higher proportion of women (and therefore a lower proportion of men) into dangerous jobs. Any job that involves physical strength will always have more qualified male applicants j…
/r/MensRights12/12/24 05:20 PM
-24

This is such a tricky situation for physically demanding jobs. Overall, I think having different standards for women in physical jobs is a good thing. It's a practical way to get more women into those dirty and dangerous jobs and shift some of the burden off of men.
/r/MensRights12/12/24 12:12 PM
1

Even if that's true (and I'm not sure it is) what would the women be doing in this scenario? Surely women will also take advantage of AI companions and risk free childbirth?
/r/MensRights11/12/24 11:46 PM
1

So only male babies, then?
/r/MensRights11/12/24 07:54 PM
1

I agree that people who want kids shouldn't wait too long- either married or single. It's sad when I see people who waited too long for "the one" and regret not becoming parents alone before it's too late. My daughter's a lesbian and has a bunch of LGBTQ friends, so I see the donor option as a definite win for them. And couples with infertility problems, like my relative who used a donor. It was a couple years ago, so she paid out of pocket, but now it would be covered by insurance.
/r/MensRights08/12/24 11:57 PM
1

I can't imagine women would be waiting too long past the average age for having a first child (27, like you said), unless they are waiting find a partner. And if they're starting that late (ie around 40), they're going to need IVF whether they finally find Mr Right or go it solo. A relative of mine used a donor. It took 3 samples and they were $500 each. Nowhere near the cost of IVF. And IVF and other fertility treatments are covered by health insurance in the state I live in.
/r/MensRights08/12/24 11:33 PM
1

There are egg banks, for women who can't produce viable eggs.
/r/MensRights08/12/24 11:13 PM
1

Sure they would rather pay to play the expensive IVF gotcha game. Women only need to use IVF if they have a fertility issue. Those women would also need IVF to become pregnant from a partner. Otherwise, a woman can just buy donor sperm for a couple hundred a vial and insert it at home.
/r/MensRights08/12/24 11:06 PM
1

There are egg banks. Eggs are more expensive than sperm because retrieval is more difficult and expensive.
/r/MensRights08/12/24 07:47 PM
1

Yet this was possible a scant 50 years ago. Certainly not for everyone. By 1974, 43% of US married mothers were already working outside the home (https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1983/12/art2full.pdf). It rose to 57% by 1984, caused in part by recessions starting early 70s as the economic growth caused by WWII came to an end. The govt literally pays people to have children through tax breaks and refunds. Because society has a vested interest in people continuing to have children. Population growth i…
/r/MensRights07/12/24 11:57 AM
1

According to feminism Sorry, I thought we were talking about reality, not ideology. In the real world, it takes two incomes to make ends meet. Having a career instead of a job is to have more money and financial security. Plain and simple. Attempts to create offspring through effectively cloning women instead of needing sperm from men is just another step down that path. Oh, you're actually not talking about reality. Child care cost is going through the roof, meaning it's not worth women working…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 06:56 PM
1

They're all collective, including childcare. They all help a portion of the population, but none of them help everyone. I'm not disabled, but my taxes pay for SSDI. I don't take the bus, but my taxes support it. I pay school tax, but no longer have a child in school, and so on Even the others are only collective in a broad sense. For example, I attended a state college (supported by state taxes), received need based grants (state and fed taxes) and subsidized student loans (fed taxes), of which …
/r/MensRights06/12/24 06:39 PM
0

Taxpayers using tax funded services aren't leeches. And every kid has two parents. Childcare assistance also helps men, and children, half of whom are boys. This seems like such a strange hill to die on when you consider all the programs that receive government funding. Assistance for the poor, unemployed and disabled, sure. But also money to support schools (and school lunches), colleges, hospitals, parks, museums, zoos, community centers, small businesses, failing corporations, theaters, libra…
/r/MensRights06/12/24 12:47 PM
1

completely ignoring the reality it takes 2 parents to raise a child unless you are an outlier I think you're ignoring the reality that it takes two incomes to raise a child. The driving force for women working is needing to pay bills. In the US, 73% of married mothers work. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf (table 5- employment status by sex, marital status and presence and age of children)
/r/MensRights06/12/24 10:21 AM
0

I'm not sure why you think I shouldn't use a service that I: a) pay taxes to support, for far more years than my child was enrolled b) paid the full (as in undiscounted) rate as per the sliding income scale For the rest, I guess we just have different opinions on the role of government funded services. I fully support (and vote for) social programs, whether it's tax funded college tuition in my state or a subsidized grocery store for an underserved community in my county. And at this point, my f…
/r/MensRights05/12/24 08:26 PM
3

Oh, are you not represented in government? That's a whole different problem.
/r/MensRights05/12/24 07:53 PM
3

But addressing the exhorbitant cost of childcare helps men as well. Most my friends are middle class married couples. Even with two incomes, childcare is a struggle. It's upwards of $1200/month for an infant- that's more than my mortgage in an upscale neighborhood.
/r/MensRights05/12/24 07:27 PM
-7

Government paying for childcare would just promote more single mothers, which is a huge mistake. Government paying for childcare will help working families. FIFY The local school district has subsidized after school care on a sliding, income based scale. All kinds of families use it, not just single women. My kid went, and I'm married and make enough to pay at the top of the scale. It's a great service to the community because it's educational, reliable childcare provided by well trained individ…
/r/MensRights05/12/24 06:51 PM
-6

Because that's how taxes work. Everyone pools their resources so we can, collectively, provide services to difficult or expensive for the individual to obtain alone. Just like the many services already provided through taxes. Because it's in the best interest of the country for people to have children to grow the economy and continue society. And also, more people working (the parents now and the child later) increases tax revenue. Because making sure children are properly taken care of is a ben…
/r/MensRights05/12/24 06:36 PM
17

That's what stuck out to me. It's nearly as many dissatisfied men as women.
/r/MensRights05/12/24 06:22 PM
2

is the employer supposed to pay childcare costs? It seemed like they're looking for a government solution, like subsidizing childcare costs. Which makes a lot of sense when you consider that childcare can't be scaled up to be affordable because you need a certain amount if workers per child. So, it's astronomical for pre-school aged children. Corporate culture really does make a difference in work-life balance. My company allows salaried employees work from home or flex their time to meet person…
/r/MensRights05/12/24 06:20 PM
1

I don’t know when or where you grew up, but when and where I grew up, my and the majority of my friend’s mom’s were stay at home. And this wasn’t the 50’s it was late 90s to late 2000s. That's not really typical here in the US- by 2000, over 70% of moms were working outside the home. I never really understood families where one parent is the disciplinarian (mine wasn't that way, in the 80s), because it isn't effective. Small children especially need the consequence to immediately follow the beha…
/r/MensRights04/12/24 06:30 PM
–

It's hard to take you seriously when you pretend like you don't know why it's problematic when women aren't allowed to leave their homes alone. In western countries most women are unescorted most of the time, so there really isn't a parallel situation. Why then, is there such a push for women’s safety, if indeed ,it is very safe ? There is still crime. Everyone should be educated and prepared to take actions to reduce risk. The question I have is: since men are more likely to be victims of viole…
/r/MensRights04/12/24 03:14 AM
–

If what you are saying about autonomy is correct, then women would not be asking for male escort in a society where they are free not to do so. But they overwhelmingly do. Define "overwhelmingly." Strangely enough. the women I encounter in public aren't being escorted around for fear of their safety. Not even a majority, let alone an overwhelming number. Those women just...go places. Because most of the time, it's perfectly safe. Occasionally asking a friend or relative to walk with you is a wor…
/r/MensRights04/12/24 02:51 AM
–

It doesn't seem that strange, considering how women also walk together for safety. Two people walking are going to be safer than one, regardless of gender. The law, places a burden on men also, who have to comply for the convenience of women. In places where this is law, I imagine the women go places only when it's convenient for the man. The same as a parent child relationship. A woman has no autonomy over her movements and it would be nearly impossible to take any action to not be dependent on…
/r/MensRights04/12/24 02:32 AM
–

This dynamic is similar to the relationship between adults and children This is the crux the problem, of course. Adults don't want to be treated like children, only able to leave their homes at someone else's discretion.
/r/MensRights04/12/24 02:21 AM
1

There was a UK senior police official who advised women not to go out unaccompanied in the dark Not to go out in the dark is kind of extreme, no? Sunset's like 4:30. It looks like the officers advised women against walking alone late at night (ie 11 pm).
/r/MensRights04/12/24 02:09 AM
0

Cute story, but it's irrelevant It's a metaphor. Teaching people how to act in an emergency does not increase the chance of an emergency happening. It does help them keep their wits and not panic. Not if they aren't actually capable of handling the situation, it isn't. To be clear, the "situation" they're talking about is walking home from school. I'm curious what you think the solution is, if we shouldn't be teaching people how to defend themselves. Tell them to stay inside out of fear? Leave t…
/r/MensRights02/12/24 03:04 PM
4

Yes, I read it. The girls they quoted said they felt more confident about what to do in a potentially risky situation. That's a good thing. You can't avoid all risk from other people. It's just not possible. So, teaching people how to handle an emergency situation (or keep it from escalating to an emergency) helps them know what to do when it's the real thing. And "taking unnecessary risks" isn't on the curriculum of any self defense class I've heard of. Think of it like kitchen safety. I taught…
/r/MensRights02/12/24 02:19 PM
2

It will help more than doing nothing. You don't need to beat the guy's ass, you only need to fight long enough to create a window for escape. Self defense classes teach people how to do that.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 01:53 PM
2

I've taken several self defense classes- elementary and middle school PE, in college and as an adult. The driving message is always about avoiding risk through situational awareness, de-escalation, etc. And if that doesn't work, creating a window for escape. I don't see how this would lead to riskier behavior.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 01:45 PM
52

I agree 100%- all girls should learn self defense. And so should the boys. Although they're a lot less interested in self defense classes, in my experience.
/r/MensRights02/12/24 11:47 AM
1

Fighting an aggressor is much riskier than removing yourself from the situation. This is why self defense classes focus on de-escalating aggression, avoiding vulnerable situations, and escape. Fighting should really only be a last resort, meant to distract or disable enough to get away. I agree, confidence is important. Self defence classes are great for that, because you can practice scenarios in a safe setting.
/r/MensRights01/12/24 08:59 PM
1

Interestingly, the men I've invited to self defense class scoffed at the idea. Like it's unmanly. Idk, maybe it's a blow to their pride to be taught how to run away, or to assume that they might not win a fight against an aggressor.
/r/MensRights01/12/24 06:46 PM
1

The counter argument I always hear is why they should have to. Both things can be true simultaneously. It's messed up to need to be on the alert against the threat of strange men, and I'll loudly complain about it. But I've also taken self defense classes and encouraged my daughter to do the same.
/r/MensRights01/12/24 06:18 PM
10

Honestly, I agree. Martial arts doesn't seem that useful in this situation. Women should really take a self defense course. One that teaches situational awareness, verbal de-escalation, escape techniques and fighting dirty (go for the eyes). These classes are easy to find at colleges and community centers and are often free. When I was in college we'd round up a group of girlfriends and go together. Carrying a weapon is another option. Pepper spray is very effective with a little training, and g…
/r/MensRights01/12/24 08:47 AM
3

This is one of those areas that needs way more study before any real conclusions can be drawn. And I fully support more in depth studies into how to produce the best possible academic outcomes for both genders. But when I read the linked study, what stuck out was a pretty big confounding variable- the teaching style changed. The study author pointed out that in person meetings with professors were eliminated, therefore the student's personal attractiveness would have less impact on bias. But in …
/r/MensRights27/11/24 12:29 PM
1

I’ll be honest, not sure how accurate/unbiased them failure rates are Those rates are released by the US government's Center for Disease Control (https://www.cdc.gov/contraception/about/index.html). You do understand what contraceptive failure rate is measuring, right? It's the percent of women who will become pregnant during year of using that contraceptive method. So, out of every 100 women using condoms for birth control for a year, 13 will become pregnant. a lot of the pro abortion lot never…
/r/MensRights24/11/24 11:18 PM
1

All contraceptives have a failure rate. Tracking cycles and pulling out- about 20%. Condoms- 13% The pill- 7% (I got pregnant on this one) Plan B- only effective at certain points in a cycle Loving partners- doesn't prevent pregnancy? Tubes tied- is permanent. Definitely not for everyone. To be honest, I would be scared to have regular sex if I lived in some parts of the US right now (like Texas). Women's reproductive healthcare is abysmal there. That's one of the reasons I live in a liberal sta…
/r/MensRights24/11/24 02:35 PM
-6

I wouldn't say carelessness is the same as using abortion as contraceptives. For starters, most women having an abortion in the US, it's their first one. And, the number of abortions annually are half what they were in the 80's- because of the rise in contraceptive education and accessibility. Besides, the majority of women having abortions are low income- upwards of 70%. They're not thinking, in the heat of the moment, that it's ok to skip a condom because they can miss work and shell out a cou…
/r/MensRights24/11/24 02:09 PM
2

Not in the same way. WWII was one worldwide catalyst where the effects faded away as other countries rebuilt. Modern catalysts for societal change (like birth control, or the internet) are not going to go away. The results are more permanent shift than anamolous blip.
/r/MensRights24/11/24 02:03 PM
0

a working man could pay a mortgage/rent on a single income. Only some, and mostly in the anomalous period of prosperity after WWII. There have always been women working to support themselves/their families. The real difference is that now women have access to higher wage jobs. One of my grandmothers did part time factory work while the other was a foodservice worker at the local school. In contrast, I'm a purchasing manager for a large mfg company. Just better opportunities.
/r/MensRights24/11/24 01:24 PM
1

Yeah, who would do that? Abortions are expensive, time consuming and painful. They aren't contraception- abortions are the backup plan when contraception fails.
/r/MensRights24/11/24 01:15 PM
1

Maybe she could take a cue from some more famous singers and flash her butt during concerts? Or just come on stage naked. Billie Joe Armstrong comes to mind... Kind of a two for one to boost ticket sales?
/r/MensRights23/11/24 09:43 PM
3

With 200k in debt a family practitioner will likely have lifetime earnings no higher than a plumber (and worse hours too; nobody pays you double to work on Sunday). Our education system is so out of whack when it comes to med school cost vs typical doctor salaries. State med schools average $150k for 4 years, and that's on top of any debt from the bachelor's degree. My daughter will be starting med school next year and we've been looking into tuition costs and financing options. It's been eye op…
/r/MensRights23/11/24 09:01 AM
2

A higher percentage of women borrow federal student loans than men, borrow higher amounts, and pay them back at a lower amount per month than men as well. And it's taking longer to pay back the loan that made a lot of people eligible for loan forgiveness. That's certainly the case for me. I went on an extended repayment plan right after college for lower payments and decided not to increase the monthly amount as my salary increased. My remaining loan was forgiven this year because I've been payi…
/r/MensRights23/11/24 08:53 AM
1

The alimony thing is exaggerated as it’s only paid in 10% of cases. Yes. Marry someone who makes a similar income and the financial risks of divorce become much less. Even if your partner makes less, as long as it's not a huge income gap, you won't be stuck with alimony and splitting property 50/50 is pretty close to just what each person earned.
/r/MensRights21/11/24 12:15 PM
6

an incredibly rich man sweeps an average woman off her feet I'm laughing at just how much more unrealistic popular romance novels are than just "rich handsome man." Now, the male protagonist is handsome, smoking hot, sensitive, and also a fae prince, sorcerer, vampire hunter, shape shifting dragon or literal demon (talk about a reformed bad boy). The whole point is for it to not be realistic. Really, it's best to treat all forms of erotica as the fantasy they are and use them as spicy fuel for r…
/r/MensRights20/11/24 12:00 PM
1

And the data backs that up. Women make up 47% of the US labor force. Women are definitely working.
/r/MensRights20/11/24 11:39 AM
-12

It's like the birth control pill had never been invented. It's much worse than that. Look at what's already happening in US states with abortion bans: a shortage of obgyns, denied treatment for miscarriages and medically necessary abortions, restricted access to mifepristone (used to treat miscarriages and post birth hemorrhage). Reproductive healthcare for women is in the toilet in those areas. Here's a reminder of male reproductive rights (lack thereof). First, laws are different in the US, re…
/r/MensRights19/11/24 03:54 PM
4

I'm pretty sure feminist women already weren't having sex with female Trump supporters.
/r/MensRights19/11/24 03:45 PM
-18

After the US Presidential elections of 2024, there soon followed feminist calls for women to deny men sex, to hold a sex strike. Until what...? Until the threat to reproductive rights and reproductive healthcare is removed. I don't see how anyone was surprised by this. It seems obvious that, if having sex becomes more risky (especially physical risk), fewer women will choose to have it. It will ease up (at least in pro-choice states) as long as Trump doesn't try to enforce the Comstock Act to re…
/r/MensRights19/11/24 02:32 PM
1

The parties, probably Loud drunken parties are fun for other college students, but a huge nuisance for the actual college, and whatever neighborhood is unlucky enough to be near a frat house (being near one drags down property value). Sororities in the US aren't allowed to host parties with alcohol, so they don't get the same reputation, even though they attend the frat house parties. My husband lived in a frat house in college. I just asked him, and he said "there's a lot of douchebags in frats…
/r/MensRights17/11/24 10:42 PM
1

That only applies to the women who could stay home. Lower class/working class women have always worked. But opening up well paying jobs to women means I have a much higher standard of living than previous generations of women had in my family.
/r/MensRights14/11/24 11:01 PM
62

There's no excuse for that level of ignorance in a medical professional. I mean, gardisil's current TV ad encourages everyone younger than 45 to be vaccinated, and lists all the cancers caused by HPV. My family members are all being recommended the vaccine by their boy's doctors. And it's much more common to know a man with HPV related throat cancer (I know two). Knowing that HPV is a risk for men seems like pretty common knowledge at this point.
/r/MensRights13/11/24 06:41 PM
4

Not sure why you're getting down voted. Nevaeh Crain has been all over the news after she died from sepsis after being denied treatment for a miscarriage in Texas. She was only 18. There's been dozens of women in Texas speaking out about injuries they suffered from being denied medically necessary abortions or treatment for miscarriage. It's barbaric. And the frightening thing is, miscarriages aren't even rare. It's nearly 1 in 4 pregnancies.
/r/MensRights12/11/24 10:36 PM
1

Yes, the point of taking away reproductive rights (or threatening to) is to force all women to behave like anti- choice women. No one is surprised by this information.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 04:50 PM
1

That doesn't seem to be the case, though. Women are scared of what will happen to reproductive rights next. Just look at Texas. They're setting a terrifying example of where we could end up, as a country. Deciding to hold off until the dust settles isn't a bad idea. The women swearing off sex will come back around when they feel secure in access to reproductive care.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 04:33 PM
1

Dude, you literally said women refusing to be in relationships with men are stopping their contributions to society. I can absolutely quantify # of hours volunteered, $ donated, school board and town meetings attended and voted at, etc. It's not hard to measure.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 03:34 PM
0

Well, I did not say that's all of it. You did, but ok, maybe you misspoke. Anyone who works or pays taxes is contributing to society. Which most women do. Not to mention all the other ways that people (any gender) contribute: volunteering, charitable donations, involvement in politics and local government, helping neighbors and family.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 03:25 PM
-1

Not having sex because your access to reproductive care is threatened is self preservation. It's a sensible response.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 03:17 PM
-18

If some women are organizing to stop their contributions to society Did you just reduce women's contribution to society to sexual/romantic partners? Yikes.
/r/MensRights10/11/24 02:12 PM
1

That's the point of abortion bans, or a potential ban, in this case. To force all women into behaving like pro-life women. It's not "inadvertant."
/r/MensRights09/11/24 07:40 PM
4

Who would want to take on the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, even with caution, when reproductive rights are constantly under attack? Or a wanted pregnancy? There's tons of posts where women who want children are debating if it's too risky to be pregnant if reproductive rights are further eroded. He'll, it's already to dangerous to be pregnant in Texas.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 05:13 PM
6

Bingo. Conservatives wanted sex only within marriage. Those is no sex and no marriage.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 05:06 PM
-4

Good thing abortion doesn't murder babies. Pregnancy and childbirth are damaging to the body- every time. Terminating a pregnancy is caring for the health of the woman in the most literal way. Besides, abortion bans aren't just about abortion. Look at TX, where women are dying because they're being denied care for miscarriages. Or Louisiana, where mifepristone access is being restricted. Again, that blocks women from treatment for miscarriage. And obgyns are moving out of states with bans becaus…
/r/MensRights09/11/24 04:18 PM
-1

The posts I'm seeing are more: "I'm going 4B/not having sex until my reproductive rights are secure" Why is up to interpretation. The most likely case is both protest and self preservation. But it's a smart thing to do until things settle down.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 02:34 PM
-7

My husband and I each own one. He recently had a vasectomy, so I'm not too worried for myself. But it would be a much different story if we could still have an unplanned pregnancy. It's perfectly logical for women to abstain from sex when they're worried about access to proper reproductive healthcare.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 02:25 PM
-14

You're assuming that 4B is only meant to punish men. But it's also a great way for a woman to protect herself from the effects of threats to reproductive rights. No sex = no need to worry about abortion bans, access to contraceptives, whether you can get proper medical care during a miscarriage, etc. It certainly makes things simpler.
/r/MensRights09/11/24 02:13 PM
-5

It seems more like self preservation to me. Women I've talked to are scared of the possibility of a national abortion ban and how it will affect their healthcare.
/r/MensRights08/11/24 03:11 PM
1

I'm seeing a lot of posts from women who would like to get pregnant but are afraid to be with the current political situation. Can't say I blame them, when you see stories like Nevaeh Crain.
/r/MensRights08/11/24 02:03 PM
4

Of course, that's why they're saying they won't have sex if they don't have access to abortions. But most people don't want to go back to sex only for procreation. And it wouldn't eliminate abortions altogether.
/r/MensRights08/11/24 02:03 PM
56

From the article: "As a woman, my bodily autonomy matters and this is my way to exercise sovereignty over that,” Isn't that true, though? The best protection against the effects of an abortion ban are making absolutely certain you don't get pregnant.
/r/MensRights08/11/24 12:47 PM
-7

There's a trend of men posting "your body, my choice" on women's social media since the election. It's pretty gross, and rapey.
/r/MensRights08/11/24 11:42 AM
1

Trump would need all 3 executive branches to pass an abortion law...which he is not going to have. Not necessarily. The Comstock Act already makes it illegal to ship abortion materials by mail or common carrier (such as UPS). Back in the 30s, the Supreme Court ruled that only applies to materials meant for illegal purposes. If the Supreme Court changes their ruling, suddenly the executive branch can enforce the law. Then, you can't ship mifepristone and other supplies used for abortion. This is …
/r/MensRights05/11/24 06:13 PM
1

So, if Dexter was a girl?
/r/MensRights05/11/24 03:44 AM
10

Vasectomy & hysterectomy are the permanent birth control options. Vasectomy and tubal ligation. Hysterectomy is not for sterilization. It's quite invasive and a last option treatment for things like cancer or uterine prolapse.
/r/MensRights04/11/24 02:57 PM
1

Didn't you hear? It takes two people to make a baby. If a man wants to continue having sex without causing pregnancy, he should be willing to take some of the contraceptive burden. Anything else is just selfish.
/r/MensRights04/11/24 11:23 AM
1

lying to your spouse No one in those ads lied
/r/MensRights03/11/24 06:03 PM
2

You're reading things into the ad that aren't there. First- she didn't lie. Not offering up who you voted for isn't lying and it isn't wrong. Second- there's nothing here that indicates she's afraid of her husband or that he's threatening her. Wanting to avoid uncomfortable conversations is a perfectly normal response. There doesn't have to be a threat of violence. Besides, the campaign put out a nearly identical ad where a man doesn't tell his friends who he voted for (with George Clooney). Are…
/r/MensRights03/11/24 03:54 PM
-8

I've been married (to the same person) for 22 years.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 03:08 PM
-14

What, that knowing when to hold your tongue can avoid unnecessary disagreements with your spouse? Seems like good advice to me.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 02:37 PM
0

But it’s not reasonable for YOU to do something about it? I already have. We've been together for 25 years (I'm 44) and my husband had a vasectomy this year. I was taking birth control the entire time, excepting the year I was pregnant. Why should the entire reproductive responsibility fall on me for decisions we make as a couple?
/r/MensRights03/11/24 12:31 PM
0

Ok? I'm not married to you. My husband was fine with taking over contraceptive responsibility. Just goes to show how important it is to pick the right partner.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 12:10 PM
-1

If you don’t want to get pregnant, do the right thing for YOU I did. The right thing for me was to go off birth control and let my husband be responsible for contraceptives. He also doesn't want more kids, so it's reasonable to expect him to do something about it.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 12:10 PM
-24

Why do you jump right to evil husbands beating women? The realistic scenario is that the husband will be pissed about who she voted for and grumble about it for a while. Still a perfectly valid reason for keeping a vote private.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 11:42 AM
0

Do you not know what a "bro" is? I explained exactly what the video is. The ads are clearly a pair, reminding people that their votes are secret.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 11:23 AM
9

Some Trump supporter's wives will vote single issue on abortion. The ad is clearly referencing voting for abortion rights.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 11:21 AM
0

No more entitled than someone expecting their partner to handle contraception (and the side effects) indefinitely. Like I said- I would have settled on condoms. He's the one that doesn't like them, not me. It's easy to see how this turns into a point of contention between couples. There's not many options for compromise.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 11:00 AM
6

There's one for men sneaking their votes behind their bro's backs, too. https://youtu.be/PDOLkGV4-Ls?si=5464EqQkfVmBnToe Before every election there are trending Google searches about whether someone can find out who you voted for. So it doesn't seem too out there to release ads reminding people that their votes are secret.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 10:54 AM
0

But I would have been pretty upset if he didn't. I've been solely responsible for contraceptives our entire marriage. I wouldn't force him into it, though. I was done with birth control regardless. If he didn't want a vasectomy, I would have agreed to condoms. It's a tough situation because both partners make the decision to not have any more kids, but contraceptive use usually still falls on the woman.
/r/MensRights03/11/24 10:46 AM
-2

Whoever wants to be sterilised does it. That's the problem though, isn't it? The conflict is if a couple is done having kids but neither one wants to be sterilized. Expecting the woman to continue being responsible for contraception forever isn't fair. Forcing another person into sterilization isn't right. So, persuasion it is. Or going back to using condoms, I guess. I'm really glad I didn't have to have that argument. When I told my husband I didn't want to take birth control any more, he was …
/r/MensRights03/11/24 10:32 AM
-4

More often, I've seen men told that it's their turn. As in, the woman has been using an IUD or hormonal birth control for years, so now that it's time for permanent birth control the man should get the procedure. Another common factor is that vasectomy is much less expensive than tubal ligation. And, yes, safer. As another poster mentioned, hysteroscopic tubal sterilization is no longer available. No one should be guilted into a medical procedure. But, I've seen it cause some serious resentment …
/r/MensRights02/11/24 10:31 PM
1

Don't get me wrong- I know insurers will always try to weasel out of paying for stuff. Health insurers are mandated by NY state law to cover infertility treatments. Including IVF, hormone therapy and medically necessary freezing of eggs and sperm. Relationship status and sexual orientation don't affect coverage.
/r/MensRights31/10/24 01:08 AM
17

True. It's a lot easier to find a desirable partner before everyone starts getting married. Pick an ambitious man with potential and help him along the way, and you've got the financial angle covered too. I've been happily married over twenty years (since I was 21) and we've gone from poverty to upper middle class in that time.
/r/MensRights30/10/24 02:43 PM
1

is this a precursor for demanding that the govt pays for more IVF( single women)? No need for the government to pay. It's a health issue, require health insurance to cover it. That's how it is in my state.
/r/MensRights30/10/24 11:17 AM
1

Also, idk what your obsession with cars is. It’s not all about cars. We've been talking about cars the whole time, but the same could be said about home repairs. Besides, the bar to car ownership is a lot lower than that for home ownership. It's easier to talk about what average people do with a larger group of people. And homeowners are just generally a wealthier group of people. So, yeah, they'll hire out repairs more. It's illegal to fix a car on the street because it's a safety issue. This s…
/r/MensRights30/10/24 01:03 AM
0

It’s not a gender inherent thing, it’s a conditioning thing, based on exposure. You're making some big assumptions here about what most men (and women) have been taught. My husband doesn't know anything about fixing cars, neither do most of our male friends and family. The few who do, it's because it's a hobby. And my step-dad was fixing cars for his whole extended family/friend group because they didn't know how to do it themselves. And tons of people do work on their cars right there on the si…
/r/MensRights29/10/24 07:41 PM
3

A hobby is just an activity you do in your leisure time. Everyone has hobbies, whether they label them that way or not.
/r/MensRights29/10/24 05:16 PM
1

What even is "extensive experience?" I'd say an average amount. So far: House 1: roof tear off and replace install laundry room (including plumbing and electrical) major structural repairs to garage replace stairs, sidewalk and retaining wall for 2-level lawn House 2: complete tear out and remodel kitchen and dining room (w/3 separate contractors- flooring, kitchen and counters) replace all windows, fascia, soffit and exterior doors replace patio replace sidewalk I absolutely haven't worked the …
/r/MensRights28/10/24 08:19 PM
1

When I was poor, I lived in dinky apartments with street parking. There was nowhere to fix a car even if I wanted to. When I got a flat, I put on the spare and drove to the discount tire place, while expensive repairs went on my credit card. That's a pretty typical poor person experience. Dented cars is what insurance is for. I'll admit, there was one time I kept the $2k insurance payout after my neighbor hit mine, but I didn't fix the car. The whole car wasn't worth $2k anyway, and I traded it …
/r/MensRights28/10/24 07:18 PM
1

Is this what you're talking about? I was referring to contractors. You must manage them, stay on top of them, and constantly check and re-check. I would consider "managing" contractors to be what I described. Yeah, there's legwork for quotes, scope of work and time-frame. But once you're under contract there's very little for the homeowner to do until it's time for the final inspection.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 03:57 PM
1

I'm not sure where the confusion lies. The main work with contractors is getting quotes and nailing down the scope of work and timeframe. Which both partners generally want a say on, so they're both present. New windows or doors? Have to go to the showroom to consider costs and options. Redo a patio? Meet with the contractors for material and color choices. Renovate a kitchen? Go to the granite yard and cabinet and flooring showrooms, pick appliances and lighting, meet with designers
/r/MensRights28/10/24 03:10 PM
1

Not that way with women. I'm a woman. Contractors are a bit trickier, but that's not usually something one partner would decide on alone. Our costliest home improvement project was a kitchen remodel and I ended up doing more meetings simply because so many things needed to be picked out. It seems pretty common to hand those choices over to the wife.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 02:33 PM
1

I've never found it to be that difficult. Drop off the car after hours, have a 5-10 minute call with the mechanic and pick it up (usually) the next day. And pick up and drop off are two person jobs anyway. You really only have to go through the "finding a mechanic" process once, and it can be as easy as getting a recommendation from a friend or family member. Even easier for cars under warranty- use the dealership.
/r/MensRights28/10/24 01:34 PM
1

i fail to understand what you mean by this, mind explaining it to me? If being a parent is all that you do, it's easy to lose your sense of self. You spend all your time with children, talking to children or about children. People who work outside the home have their work role as an additional identity, but SAHP need to be careful to maintain hobbies and friendships outside their kids to keep a healthy balance. It's not just stay at homes, either. When our daughter went to college, my husband an…
/r/MensRights27/10/24 09:34 PM
2

A lot of poor people just suck it up and pay the mechanic- I did when I was poor. You need tools and a place to work to diy car repairs. Not everyone has that. As for the rest, it seems like middle class and up pay others for all but the most basic home and auto repairs. Like, I'll paint a room, but plumbing, heating, renovations, replacing doors and windows, etc- done by professionals.
/r/MensRights27/10/24 06:49 PM
10

Yeah. A lot of families use contractors, repair shops, lawn services, etc. In those cases, no one can count those tasks in their "bucket."
/r/MensRights27/10/24 04:29 PM
7

Having done each of these, I'd rank it like this: 1) SAHP- a lot of physical labor, few real breaks, more hands on time than a typical workweek. Assuming you're doing the lion's share of childcare for small children, and housework 2) work outside the home- I've always had an office job with 40-50 hours per week, so more mentally tiring and less physical. YMMV 3) house spouse- with kids in school, only 25ish hours per week. Main issue is the loneliness
/r/MensRights27/10/24 04:26 PM
3

Concern for family members is a main reason why I support abortion rights. I mean, I don't want it to be my daughter (or nieIce, or family friend) who can't get an abortion if she needs one. Or has trouble getting mifepristone for a miscarriage, or receives subpar reproductive care because good doctors are leaving states with bans. Waiting to do something until those family members actually need abortion access is too late, in my opinion.
/r/MensRights24/10/24 11:50 AM
1

found out how they are being done By pill, mostly (63%)
/r/MensRights24/10/24 11:21 AM
–

For a woman to be considered a "pick me" she has to be shitting on other women to make herself look better. Which, yeah, is a pretty undesirable quality for someone to have.
/r/MensRights19/10/24 03:38 PM
3

What a shit instructor. The community college here has CPR mannequins with breasts so people getting certified can practice on both male and female bodies.
/r/MensRights16/10/24 10:39 AM
1

So ladies I ask you and not to be fighting, please I don’t want to fight or be malicious but simply to problem solve. How can we make you happy in marriages? There's never going to be a one size fits all answer. The biggest factor in having a happy marriage is picking a partner with a complimentary personality and compatible values and life goals. But, how that looks is going to be different for every couple.
/r/MensRights13/10/24 01:10 AM
1

Or to make thing even easier issue out a court issued debit card specifically for payment of kids expenses Tough to do, since a lot of kid's expenses either aren't payable by debit, or would be calculated as a percent of household expenses. For example, health insurance, or the child's portion of housing, transportation and utilities. The simplest solution would be for the custodial parent to provide proof of recurring expenses first (since they wouldn't need to be verified monthly). If that's n…
/r/MensRights13/10/24 12:57 AM
-2

Yes, Project 2025 lists banning porn as a goal (quote below). It definitely seems like an angle to attack open discussion of LGBTQ people and themes. And, like most of Project 2025, it's likely too extreme of an idea to get real traction. "Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, an…
/r/MensRights08/10/24 10:35 PM
1

Everyone has a right to their preferences- any preferences. Whether they can find a partner who fills those preferences is a whole other issue. And, preferences don't exist in a vacuum. Other people are 100% going to make judgements based on what preferences a person has. Personally, I would find a high body count man expecting a low body count woman hypocritical, and probably unrealistic. The chances of two partners with widely different body counts having compatible views on sex, relationships…
/r/MensRights06/10/24 12:04 PM
1

Both are allowed, but they lose a lot of federal funding by being single sex.
/r/MensRights06/10/24 11:40 AM
1

I wonder how much of this is caused by the change in scholarship award criteria. I mean, if you're awarding based on just grades/test scores, it's pretty black and white. But now it's all about what students have done in addition to academics. My daughter graduated high school a couple years ago and received just one scholarship on academics (NYS STEM Incentive). The others were for criteria like student leadership, serving the community and advocacy for LGBTQ people. And those are pretty subjec…
/r/MensRights06/10/24 11:08 AM
1

Wow, thanks for proving my point. Nothing of substance. Anyway. You may not have realized it, but some people on reddit like to go through people's post histories to dig up irrelevant shit. You can thwart these "snoopers" by going back afterwards and deleting any posts with a hint of controversy. Then, when they go digging, they'll find posts about which Olympic sport is best, how partners who don't do chores suck, and a pic of a cute otter at the zoo. Give it a week, and I'll delete this one to…
/r/MensRights05/10/24 05:18 PM
1

She turned me into a newt!
/r/MensRights05/10/24 10:01 AM
1

The fact that you're only focused on my post history tells me you have nothing of real substance to say.
/r/MensRights05/10/24 09:21 AM
0

Those men are memorialized at Salem. The names of all the victims are carved into the monument. There's not some conspriracy to hide the fact.
/r/MensRights05/10/24 09:19 AM
7

Yet you only object to one of these...? True. I have absolutely no reason to object to memorials for victims of witch hunts. I just don't understand this mindset that you can either recognize past tragedy or care about current problems, but not both. I was in a city last week with multiple monuments to victims of religious persecution and another memorializing victims of communist regime. It would never have occurred to me to be upset about such a thing, or see them as taking focus away from peo…
/r/MensRights04/10/24 10:25 PM
33

So? Salem has a memorial to victims of their witch hunt, and there were only 20 dead there. Memorializing victims of persecution seems unobjectionable.
/r/MensRights04/10/24 08:13 PM
1

Childless Cat Lady is effectively just another way to say femcel. Not the way Vance is using it. He listed off some of the "childless cat ladies" running the nation and they're: A married step-mom A married gay man with two adopted kids A single woman
/r/MensRights11/09/24 08:33 PM
1

She's a stepparent. Not childless.
/r/MensRights11/09/24 08:26 PM
3

And also hetero women who hate men. Some people are just like that.
/r/MensRights05/09/24 11:30 AM
0

If it fits in our pockets it doesn't even register. I guess I can't relate.
/r/MensRights04/09/24 03:14 PM
-2

You shouldn't have to Google to find brands with decent sized pockets. It should be the norm, like it is for men.. My husband and I both wear Levi's jeans. My pocket is smaller than my hand. My husband has enough room for 2 cellphones per pocket. Like this weekend, when we went to a concert and he had his phone, mine, and our daughter's, since our pockets were too small. Tbh, I'm surprised more men aren't concerned with the pocket issue, since they keep carrying stuff for women.
/r/MensRights04/09/24 02:38 PM
4

Tax on period products (ie the literal pink tax) is dumb. Doubly so if other medical items are tax exempt. Twenty US states are still doing that nonsense. Otherwise, I just find it annoying. It's good to know it exists for things like grooming products. At least now I know to check the men's aisle for cheaper options. It stinks when it's something I can't avoid, like higher dry cleaning and tailoring costs for women's garments. Or when my daughter was little and the "girl version" of things (clo…
/r/MensRights04/09/24 10:52 AM
2

Interesting to see how the responses differ by education level, race and sex. I'm curious what's causing the difference between men's and women's responses. 39% of women thought it's important for a woman to be able to support a family, but only 25% of men thought so. That's a pretty big difference.
/r/MensRights15/08/24 10:39 AM
1

I'm not sure this is even a quota so much as a preference. Kind of like the Christian med school giving priority to students of faith (obviously she didn't tell them she's LGBTQ). I find the whole process interesting because it's not black and white. On the one hand, you have the needs of the students, but on the other is the needs of the communities those future doctors will service.
/r/MensRights14/08/24 04:14 PM
3

Not sex-related, but my daughter's been applying to med schools, and it's a similar situation with what they're looking for re: applicants. Particularly: are you part of a minority group under represented among physicians? And do you live in a medically under serviced area? Needless to say, she's written a lot of essays about being LGBTQ and living in a poorer, mostly rural area. I can even see why med schools would want to encourage more students in these groups. That is, minority parients tend…
/r/MensRights14/08/24 03:47 PM
1

Wait...that's not what that sub is about. It's for people to post published examples of men writing women badly and laugh at them. Definitely not a reference for writers.
/r/MensRights12/08/24 11:10 PM
11

It's not abusive to propose during your partner's achievement- it's just inconsiderate. Common sense says if there's already a celebration in progress, you don't do something that will take the focus off the person/achievements being celebrated. Including (but not limited to) proposals. The one exception is if your partner has previously said they'd like to be proposed to in this specific way.
/r/MensRights11/08/24 11:55 AM
1

The simple solution seems most likely- it's the physical requirements. Here, firefighting and EMS are volunteer, with many more applicants than slots. Especially EMS- a bunch of students from the local uni want the experience for med school applications. But you have to be able to lift a certain amount of weight, which disqualifies a lot of women. When you're talking about an actual career, people pick where their skill set is. I'm a petite woman- I'm never going to compete with a man in strengt…
/r/MensRights10/08/24 01:33 AM
1

Not the commenter you asked, but firefighting and rescue work are volunteer here, so altruistic. Sort of- a lot of pre health students from the university want the experience for med school applications. But there's also a weight lift requirement that a lot of women can't meet. So women join the fire department auxilliary (ie not actually firefighting) or volunteer somewhere else. To the previous poster's point- people do jobs because they get paid. And the better you can do the job, the more su…
/r/MensRights09/08/24 10:31 PM
3

Even women who have kids don't want to stay home all day. Especially when two incomes = better standard of living. For my family, one person working means keeping a budget and a reasonably nice apartment. Two incomes is a large house and international vacations every other year. I've tried the housewife thing (unemployed, not by choice) and was bored and lonely two weeks in. And I was still getting paid full wage. If not for that, I'd have been worried about the precariousness of just one income…
/r/MensRights08/08/24 11:59 AM
1

"Weird" is a pretty common descriptor, and usage is split pretty evenly between the sexes. Most just aren't saying it to people's faces. My husband is in a forward facing job and has just so many stories about the weird people he meets. As in, whenever we have a get together, people want to know if he has any new ones.
/r/MensRights03/08/24 08:51 AM
0

if we hadn’t communicated and doled out chores properly, I would’ve ended up having to do probably 90% of the housework Good for you, sticking up for yourself. No reason why you should pick up the slack for his hobby! Most of my time-consuming hobbies have been shared with my husband. It's nice to still spend that time together, and there's no danger of one doing all the unpaid labor while the other's gone. But, there was a time or two I had to turn down something I really would have enjoyed bec…
/r/MensRights01/08/24 11:09 PM
3

Same. We try to make sure we each have the same total of: work + commute + housework. Seems fair
/r/MensRights01/08/24 05:38 PM
9

I just think there's a lot of factors when one partner in a relationship has a very time-consuming hobby. The big ones are: Did they know about that hobby before getting together? Marrying someone and expecting them to change is a terrible idea, and you knew what you were signing up for. But if one partner decides to start a new time-consuming hobby, especially with kids involved, that's a different story. I wouldn't blame them for being upset. Is the household labor still fairly split? It's not…
/r/MensRights01/08/24 02:51 PM
32

That's why my mother always advised me to marry someone with same ambition Smart. Same goals is key to a happy marriage. I know a guy who runs marathons and trains hours upon hours, plus flying to races. He married a woman who is also passionate about running. They cheer each other on and take the kids to races. Problem solved.
/r/MensRights01/08/24 11:19 AM
1

we're seeing places in the States where women are being refused abortions for eptopic / unviable pregnancies until it starts causing them physical harm Not only that, but abortion bans are affecting women's reproductive health in other ways. Skilled Obgyns are leaving states with strict abortion bans because of the risk to their careers for performing medically necessary abortions (like those you mentioned). And the growing Obgyn shortage makes it more dangerous to give birth in those states, es…
/r/MensRights30/07/24 03:09 PM
1

If you go direct to the company's website, both colors cost the same. Seems like a decision by the retailer.
/r/MensRights29/07/24 09:15 PM
1

I can't get over him ragging on her for looking schlubby in an airport. It's not the 50's- airplanes are just greyhound busses in the sky.
/r/MensRights27/07/24 11:07 AM
1

So have we all, and phthalates have reproductive effects for both sexes. I just don't think you can compare exposure to an environmental pollutant to forcing an entire population of men and women to undergo hormone therapy that's not medically necessary. At the very least, the ethics of the two situations are widely different.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 02:56 PM
2

Be honest, do you think most men and women would be interested in taking hormones to adjust their sex drives to some "equal" level? The woman in this article had a hormone disorder- she had a medical reason to take testosterone. Most women don't.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 11:34 AM
2

Many are only 'infertile' because they do not have a man in their life. Surely they could just buy sperm if it's lack of a man that's the problem? You can just insert it. IVF involves rounds of hormones, egg extraction, fertilization of eggs in a lab and insertion of the zygote(s). It's only for people with a medical barrier to conception. Again, medical issues should be covered by health insurance. Full stop.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 11:30 AM
3

From a practical standpoint, I can't see many people wanting to use hormones or similar to try and change their sex drive. Seems like too much risk for the reward.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 11:11 AM
2

It's bizarre to me that relationship status would have any bearing on whether fertility treatments are covered. I mean, infertility is a medical condition. Either you have it or you don't. Being married doesn't change the fact. I'm in NY and health insurance is required to cover up to three rounds of IVF for anyone struggling to conceive. Also, medically necessary storage of sperm or eggs, sterilization, contraception and abortions. It's all part of reproductive health care.
/r/MensRights26/07/24 11:07 AM
8

Also we should see massive push to have women represent 50% of the most dangerous jobs I've worked at a few places now with initiatives to increase the number of women in more dangerous male dominated jobs (manufacturing and truck driving) and it's really interesting to see what companies are doing behind the scenes to make it happen. For example, a distribution company I worked for was looking to employ women drivers (all 30+ drivers were men). So they did things like change their radio ads to …
/r/MensRights26/07/24 09:48 AM
1

I was wondering the same. How do they expect the company to fix this problem?
/r/MensRights25/07/24 08:05 PM
-6

The previous poster presented 4% of men not being biological fathers as a reason why men don't seek custody of their children. It's not whether paternity fraud is an issue. It's whether it makes sense for men to not try for custody of their children (who they've been raising until this point) because of a 4% chance the child isn't theirs. That doesn't make sense.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 07:15 PM
9

I would love to see more companies in these male dominated fields putting in an effort to attract female job applicants. At my last job, there was a company initiative to increase the number of women in general, but particularly on the manufacturing floor. There was a committee tasked with % increase goals over 2 years, 5 years and 10 years. As part of the initiative, they interviewed current female employees about all sorts of factors that could affect recruitment. The important thing is, it wo…
/r/MensRights07/07/24 06:11 PM
-13

The argument falls apart at the individual level though. My husband and I both work office jobs. He can't use other people's contributions as an excuse for not doing the dishes.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 06:03 PM
-17

According to various Internet articles involving DNA, one in 25 fathers may not be the biological parent of the child they believe to be theirs. 4% where the kid isn't theirs means the vast majority of fathers are their child's biological parent. I couldn't see not fighting for a child I had previously accepted and raised on such a small chance. Surely some other factor is driving men to not seek custody.
/r/MensRights07/07/24 01:52 PM
0

The number of classes would only be unchanged if a college was already offering at least two different sessions of each class in a given semester. That's definitely not the case- having just one option per semester (or per year) for classes is the norm. For example, intro to biology is one of the largest classes (maybe the largest) at the local university and there's still only one lecture session per semester, in a 450 person lecture hall. If you're taking intro bio, you're doing it at 8:30 MWF…
/r/MensRights06/07/24 09:01 PM
-5

I guess disagreeing with you = condescension? I thought you wanted to have a discussion about same sex education, but it seems like you just wanted to vent and have others agree. My mistake. I don't invite segregationists to my parties, so it has never been a problem. I've had a similar experience to yours, but in hs. Had a stalker- I was harassed, threatened, and had to take legal action. I agree with you, that's terrible. But I didn't equate the actions of a few messed up individuals with an e…
/r/MensRights06/07/24 03:13 PM
-1

Ok...you didn't really answer my comment, though. Let's take an example. The local state university here has 18k students (52% women, 48% men) spread across 130 majors. To gender segregate would mean doubling the number of classes so each has an option for men and one for women. That would require a huge increase in staff and construction of many new buildings for extra classrooms. So, who pays for that? It doesn't seem right to push the extra expense to people who don't care about same sex clas…
/r/MensRights06/07/24 12:47 PM
0

So is it women you don't want to take classes with, or people who support feminism? There's overlap, but the two groups aren't the same. From a practical standpoint, this would make college much more expensive than it already is. Having to double the number of classes offered means more professors, more TAs and more classrooms. Who's going to pay for all that? And, even if all the students are male, the professor and TAs might be female, or feminist, or both.
/r/MensRights06/07/24 12:24 PM
1

I'm curious- is dealing with fraudulent debit card charges as much of a pain as people make it out to be? Or is it just a phone call and done, like with a cc? I've always used a credit card for things like online purchases, travel and rentals because of the concern of unauthorized charges.
/r/MensRights05/07/24 10:33 AM
3

If you like Gordon Ramsey, I would highly recommend his Masterclass. Subscription is a little pricey, but the content is top notch. I cooked my way through both of Gorden Ramsey's classed as well as Wolfgang Puck's. My husband did Aaron Franklin's BBQ class. Not going to lie- I totally agree with the girls that say "can cook" is a prerequisite to being a good husband. I do most of the cooking in my house (he cleans instead), but I certainly don't want to be stuck with all the cooking. And, he su…
/r/MensRights02/07/24 05:45 PM
1

How about putting more women in factory jobs? Companies are making an effort to get more women into manufacturing. At my last employer, there were specific company goals to increase the number of female factory workers- x% by 2 years, 5 years, etc. There was an upper management team tasked with improving recruiting efforts to get more women to apply, and I was interviewed for ideas, along with other women recently hired into the company.
/r/MensRights28/06/24 10:31 AM
53

Anything to avoid addressing the systemic issues that cause 75% of a society's population to be overweight.
/r/MensRights26/06/24 03:41 PM
1

Ang again nearly every one of those can be done without being married No they can't. Bereavement leave and health insurance is based on who your employer considers family. You don't get to choose. Auto insurance is cheaper for married people because they file fewer claims, and are therefore less risk. Your rate is calculated on the information provided, including marital status. And you can't will away remaining SS benefits or decide who can inherit tax free. These are privileges reserved for sp…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 03:14 PM
1

It was an example, not an exhaustive list. True, you could designate someone "power of attorney" and "healthcare proxy" so they can manage your medical care and bills. But that's just replacing one set of legal contracts for another. Some of the other benefits I've been able to use include: taking paid bereavement leave when my spouse's relatives have died, and vice versa saving on health insurance (roughly $2K/year) because we can use a family plan and can pick from either of our employer's off…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 03:01 PM
1

And the little coup de grace at the end there - a list of reasons to get married that don’t require marriage to achieve. Who's ignoring the rest of the world now? Are you saying nobody experiences family pressure to marry, or stigma/punishment for having kids out of wedlock? Out of all the people on Earth? In India and China, it's expected for children to marry to carry on the family line. In China and Morocco, illegitimate children have fewer rights. In Saudi Arabia, having a child out of wedlo…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 10:08 AM
-2

You're the one getting bogged down in the details. You asked what marriage had to offer beyond a long term relationship, and I said "legal benefits." True, the specific examples I gave are based on US law, but the basic principle holds. It's common for legal benefits to be given to married couples beyond what's provided to those long-term dating or cohabitating. There are as many reasons to be married as there are people marrying. Everything from family obligation to desire for children, to deep…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 03:25 AM
-1

and if you’re paying thousands on your car insurance, there’s probably a gecko you could chat with). Oh no, I save thousands a year in health insurance. That's the expensive one. The car insurance isn't cheap either with three cars (two new) and a relatively inexperienced driver. Moving on from that, the legal benefits of marriage in the bulk of the western world don’t outweigh the risk of marriage failing - for men at least That's your opinion, and that's fine. It doesn't negate the fact that t…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 03:05 AM
0

I find it hard to believe that the whole rest of the world doesn't have any legal benefits to marriage. I imagine they're different in each country, just like how every other law varies between countries.
/r/MensRights25/06/24 02:52 AM
1

No surprise that legal benefits vary from region to region. Since I am in the US, there's some very concrete advantages to being married. Like cheaper health insurance and auto insurance (a few thousand $ per year in savings). And there's a good amount dealing with inheritance and survivor benefits that will be useful at some point in the (hopefully distant) future. But, hey, everyone's situation is different. I’m also still waiting a source on your comment about women being worse off in the eve…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 02:42 AM
1

But, for an actual discussion here, tell me, if a couple are happy in their relationship, what benefits does marriage provide that aren’t already part of the relationship? Legal benefits are pretty big. For example, FMLA leave. When my spouse had cancer, I was able to take a 12 week leave from my job to care for him, and the state of NY paid me $14k to help compensate for my lost wages. And my employer was legally obligated to hold my job while I was gone. This type of leave is only available to…
/r/MensRights25/06/24 01:04 AM
1

What are the benefits of such an arrangement, in your opinion? My first thought is: what's a household? A married couple? Related people loving under the same roof? Unrelated people living together? What about adult children living with their parents? Elderly people living with children? Disabled people? Roommates? Married couples who don't live together? Who votes in a same sex marriage? It seems guaranteed to drive down the marriage rate if it means one partner losing the right to vote. I firm…
/r/MensRights20/06/24 04:01 PM
1

You agreed that wearing clothes, using the bathroom, preparing food, and sleeping in bed dirtied those things, which would then need to be cleaned. So, why would I argue with you? Dirty is subjective Not when it comes to food safety and hygienic living conditions. Leaving food residue on a plate to collect bacteria and dust, then eating from it again is against safe food handling practices. Mildew or pink mold in a shower, food scum in a kitchen sink, an unclean toilet- these aren't "subjective,…
/r/MensRights17/06/24 02:45 PM
1

I guess I gave men more credit than I should have for being sensible. I mean, if you're entering a legal contract that will affect the financial well-being of yourself and any future children, you really ought to care what your partner brings to the table. Most of us are middle-class, and you don't often see men with middle-class jobs married to women working foodservice or similar. For good reason. It's hell scheduling childcare around irregular hours, he'll have to introduce her to his colleag…
/r/MensRights17/06/24 02:57 AM
-2

I love that your solution to dirty dishes is to just eat chips out of a bag. We don't even keep chips (or any junk food) in our house. Eating off a dirty plate is just gross. You're quibbling over whether people who work make more or less mess, but there's no denying they do make a mess. Otherwise, I would literally never have to clean house, since everyone living here works. Since this is reality, we average 10+ hours a week cleaning and about 10 more cooking. And it's not even spotless.
/r/MensRights05/06/24 04:09 PM
-3

Standards like...having clean dishes and bathrooms? I work 40 hrs/wk and use things in my house all the time.Such as: Clothes- for exercise, work, casual and sleeping Dishes- preparing and eating 3 meals a day plus snacks Bathroom- shower, sink, toilet Kitchen: stove, microwave,counters, sink Bedroom- sheets and other bedding All these things need cleaning, as well as the general dust that accumulates whether anyone is home or not
/r/MensRights05/06/24 01:07 PM
-4

If guy is working he doesn't make house dirty. Haha- good one. Does he not cook/eat food, wear clothes, sleep in a bed, use a bathroom? There are three working adults in my house. Negligible difference in amount of cleaning for days off vs working days.
/r/MensRights05/06/24 11:05 AM
1

Last time I checked degrees don't expire. Come on, surely you know how the job market works. A degree gets your foot in the door, but job experience is what advances a career. Someone who takes a 16+ year break will be starting back at lower wage entry level jobs, and they'll be competing with new college grads. Consider your doctor example. 10k/year for a state school undergrad plus 40k/year for med school = $200k. They'd start a residency at 26, making around $65k. By 29, they'd have just brok…
/r/MensRights05/06/24 10:16 AM
7

Not to mention that most people who live alone live in smaller spaces This is a point that's often overlooked - how big is your space? When we were engaged, my partner and I shared a tiny apartment - it was so quick to clean. Now we live in a large house, and there's just a lot more space to keep tidy. More bathrooms to scrub, more floors to mop, more counters and backsplash to wipe, etc. Plus a yard, window boxes/planters, and flower beds. Add in two cats and a daughter, and we spend a lot more…
/r/MensRights05/06/24 02:15 AM
1

That's a lot of requirements. Really, any degree would be kind of wasted in this scenario- she'd never get a good return on the time and money invested with a 16+ year employment gap. I'm honestly curious: Why would you require your future wife to work at all if you don't expect her to contribute to household expenses? Do you expect her to save the money? Invest for retirement? Cover her own discretionary spending? My spouse and I have always worked and combined all expenses and accounts, so I w…
/r/MensRights05/06/24 01:27 AM
-2

Then what are you saying? You're the one who said the two things are the same.
/r/MensRights04/06/24 11:55 PM
-8

So you're saying contributions on this sub are on par with "man vs. bear?"
/r/MensRights04/06/24 11:50 PM
1

Ok, i will trust what you say is fact. Dude, you don't have to trust me. You have a computer in your hand. A brain surgeon could have $150,000 in debt, but a forestry major better not have more than $20,000. But that's only true if the person with the degree is going to keep working and contributing to bills. I thought you said not to expect a wife to contribute financially. If she's just going to let you support her...$20k < $150k
/r/MensRights04/06/24 11:47 PM
1

Her money is irrelevant as that's not how lasting relationships work. Then it makes bo difference what her degree is. Why would you care if it's a profitable field or not? If you're banking on your wife's income to support you or even supplement the family income in a major way you're doomed to fail, IMO. Don't worry, I'm not. I'm a woman. I seriously doubt Forestry and zoology are considered apart of STEM. Forestry and zoology are both branches of biology. Since when is biology not science? Yes…
/r/MensRights04/06/24 10:44 PM
0

Most women don't get the privileges you are talking about. OF, for example, is a highly competitive market where very few women out of the whole actually strike it rich. This is true of most of your examples. Finding a high value man to support you is likewise a big competition. Bingo. Apex fallacy at work.
/r/MensRights04/06/24 09:15 PM
1

The OnlyFans obsession on this sub is ridiculous. It's kind of funny. There are only 2 million content creators on OF. Even if they were all women (they're not) and all from the US (they're not), that would be less than 1.5% of adult US women. Acting like this tiiiiny outlier somehow represents most women is crazy.
/r/MensRights04/06/24 08:31 PM
0

Wouldn't it be more practical to consider your partner's actual income and debt before combining finances? I mean, some STEM degrees result in relatively low paying jobs (forestry, zoology), while some non-STEM degrees lead to very lucrative careers (nursing, law). Drawing a line in the sand at "STEM" seems a little silly.
/r/MensRights04/06/24 07:30 PM
-3

He didn't say that at all. He did, though. What was the point of bringing up his wife and her experience if not to provide an example of how a woman should be? He's praising his wife for giving up her own dreams so she could be a mother and support his success. That's very different from a woman pursuing motherhood and being a SAHM because that's what she wants. Yeah that's a pretty prevalent Catholic belief where I just agree to disagree. No it isn't. Catholics are against hormonal birth contro…
/r/MensRights04/06/24 02:33 PM
-2

but what Butker said is right, some of them will be more fulfilled by being a mother and wife, even if they do work as well This isn't all he said, though. He started by saying women had been lied to. Then, he talked about his wife as an example of womanhood. She converted to his faith, her life didn't start until she married and had kids, and she gave up her own dreams to support his. Also, he spoke against women planning how many kids they have, condemming both natural family planning and IVF.…
/r/MensRights04/06/24 11:12 AM
3

Remember lads if it's not STEM or accounting, it's bullshit and you are going to have to pick up the slack. Not when so many companies require a degree just to check a box on the application. There's so many jobs with "degree required" but they couldn't care less which one. A degree is the new diploma. I'm a purchasing manager for an electronics manufacturer (bachelor's required), and I have a BS psychology. Degrees are required for buyers, too, and the folks on my team have them in art history,…
/r/MensRights04/06/24 10:41 AM
2

And only a tiny fraction of women are OF content creators. The idea that droves of women are getting rich from OF is laughable.
/r/MensRights03/06/24 08:37 PM
2

I agree. And not just boys- teens in general. We had so many texts and calls from recruiters trying to get my daughter to join, even after repeatedly asking them to stop (she graduated 2020). And they kept trying to sell the "pay for college" angle, but we live in NY. The state offers full tuition scholarships for students from families making less than 125k. We make more than that, but my kid already had a full state scholarship through the STEM Incentive program.
/r/MensRights03/06/24 06:47 PM
1

Do you cohabitate? I'm going to guess not if you don't discuss finances. That's a very different dynamic than a couple who lives together and splits household expenses and housework. Yea exactly thats what im saying But what you actually said is that men don't care what a woman makes. Which is nonsense- most men are practical. Middle-class men aren't marrying part-time minimum wage workers. They're choosing partners who will be able to contribute to maintaining that middle-class lifestyle but al…
/r/MensRights03/06/24 09:36 AM
1

So do men...what's the difference?
/r/MensRights02/06/24 07:17 PM
1

The experience you described of a woman earning more? You know that still doesn't make sense, right? If the woman earning more = relationship problems, men should be actively looking for women that make less than them. That still =/= men not caring what their partner makes. You're really not making a good argument for men being rational. In all seriousness, 45% of married couples in the US either have roughly equal pay, or the wife earns more. So I really doubt men are as blind to their partner'…
/r/MensRights02/06/24 08:53 AM
2

Most men literally care zero how much their partner makes. That's foolishness on their part. Unless a man is planning to support his partner/family solo (and most can't afford to), the partner's income will directly affect his lifestyle and that of any future children. Caring about what your partner will be able to contribute to the household is just practical. Plus, a bunch of the traits that make someone a desirable employee also make them a desirable long-term partner. Things like dependabili…
/r/MensRights02/06/24 07:55 AM
3

I agree, we haven't reached the point of fully eliminating gender roles yet. US society is still in a flux state between traditional and modern, but there's definite progress being made. Like income. The more women make, the closer they come to earning the same or more than their spouses. I have a job that probably wouldn't have been held by a woman in my mom's day, and definitely not in my grandma's. But having that opportunity means that I outearn my husband. I will say, I've had women try to …
/r/MensRights01/06/24 03:17 PM
1

I do feel like, including for myself, if there was just a division of labour in the sense one brings in the money and then you chill out that's a far better arrangement than you both work, you both clean Obviously, different people are going to prefer different arrangements. That's why it's so important to choose a partner who wants the same kind of lifestyle as you and openly communicate about expectations. My husband and I both prefer having a two income family for the added financial security…
/r/MensRights01/06/24 02:19 PM
4

the problem was that life was so much better when we had clear division of labour. There's no reason you can't still have this. It's just that now partners decide among themselves who does what instead of expected gender roles. For example, I cook, and my spouse cleans up after. He mows the lawn, and I tend the flowers and shrubs. Our daughter cleans bathrooms. Everyone has set chores on a regular schedule, divided in a way that we all agreed is fair
/r/MensRights01/06/24 12:53 PM
24

Either one works and the other is at home, or you both work and hire a maid. This is probably the best solution to the problem- she should hire a house cleaner. Whether they can afford it is another issue. Rants like these make me so grateful for a spouse who actually does split the housework 50/50.
/r/MensRights01/06/24 10:53 AM
2

I'm curious- how would have felt about asking your father, who took advantage of your mother, for permission to marry? And what insight do you think he would bring to your decision to marry? People are VERY quick to cut off family. Including parents. Mine were done being parents the minute they dropped me off at college. Before that, one parent was emotionally abusive, and the other was absent. I still have copies of the notarized statements to that effect (by multiple family members) that I sub…
/r/MensRights31/05/24 08:46 PM
1

The extra steps should say... hey, maybe this isn't so good that the parents that provided the good example to my future life partner didn't value things the way they should and cut out at the first opportunity How could you possibly get to the verge of marriage and not already know about your fiance's relationship with their parents? Lack of communication with your partner is the real red flag. I just don't think it helps anyone to solicit an opinion which is: a) unwanted and b) going to be ign…
/r/MensRights31/05/24 03:58 PM
2

But you should still have to ask and hear their opinion. Why? If you value your parents' opinion, you'll ask on your own. If you don't value it, what's the point of asking? Besides, how would you provide proof that you asked your parents? This just seems problematic all around. I realize that some people are assholes who won’t ever give a blessing because nobody’s good enough for their kid. Let's just stop at "some people are assholes." As in, bad parents, or uninvolved, or bigoted against those…
/r/MensRights31/05/24 09:46 AM
9

No legal adult should need their parents' permission to get married. (And the 38 US states that allow minors to marry can get bent- that's shameful)
/r/MensRights31/05/24 01:33 AM
2

If we're just talking finances, there's still more incentive for women to stay married than not. 100% access to a man's assets and income > a percentage in the form of child support and/or alimony.
/r/MensRights31/05/24 01:10 AM
30

More like, women are more likely to pull the plug on the relationship. But that doesn't mean that either partner was happy before divorce papers were filed. I've never met a divorced couple who weren't both thoroughly miserable before the split.
/r/MensRights30/05/24 07:41 PM
1

In the end we can see what daughters do when they have the chance - they leave their parents to marry up. Why does that matter? In a traditional Chinese marriage, the woman takes care of her husband's parents, not her own. There's no benefit to her parents if she marries a poorer rural man instead of a wealthier one from a city.
/r/MensRights27/05/24 12:17 PM
1

Work isn't a choice for most people. The majority of families are going to need two inco.es to make it. That's why it's so wild that we've still got people out there shaming working moms. It happened to me when my kid was little, and I still hear people doing it to new moms. For a decision that's a) made together as a couple and b) often based on economic necessity.
/r/MensRights25/05/24 06:21 PM
1

Who asks a man to leave work to take care of the kid?! That's the point, isn't it? No one gives the dad grief for not being home with the kid(s), because it's not expected of him like it is for mom. I've always found it infuriating that people judge women for not staying home, but that's a decision couples make together. Either both should be blamed, or neither. And if you point out to the critics that your husband's income (like most people's) isn't enough to support a family anyway, suddenly y…
/r/MensRights25/05/24 02:56 PM
0

They can get a job or promotion without people assuming they were just a diversity hire rather than actually qualified. Honestly, this is still better than the "because you're pretty" varient. As in, "you only got that position/promotion/opportunity because you're pretty." Interestingly, I've mostly gotten this comment from other women who were less qualified and less experienced than me. It's just a petty way to make others feel small. Fathers are not asked if they plan to continue to work afte…
/r/MensRights25/05/24 10:50 AM
1

Or dance classes. Men are in short supply in any partnered dance group (ballroom, Latin, swing) so they're always in demand. Plus, dance is just a fun social activity in general.
/r/MensRights20/05/24 06:26 PM
23

What you're describing is a "third place." It's a public space separate from work/school and the home. And it's where a lot of socialization used to happen, but such spaces are becoming less common with the rise of suburbs, dependence on cars, social media and online shopping. Also, many of these types of places closed during covid and never reopened. I've been seeing a lot of articles the past few years about loss of third places and the negative impact on people's lives.
/r/MensRights19/05/24 10:23 PM
3

He did say that "her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother" regarding his wife. I interpreted it the same- that life didn't have meaning before marriage and kids.
/r/MensRights18/05/24 08:03 AM
-3

It's controversial because It's not an appropriate venue. If this were a church sermon, no one would bat an eye. But, it's a college graduation, addressing a group of people who just spent years of hard work and a truckload of money on a degree. He specifically said that women had been told "diabolical lies." It seems clear he's referring to having a career. Then he praised his wife's choice of giving up her own dream for a career to support his. He also stated that her life had not really start…
/r/MensRights18/05/24 07:51 AM
3

To be fair, there's a lot of tradwife content going around lately that's.. less than genuine. Very cottage-core aesthetic, with women fully made up, wearing cotton dresses and baking sourdough or walking in a field. And the posts are all about being homemakers instead of career women, but the women posting are clearly working to sell content. It all seems so fake and LARP-y. Really tending a house and raising kids isn't anything like that. And actually traditional wives are doing a lot more work…
/r/MensRights17/05/24 03:00 AM
-1

That's not really a rights issue, is it? Those men are choosing to stay with a partner who is incompatible (for the sex) and mean (for the shaming).
/r/MensRights15/05/24 08:52 PM
2

To me, a major change in my partner's behavior would be a huge red flag. As in, 1) is my partner ok? And 2) is our relationship OK? After all, loss of interest in sex is a symptom of the problem. To fix the sex, address the root cause. It's not abusive to stop having sex unless it's done with an intent to harm your partner. If one partner is just not interested in sex, that's a compatibility problem- not abuse.
/r/MensRights15/05/24 07:11 PM
9

"Why doesn't my partner want sex?" is the million dollar question, isn't it? Libido can easily affected by physical, mental, or relationship issues. I once had a low sex drive because of a vitamin deficiency, my spouse lost his libido for months from treatment for another illness. Both of us have had issues because of stress. Ideally, couples could talk about this together. A full physical with blood work-up is a good place to Starr, followed by counseling- individual or couples, depending on th…
/r/MensRights15/05/24 01:51 PM
32

It's always acceptable to leave a relationship where you're unhappy. Why is that even in question?
/r/MensRights15/05/24 10:17 AM
8

Did you know, Mother's Day is the busiest restaurant day of the year? So yeah, it's pretty celebrated. I used to work in foodservice distribution and my boss would always say "Mother's Day is for brunch and Father's Day is for BBQ." Sales trends really do back that up.
/r/MensRights15/05/24 10:14 AM
2

That's pretty crappy behavior. A good partner should provide encouragement, not belittle you. My husband made quite a bit more than me early in our marriage, but always supported my efforts to advance and recognized my contributions to the household. Like taking a lower paying job with flexible hours so I could be the "on call" parent for school and sports. Now, the tables have turned and I'm the breadwinner. But I would never look down on my husband for making less than me. Though I think it bo…
/r/MensRights14/05/24 08:57 PM
7

If subjugation is the only way you can manage to guide your kids, you're a shit parent.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 06:30 PM
5

They're college students- they've all got deadlines. My daughter just graduated cum laude with a BS biochemistry and honors in chemistry. She's got a TA job and volunteers as an EMT. But she still found time for some protesting between finals.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 05:04 PM
2

That's mostly a matter of time- college students have more of it. Students at the local university had an encampment of protesters. But that's just the most visible part of the political action. The Student Association Congress (ie student governing body) had a five hour debate about divestment from the defense industry as part of the BDS movement. Afterwards, a group of professors published a letter of support and solidarity for the student's actions and further urged the college to divest.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 10:25 AM
2

Not gonna lie, my husband doesn't have female friends, so we're the same in that regard. He has relationships with female relatives (mom, sister, SIL), just like I spend time with my brother and BIL. And we occasionally hang out with other couples. I get what you're saying- it's strange to actively avoid the other gender. But, it's not like people choose their families, and couples are often a package deal when it comes to socializing.
/r/MensRights14/05/24 12:10 AM
1

And it's not like the expenses stop at 17 years old. We're well past that and still paying for our college age kid.
/r/MensRights13/05/24 08:05 PM
1

In what universe are kids cheap? Just childcare is astronomical, but there's also housing, food, clothing, health insurance, furniture, extracurriculars and incidentals. Then high school starts and there's car insurance, SAT prep, college visits and applications. College brings tuition payments and textbooks Mine is 22 and starting med school applications. I'll still be paying most of those living expenses for years yet.
/r/MensRights13/05/24 08:03 PM
5

I've always had difficulty making friends with men, because the ones that want to socialize with me are usually interested in a romantic/sexual relationship. And, that often ends in awkwardness, or worse. I have good relationships with male relatives, and I'm on friendly terms with some boyfriends/husbands of friends. But I don't go out of my way to make male friends anymore.
/r/MensRights13/05/24 07:20 PM
1

Can confirm. Does the hardwood feel clean under my feet? Does the counter have spots or film I can feel when I run my hand across it? Do the bedsheets feel crisp and fresh? It's all about the feels. In my house, if it looks, smells or feels dirty/messy, it's not done. Keep cleaning.
/r/MensRights13/05/24 03:43 AM
1

That's a big generalization. My husband is right there with me "deep cleaning" for company. By that I mean things like scrubbing cabinet fronts and cleaning all the fridge shelves and drawers. It might turn into a mess after our friends and family show up, but we're both determined it'll be spotless when they arrive. But, we split all the housework evenly anyway. I cook and he cleans up the kitchen. He mows and I weed and tend all the flower beds and planters. We take turns with laundry, etc.
/r/MensRights13/05/24 01:49 AM
2

I'm going to assume you're doing quite a bit of work you aren't counting. Surely you're cleaning bathrooms, wiping down sink/counters/stovetop/cabinet fronts in the kitchen, changing sheets, mopping floors, dusting, vacuuming upholstery, sweeping stairs, putting away those clothes and dishes, etc.
/r/MensRights13/05/24 01:37 AM
1

Once a couple has kids and buys property together, a split would be comparable to a divorce. It's only not messy if you're childless with no shared property. One of the benefits of marriage that's been really useful to me is FMLA leave. In the US, you can take up to 12 weeks a year to care for an ill family member and your job is protected. Here in NY, the leave is also paid. This was a huge help when my spouse had cancer.
/r/MensRights11/05/24 01:09 PM
-1

Right, of course. One should never post pertinent experiences in replies to comments if someone who had a worse experience might read it.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 05:29 AM
1

I can't imagine any good parent would be ok with their kid being followed and threatened at home and school. My mom would have torn someone a new one for treating my brother like that, too. Both the school and the police just wanted it to be not their problem, in my case.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 04:21 AM
2

Of course- that's a terrible thing. All victims should be able to turn to authorities for protection and redress.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 04:06 AM
-8

I can see why women would be reluctant to report an assault. I had to file a police report against a guy for stalking and threatening me when I was a teen. And the officer was so condescending and dismissive- just a terrible experience. I'm lucky my mom was there to go mama bear,or nothing would have been done about it. I can imagine how much worse it would be for someone who was SA'd. Especially knowing how unlikely it is that your attacker will be brought to justice.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 12:48 AM
1

in this little fiction of being alone in the woods with a grizzly or a man To be fair, no one's saying what kind of bear. Polar bears and panda bears are two very different things. Where I live, black bears are the common type (and frequently sighted), but they're much less aggressive than brown bears.
/r/MensRights09/05/24 12:37 AM
18

Calling a white tank top a "wife beater" has been around as long as I can remember, and I was born in '80. I only really hear the term when they're undershirt style shirts. It's not much different than calling a lower back tattoo a "tramp stamp" or underwear peeking above pants a "whale tail." Or referring to platform heels as "stripper heels."
/r/MensRights08/05/24 01:38 PM
51

Yeah. Once companies raise the pay, they can suddenly fill those vacant positions. Who would have thought?
/r/MensRights07/05/24 12:06 AM
2

True, I was bit by a squirrel once. But, never bothered by any animals I've encountered hiking (deer, elk, snakes, porcupines...and bear). Around here, the most dangerous thing in the woods is reckless hunters.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 10:30 PM
-6

You should have started with that, instead of saying people must be lying about seeing bears. Instead, you countered one silly argument with another.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 10:25 PM
-7

It's still enough for many thousands of people to have actually encountered a bear face-to-face. It doesn't seem improbable that some of them would post about it online. Just consider Adirondack Park in NY. 4,000 bears live there, and roughly 10 million people visit every year for hiking, camping, fishing, etc. That's a lot of potential for sightings. And that's just one geographic area.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 07:45 PM
-6

Have you really never seen a bear in person? They're pretty common. Around here (upstate NY), black bears will sometimes knock over garbage cans or eat out of gardens at houses on the edge of town. Campers are advised to keep food in their cars overnight and trashcans in state parks are bear-proof.
/r/MensRights06/05/24 07:20 PM
1

If you look at why people aren't having more children, there's several common issues brought up. Lack of support for parents at work and in society, lack of affordable childcare, difficulty finding affordable housing and fear of not being able to provide properly for the child(ren). At work paid parental leave and flexible work hours are a huge benefit. Also, expand on the work from home trend. Some companies are pushing (or already pushed) for back to office, but this type of work is great for …
/r/MensRights05/05/24 11:37 AM
1

I have no idea what you're talking about.
/r/MensRights01/05/24 08:38 PM
2

Wait, what? We have black bears here and they love eating out of garbage cans at houses or parks (you know, in town) Sadly, they do sometimes have to be relocated or put down if they become too much of a nuisance. The real answer to man or bear in the forest is that both are generally harmless.
/r/MensRights01/05/24 08:34 PM
1

People will put more effort in for someone they genuinely love than they will for a partner in an economic arrangement. It boggles my mind that anyone would say it sucks to stick with a romantic partner because of mutual affection. But, it takes all types.
/r/MensRights30/04/24 11:54 AM
0

You can't be serious. The Civil Rights Act wasn't even passed until 1964. If women really weren't being discriminated against, there would have been no need for a law to prevent it. Seems pretty obvious. And the fact you listed just a half dozen jobs women could do speaks volumes about what economic opportunities were really available.
/r/MensRights28/04/24 12:19 AM
2

Here's the quote I'm talking about- it's further down the thread: "I’ve been with men who were like, idk intimidated by me wanting to rub my own clit, them rub it or use a vibrator? But it’s really hard for me to orgasm without it (which is true for a lot of women)" That's exactly what I said in my comment. For most women, clitoral stimulation is the "being active during PIV" that's going to get them off- regardless of position. For the rest, I've been commenting in this sub a lot longer than yo…
/r/MensRights28/04/24 12:10 AM
2

Believe what you want. I'm just happy to finally be having excellent sex. This is something women discuss amongst themselves, and it doesn't seem to be an uncommon occurance. I'm not even the only woman in this thread who shared this experience with men being unhappy if women touch themselves during sex. Great for you if you're fine with your partner stimulating herself during the deed. But do you really think all men think like you? Isn't that the same thing you're accusing me of?
/r/MensRights27/04/24 11:54 PM
1

20 years ago, unnaturally colored hair was for high schoolers and college students. Even the guys used Manic Panic. Then it was natural colors when you get a real job. Now, bright colored hair is ok for even professional jobs, so it could really be anyone. My 65 year old co-worker has purple tips, and I see some moms (30s and 40s) with colored highlights or colors underneath, so you see it when the hair is up. And, of course, the high schoolers are still doing it. My daughter had silver hair tha…
/r/MensRights27/04/24 04:39 PM
2

Depends what state you live in. In Alabama, a frozen fertilized egg is considered a child and destroying one can result in a wrongful death charge. In NY, a fetus has no rights and women can abort on demand. This is KY, and this new law is consistent with the state's abortion ban. I'd bet money that this legislation is meant to add weight to the ban.
/r/MensRights27/04/24 02:55 AM
13

It could potentially be backdated before conception. Doctors count the beginning of pregnancy from the end date of the last period. That's about two weeks before the sex even happened.
/r/MensRights26/04/24 10:56 PM
3

Well, thank you! That's very kind of you.
/r/MensRights26/04/24 10:49 PM
3

You're deliberately twisting my words to suit your own narrative. And making a bunch of assumptions, to boot. This is a very simple concept. There's no service or tangible item I get from my husband that I couldn't get elsewhere, if I chose. I don't need him to pay my bills or protect me, or fix my car, or any other "traditional" male roles. I can either do those things myself or pay someone to do them. But, I want to continue enjoying his company. Every day for the past 20+ years, and every day…
/r/MensRights26/04/24 06:05 PM
3

Then if it would be possible then she would leave? My grandma? She wouldn't have been able to support herself in any comfortable way with the limited economic options available to her. Yes, I could leave my husband at any moment, and so could he. But we don't because we genuinely value each other's company over any other person. Knowing that we both have other options but keep actively choosing each other is a wonderful feeling.
/r/MensRights26/04/24 01:51 PM
2

My grandma was forced to marry, by economic necessity. She had a good factory job during WWII and she lost it when the soldiers came back from war. That left just low wage options- nothing she could live on independently. So the options were to marry or live dependently with her parents. My spouse and I have been married for over twenty years, through unemployment and illness. We've bought two houses, traveled the world and raised a child. It's what I consider an ideal romantic relationship, but…
/r/MensRights26/04/24 11:54 AM
4

When you desire that one person then you need them. That's not really the same thing. My grandparents needed each other. Grandpa couldn't cook a bit, and grandma couldn't get a well paying job. They both needed a spouse to live a comfortable life. And they stayed together, but there was no other choice. My mom and her sisters have stories of their parents drunkenly arguing in the street until the neighbors called the police. If divorce was a feasible option,they probably would have (and should h…
/r/MensRights26/04/24 10:55 AM
37

In a healthy relationship, neither person really "needs" the other. That is, both should be well adjusted, self sufficient adults. The beauty is in constantly choosing to stay together without needing to. Just because you desire each other's company.
/r/MensRights25/04/24 10:30 PM
1

And biology, as a discipline, is widely considered part of STEM. I don't think anyone disputes that biology is a hard science.
/r/MensRights25/04/24 04:26 PM
4

In my experience, men tend to take it personally when a woman takes matters into her own hands (so to speak). Like it's an insult if she uses hands or toys for clitoral stimulation. It was a definite problem with my previous partner. He took it as a personal slight that straight PIV didn't get the job done. Definitely part of the reason he's an ex.
/r/MensRights25/04/24 03:21 PM
1

In my experience, unscented grooming products are the more expensive brands already. For example, my husband uses Barbasol shave cream, which smells like "men" (or old men, for the original scent)- it costs .27/oz at the local drug store. The least expensive "women" scented version (store brand) is .44/oz and cheapest unscented is .75/oz. I just want the cheap one to be unscented, or unisex. I buy duplicate versions of several grooming products for this reason because my daughter and I don't wan…
/r/MensRights06/04/24 02:13 PM
0

The main problem with the cheaper "male" versions of grooming products is the scents. You have to pay extra if you don't want to smell like a guy. It would be great if stuff like shaving cream, hair products, and deodorant had a basic unscented version. Not just for the price difference- it also eliminates the problem of clashing scents from different products. And then there's areas where there isn't really an alternative. My husband and I both wear Levi's, but the women's options cost more. An…
/r/MensRights05/04/24 07:38 PM
2

It's the parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are looking at. It's not the responsibility of everyone else to ensure all media is appropriate for children
/r/MensRights04/04/24 07:01 PM
4

Even worse if you were in a library or computer lab.
/r/MensRights04/04/24 06:49 PM
–

I love that your rebuttal to a pretty large legal inconsistency is "you're selfish." Did you run out of actual arguments? You say you can’t be forced to carry a baby against your will. So does the state of NY, where I live. Planned Parenthood is heavily funded, and my right to have an abortion, paid for by health insurance, is codified into law. You could not pay me enough to live in a deep red state with an abortion ban. Seeing the news of women being denied even medically necessary abortions i…
/r/MensRights02/04/24 11:18 AM
–

You’re coming from the perspective that the unborn is part of her body, when science doesn’t support that perspective. Not at all. I'm coming from the perspective that no one has the right to use another person's body against their will. I have a child. Legally, I can't be forced to use my body as life support for her. Even if she would die without a bone marrow transplant and I was the only match. Because I have the right to decide how I use my own body. An embryo or fetus would be using my bod…
/r/MensRights01/04/24 05:58 PM
–

Oh, you're one of those people. You know, the ones who just ignore historical records and still existing primary sources because it's inconvenient to your worldview. Go read Franklin's book. It explains what herbal abortifacients were available in the US in the colonial period. It's not like abortion is a new phenomenon. The earliest written record was from ancient Egypt- roughly 1500 BCE.
/r/MensRights01/04/24 04:00 PM
71

I think people who don't want to marry shouldn't. And people who don't want to have children really shouldn't. Regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights01/04/24 02:23 PM
–

Now, that I have your attention, let’s get to the bottom of why the very practice of abortion is unconstitutional. No it isn't. Abortion was known and practiced in colonial America- Ben Franklin even published a how-to (The Instructor). The fact that the founding fathers didn't restrict, or even reference abortion in the Constitution speaks volumes. Also, in the Constitution, rights are only guaranteed to people already born. There is nothing in the document to indicate that fetuses or embryos h…
/r/MensRights01/04/24 01:48 PM
1

This is one of those scenarios where examples of it still happening, rather than blanket possibilities and maybes, is needed. It's not like I already provided examples with citation /s https://bsd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13293-020-00308-5 This meta-study goes into a lot of detail on the biology involved and problems still existing from prior research. And, of course, the fact that women have adverse drug reactions at higher rates than men. Then there's the classic example- heart atta…
/r/MensRights26/03/24 09:50 PM
–

No, I said new research has to include women. But doctors are diagnosing and treating patients based on the existing body of data that either excluded women or didn't record male and female results separately. That's problematic.
/r/MensRights26/03/24 08:37 PM
–

Reliable data on half of the population is better than unreliable data on the other half. That's easy to say if you're the half getting reliable research. If it turns out the difference is actually important, then you can always do more research if needed. You mean, if enough people get sick enough from mistreatment. That's a pretty shitty attitude. Of course, none of this really matters (especially in the age of computers), you can simply record all of the information and then group test subjec…
/r/MensRights26/03/24 08:04 PM
–

Do you really think pharmaceutical companies reran their research for anything FDA approved prior to the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act to include women? Or any other medical groups? That seems very naive.
/r/MensRights26/03/24 07:58 PM
–

One clear example is drug dosages. It's well documented that women and men process drugs differently because of different body composition. That is, absorption and distribution rates are different for men and women of the same weight, receiving the same doses of medication. What that means, practically speaking, is that you can't develop drug dosages based on one sex, then extrapolate the results to people of the opposite sex. In real world examples, women experience more adverse drug reactions …
/r/MensRights26/03/24 07:24 PM
–

Well, they're not allowed to exclude women from clinical trials anymore (in the US). But it's going to take a long time to erase the effects from the years women were excluded.
/r/MensRights26/03/24 06:31 PM
2

No doubt that unscrupulous companies prioritize money over the safety and efficacy of their products. Which is why government oversight is so important. Now US researchers must include women in clinical trials, regardless of extra expense. But there are decades of research lost that are still having an effect.
/r/MensRights26/03/24 06:28 PM
–

so its much easier and cheaper to just look how something works with human body without those changes in hormones Reducing the accuracy of your results for half the population to save money is bad medicine. Women and men have different bodies, and you can't directly extrapolate from one to the other. For example, women and men metabolize medicines at different rates. Looking at data from only one sex leads to incorrect dosages.
/r/MensRights26/03/24 04:04 PM
–

There's also the issue of women's hormonal cycle, if you're doing an experiment you want to reduce as many extraneous factors as possible, a conscious decision was made in order to reduce potential harm and ensure the most reliable results possible. Surely you can see how contradictory these two phrases are. Not accounting for how a disease or treatment is affected by a woman's hormones ensures you don't have the most reliable results for roughly half the population.
/r/MensRights26/03/24 04:00 PM
1

Yeah, it's not very helpful to have guaranteed paternity leave if it's unpaid. Maternity leave is generally paid out by disability insurance, but fathers don't qualify for that. Here in NY, the state runs an insurance program that covers pay for any FMLA leave (including parental), and everyone pays into it. It works well.
/r/MensRights20/03/24 06:24 AM
1

Chasing education, career advancement, status and wealth are masculine metrics of success. These are qualities women find attractive in men. Not vice versa. Feminism has scammed women to pursue these metrics for the past 3-4 generations. Women aren't pursuing careers to attract men, though. Having a career gives a better quality of life, and provides a safety net if a relationship ends or she doesn't marry a man. Besides, most married women will have to work to contribute to supporting a family,…
/r/MensRights20/03/24 06:11 AM
14

It's shocking that people aren't up in arms about child marriage still happening in the US. Only 10 states have a minimum age of 18 for marriage. 5 states don't have a minimum age at all as long as a parent or judge approves. This seems like an easy target for feminists to tackle closer to home. But I don't really hear much about it.
/r/MensRights19/03/24 10:45 AM
1

Is it just me, or are those articles all referencing the same two studies- one in 2010 by Cornell and one in 2015 by UConn?
/r/MensRights11/03/24 04:14 PM
–

Fair, but you didn't point out that they were still only talking to him even after they knew that. I did in my first post But anyways, it is a nice gesture to ask your spouse for opinion on such things and consider it. What does this have to do with me being overlooked by sales reps? And why would you assume I don't ask my husband's opinion? In my family, we each pick our own cars, but set the budget together. So, driver's choice. My husband left most of the kitchen decisions to me because a) I …
/r/MensRights11/03/24 08:31 AM
–

Would you honestly make a major purchase (or any purchase, really) from someone who wasn't really listening to you? If a sales rep approaches my husband first, it's annoying, but expected. If they continue trying to sell to him once we point out I'm the one choosing the car/kitchen/whatever, they're bad at their job, and there's no need to continue further.
/r/MensRights11/03/24 07:16 AM
–

In business situation the reason is that in school (at least in my school) they were learning us that in business/work it should be always woman who first offers a handshake That hasn't been my experience in real life, and I've been in Purbasing for 16 years. Generally, vendors greet the most important person first since that's who makes the decisions, and they never miss the chance to kiss some ass. If the vendor knows that I'm the Purchasing Manager (through phone calls or zoom), they do greet…
/r/MensRights11/03/24 12:56 AM
–

I'm a women, and it's sometimes a fine line between proving yourself and proving you're better than. In business situations, for example, men often assume the other man in the room is in charge, and it gets very frustrating. More often than not, when I meet vendors at work face to face for the first time, they address the men in the meeting before me and only realize they've skipped "the boss" once I give them my business card or take charge of the meeting. It doesn't help that I have a gender n…
/r/MensRights10/03/24 07:41 PM
–

There used to be a chain gym called Cuts for men that started in the early 2000s. They closed a couple years later for lack of business. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4579667 https://www.americanspa.com/news/cuts-closes-franchise-business
/r/MensRights08/03/24 09:27 AM
1

What about that one who put $25,000 in a new bank account? She clearly didn’t spend it on the kids. But she most likely spent her own money on the kid(s). There's really not enough context to know what's happening here. If dad is extremely wealthy and pays a huge amount of child support, mom might be able to pay for the kid(s) fully and also set aside savings from just child support. More likely, she's keeping the child support money while using her own money to support the kid(s). In that case,…
/r/MensRights05/03/24 03:33 PM
–

Considering how expensive kids are to raise, I can't imagine most single parents are getting enough child support to have much left over to waste. All the single parents I know have to be pretty careful to make the money last. Even my mom could only afford to send me the child support because I wasn't costing her money for groceries/gas/incidentals at home 8 months out of the year (although she still paid car maintenance/insurance, health insurance and bought clothes and textbooks every semester…
/r/MensRights05/03/24 11:53 AM
–

I would suggest that “late teens, early twenties” are adults, and if the father is paying “child support” by that stage it could, and should go straight to the kid. This is what my mother did when I went to college. Every child support payment went directly into my bank account. To be honest, my dad was pissed, because I didn't use it responsibly. But I was definitely the one spending it. I mostly agree with it going directly to kids after they graduate high school. It would be nice if it could …
/r/MensRights05/03/24 11:30 AM
–

As a parent, limiting what child support gets spent on seems impractical. Mainly because of the incredible variety of things that kids need and how that changes with age. A young child needs food, yes. But also medical expenses, clothing, toys, books, furniture, bedding, and childcare. A school-age kid will have those expenses, and also sports equipment and extracurriculars, school supplies, school trips, and hobbies. A teen's expenses will include those things but also dues for sports and clubs…
/r/MensRights05/03/24 06:45 AM
–

Did you hurt yourself, jumping to those conclusions? When it came down to one of us being sterilized, my husband ( like a lot of men) choose vasectomy because it's more effective, less invasive and less expensive. There's nothing hypocritical about letting him make his own medical choices.
/r/MensRights04/03/24 03:52 PM
–

What should men take the burden and the risks for something that benefits only women? How do you figure it only benefits women? When I became pregnant with our daughter, my husband was jointly responsible for medical bills, effort and expense of raising a child, and an entire lifetime of being a parent. Preventing future, unwanted, pregnancies benefits us both.
/r/MensRights04/03/24 02:25 PM
9

In other words: anyone can get abortion pills if they're willing to break the law. Hope they don't get caught!
/r/MensRights04/03/24 11:46 AM
1

Normal contraceptives fail. If you really don't want a kid/more kids, sterilization is the way.
/r/MensRights04/03/24 08:08 AM
–

How can he even decide if you don't supply him with information? He's an adult with a computer in his pocket. I have every faith that he can use a search engine just as well as I can. I find it funny how determined you are to make me out to be a terrible person for something: a) I don't control and b) my partner actively prefers. Besides, even when self pleasure, I orgasm 2-3 times to his 1. Or is how he wanks it somehow my responsibility too?
/r/MensRights03/03/24 12:12 AM
1

No, I think I'm going to keep letting him decide what his own preferences and desires are. We're very open to trying things the other partner wants, but I draw the line at telling someone else how to experience their own sexuality. It's incredibly presumptuous for me to decide, on my own, that he has a problem and try to "fix" him. would know better that his pleasure response isn't limited to ejaculation. You're the one who's saying it is. I only pointed out a difference in qty of orgasms. Anyth…
/r/MensRights02/03/24 03:09 PM
1

I don't question it because I also take pride in pleasuring my partner. That seems like a very natural and healthy attitude to take. In this case, you're trying to fix something that isn't broken. My partner is getting plenty of sex, in the way he enjoys. And I should, what? Tell him he's doing it wrong and needs to seek pleasure differently?
/r/MensRights02/03/24 01:48 PM
1

Women's refractory periods are just one of the things about orgasms you're wrong about I didn't make any other statements to be wrong about. some men have orgasms before ejaculating, but don't consider it an orgasm due to social expectations. Ok. So they shouldn't be bothered if a woman is having lots of orgasms. So what's the problem?
/r/MensRights02/03/24 01:34 PM
1

Wow, that's a lot. I think most men see it as a feature if their partner gets off multiple times during sex, not a burden. In my experience, it's generally a point of pride. If men aren't actually bothered by their partners having more orgasms, they aren't going to go looking for a solution. To be clear, I'm not talking about people who have sexual problems or trouble orgasming. We're strictly speaking about couples having mutually satisfying sex, where both orgasm. Also, it doesn't really matte…
/r/MensRights02/03/24 01:31 PM
1

So you're saying women don't have shorter refractory periods? I mean, I only made two statements- that I have multiple orgasms during sex (definitely true) and about the refractory period.
/r/MensRights02/03/24 01:00 PM
1

Is it really gloating to point out an anatomical difference? Women have very short refractory periods, making multiple orgasms easier. When I have PIV sex, I'm almost always going to come several times by the time my partner comes once. And when he does, he's usually done with sex and ready for cuddles. Fair or not, that's a big difference between male and female bodies.
/r/MensRights02/03/24 12:12 PM
6

But...did you get the popcorn bucket?
/r/MensRights27/02/24 11:06 PM
1

Anytime they advertise or mention their business in a way where they have to start off with women/black/LGBT/etc... owned. It's absolutely unnecessary and has nothing to do with the product or service. Except when it does. It makes perfect sense to identify the owners when you're selling products designed for a particular community. Like a women owned clothing shop, a hair/skin care company for POC or pride merch for LGBTQ folks. The first two examples are more likely to understand and meet thei…
/r/MensRights24/02/24 03:55 PM
1

It depends what's being sold. I like women owned businesses for products specifically for women. Like clothing. Women owned clothing stores have a better handle on what other women want, so I'm more likely to find good pieces. Or places offering a service I want performed by other women- hair salons, dance and yoga studios, obgyn offices, etc. For gender neutral goods or big businesses, it doesn't make much of difference.
/r/MensRights24/02/24 12:56 PM
4

So women, in fact, should have jobs to support themselves? Suggesting anyone should get a partner just for financial support is complete bullshit. We shouldn't be encouraging anyone to do that. I'm in the US, and there's not much financial support for able bodied young people without children (of any gender). You're not going to get food stamps. Maybe you could get assistance paying rent or heating your home, but it wouldn't be enough to live on. A childless woman wouldn't be able to support her…
/r/MensRights24/02/24 11:44 AM
6

through her parters income So we're just ignoring that single women and lesbians exist? Besides, I'm a married woman, and we needed two incomes to support our family for the greater part of our marriage. Like most US families.
/r/MensRights24/02/24 11:22 AM
2

There's no getting rid of maternity leave, at least here in the US, because recovering from birth is considered a temporary disability. On the upside, employers aren't actually the ones footing the bill- it's disability insurance. Just like any other medical event that keeps a person from working. Really, the best thing for society is for paid parental leave to be expanded to include men. My state has a program to cover paid parental leave for men and also those who adopt or foster kids. Basical…
/r/MensRights23/02/24 10:07 PM
1

Its about making sure folks have each others backs via governments. Including having the backs of the middle class.
/r/MensRights23/02/24 02:21 PM
3

First off, my household income is $180k, so I'm paying quite a lot of taxes myself. Why shouldn't I receive services for money paid? Besides, one of the main purposes of government is to pool resources to provide services too expensive or difficult for the individual to access alone. Education is a prime example. There's no logical reason for government funding of education to stop at grade 12 when most employers are now requiring a college degree. Eta- I'd like to point out that I've already pa…
/r/MensRights23/02/24 01:12 PM
4

Workers and families also support the welfare state. From my perspective, Democrat driven legislation helps me and my family in ways Conservatives don't. For example: Forgiveness of my student loans (fed govt) Tax funded college tuition for my child (state govt) Paid FMLA leave to care for a sick spouse (state govt) and a cap on how much I paid out of pocket for spouse's medical care (fed govt) Insurers required to pay for fertility treatments and medically necessary storage of sperm or eggs (st…
/r/MensRights23/02/24 12:54 PM
1

I wouldn't even be sure how to answer that. I can't even picture what 5'1 looks like on a guy- it's so rare (like 1st percentile). But, I think I'd be ok with it if he's attractive- pretty eyes, good hair, nice legs, etc.
/r/MensRights22/02/24 10:35 PM
2

Ask her if she's dated any men shorter than her... This made me laugh. I'm 5'2". Where would I even find a man that short? Even an average height woman (5'4") is only taller than about 4% of men.
/r/MensRights22/02/24 12:45 PM
1

Wouldn't that result in people being jailed for unplanned pregnancies? There's an estimated 3 million unplanned pregnancies in the US every year. And, nearly 30% of US states have banned abortions, so women in those places have to carry to term. Surely not all the couples involved in those births would pass some parenting test. So they just serve jail time for getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant? Besides, where would we find enough foster parents for all those children? There aren't enough…
/r/MensRights22/02/24 12:20 PM
20

Asking for raises is a huge factor. Other women I've worked with are reluctant to ask for more money or negotiate for higher salaries. I take every opportunity to ask for more, whether it's countering a job offer, pushing for a higher annual increase, or asking for more with every increase in responsibility. I make the most in my department (though I'm not the most experienced) and $25k more than a coworker with the same title as me. I try to encourage my work friends to ask for raises and help …
/r/MensRights19/02/24 12:19 PM
3

Why ask to split 50/50 if he doesn't mean it? Better to be honest and admit he wants someone to treat him.
/r/MensRights17/02/24 04:31 PM
2

Because things don't exist if they aren't on YouTube /s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Cock_(comedy_show) https://playbill.com/article/vagina-monologues-finds-its-male-counterpart-com-114828 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/male-version-vagina-monologues-aims-2045280 https://www.backstage.com/magazine/article/penis-monologues-28432/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/2004/03/12/Penis-Dialogues-to-match-Vagina-Monologues/6021079067600/ Obviously, there was a lot more of this kind of t…
/r/MensRights16/02/24 02:09 PM
3

It has been tried. Talking Cock was quite popular and had runs in several countries. There's also The Penis Responds (had an off-broadway run), Penis Dialogues, and Men Talking. It's just that none of them have been quite as popular as the Vagina Monologues. Of course, a ton of community and college groups performing V Monologues every spring as a charity fundraiser really helps the popularity. I know so many people who saw it as part of a fundraiser.
/r/MensRights16/02/24 12:29 PM
1

whoever signs the birth certificate must first do a paternity test. No test, no parental right That's a lot different from everyone knowing for sure who their dad is. It's more like- you can confirm who your dad is if he wants to sign the birth certificate and agrees to a DNA test. No info for kids whose dad's opt out of testing.
/r/MensRights14/02/24 08:24 PM
1

Require proof of paternity to sign the birth certificate That doesn't establish paternity for all kids, though. I'm not sure it would even prevent incest, like the other poster was concerned about. Sure, it will prevent men from signing for kids who aren't theirs. But it doesn't give the kids any clarity on who their dad actually is.
/r/MensRights14/02/24 08:20 PM
1

So, how do you propose we get that information without a database? I mean, a woman could list off any man who could potentially be the father, but how would we compel those men to show up for a DNA test? What if the woman refuses to say who the father is, or he can't be found for testing? This doesn't seem practical for real life.
/r/MensRights14/02/24 07:43 PM
1

Obviously, your acquaintance is to blame. But so is the employer, for not stopping the harassment. In my state, any acts of discrimination, and you're out the door so fast it'll make your head spin.
/r/MensRights14/02/24 06:21 PM
0

This isn't a liberal vs conservative thing. Your acquaintance and his friends are just terrible people. Assholes are all across the political spectrum.
/r/MensRights14/02/24 11:11 AM
2

No, I got it. But you have to think about what the source of the message is and the intended purpose. Women being more capable than men in ads isn't a ploy by feminists to change societal views. Rather, it's marketing aimed at women to get them to buy a product. It's just run of the mill salespeople kissing the booty of the consumers.
/r/MensRights11/02/24 02:02 PM
5

I wouldn't take commercials too seriously. Marketers make ads to appeal to their target audience, and women make most purchasing decisions for couples and families (as well as themselves). So, commercials are pandering to women for sales. In reality, men and women shake out about the same in terms of intelligence.
/r/MensRights10/02/24 11:34 AM
-2

Yes, it's simpler to make assumptions than to extrapolate from data. It's well understood that married men engage in certain healthy behaviors more often than unmarried men. Such as: eating better, going to the doctor's more often, and avoiding risky behavior. "Why" that difference exists hasn't been proven. But, from a practical perspective, understanding why exactly these habits correlate with marriage doesn't really matter. Unmarried men can (and should) act like married men in this regard to…
/r/MensRights06/02/24 08:16 PM
-6

In this case, there is a clear and measurable behavioral difference between married and unmarried men. The why is, as yet, not well researched, so we're both just speculating. I'd guess it's an interplay of personality traits of married people, relative economic status, and the impact of the marriage/family relationship (both emotional and legal). Also, a strict socioeconomic view doesn't account for why married men engage in fewer risky behaviors. Or why widowed men who remain single have worse…
/r/MensRights06/02/24 06:54 PM
-5

I think the real takeaway here is that married men are getting better results because of different behavior. Those positive habits would be a good idea for anyone to adopt. I haven't seen much research into why that behavior differs, like you said. But I know I, and my acquaintances, behaved differently after I got married (and had a kid). It's not a huge stretch of logic to think other people are the same.
/r/MensRights06/02/24 06:07 PM
-4

There's definitely some truth to that. Overall, married men tend to eat healthier, engage in less risky behavior, and visit doctors more often. And, they live longer, on average, than single men. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/marriage-and-mens-health Having another person invested in your health to nag you into better habits does improve the outcome.
/r/MensRights06/02/24 02:59 PM
1

This is from r/offmychest
/r/MensRights04/02/24 04:44 PM
-4

Sounds like boyfriend has some hangups about women's genitals. We're all talking how he doesn't like the taste and smell, but he also thinks it looks gross and will only touch her outside of clothes- except with his penis. That's not a typical reaction of a heterosexual man, and it would be pretty much impossible to satisfy a partner with only penetration. Definitely, the OP shouldn't have faked orgasm. But if he's grossed out by her body, there's no salvaging the relationship.
/r/MensRights04/02/24 12:25 PM
1

I think any student with the same accomplishments and work ethic would have similar opportunities. It seems a little funny to suggest that letters of recommendation are somehow just for women. Teachers and coaches will write one for pretty much anyone who asks- it's part of their job. Of course, the letters will have more to recommend for better students. The real advantage here is two involved, college educated parents and an upper middle class upbringing. The rest was hard work on her part. Ot…
/r/MensRights01/02/24 12:07 AM
2

Not all scholarship granting organizations want to just help the highest scoring student, though. They want to encourage kids who do specific activities or embody certain traits. Which is a good thing, as it gives more kids a chance for scholarships. Some examples of scholarships my kid was awarded (in addition to those based on class rank/GPA/major) include: advocacy for LGBTQ community- awarded by local chapter of Pride exemplary member of marching band- awarded by Band Boosters student leader…
/r/MensRights31/01/24 10:07 PM
2

That would certainly add a new challenge to writing the personal essays.
/r/MensRights30/01/24 11:32 PM
1

How would you be able to tell? There's a lot of subjectivity in scholarship awards. My daughter (college senior) received some scholarships based on measurable criteria (class rank, grades, pursuing a STEM degree), but others were at the whim of the award committee. You can't really measure which student has been the best example of an LGBTQ advocate or student leader or positive influence in the community. It's subjective, so you can't really prove or disprove biases.
/r/MensRights30/01/24 09:12 PM
12

If it's any comfort, most women in college aren't receiving sex specific scholarships either. As pointed out in this article, 90% of sex specific scholarships are for women. But, there were only 1100 women only scholarships for the 24 states studied. Even if that number is doubled, it's a fraction of a percent of the women entering college each year in the US. This tracks with what I've seen with my own college age daughter and her classmates. None of the college students I know have received wo…
/r/MensRights30/01/24 05:59 PM
1

On the other hand, there are some very useful legal benefits to being married. I'm in the US, and paid FMLA leave to care for a sick spouse is huge. I took 3 months paid leave when my spouse had cancer. Also, you can pick and choose which health insurance to use, and can file taxes jointly. If one partner dies, the other can claim social security benefits and inherit tax free. The way I see it, if you already jointly own property and have kids, you've already assumed much of the same risks as be…
/r/MensRights27/01/24 05:59 PM
15

Maybe Lawrence of Arabia (1962). Deliverance (1972) is another famous one.
/r/MensRights26/01/24 11:29 PM
4

Probably the aesthetic- like cottage core. It's fun to fantasize about baking bread and frolicking with your kids all day while being perfectly coiffed and wearing a sundress. But that doesn't have much to do with actually being a SAHM.
/r/MensRights26/01/24 05:20 PM
17

Are gen Z really pushing the "trad wife" thing? I see some women LARPing on social media, but it's clearly a shtick. After all, the women in that content clearly have jobs as content creators. I know more Millenial women have been choosing to be SAHMs the last few years because of exorbitant childcare costs. The pandemic really highlighted how precarious the childcare situation is for a lot of families. Several couples I know decided to stick with one income after a pandemic layoff because so mu…
/r/MensRights26/01/24 04:07 PM
4

Sure, there are benefits to having someone else do it. Like a clear maintenance record for warranty. I see a clear generational divide when it come to men who actually know how to change oil. My parents' generation, most men have changed their own oil at some point. My generation (late X), most men haven't (at least the ones I know). And my daughter's friends (Z) mostly don't even own cars, and many don't have licenses. Really, it's silly to compare a task a minority of people do occasionally to…
/r/MensRights25/01/24 03:12 PM
6

I'm concerned you think wiping a counter is noteworthy.
/r/MensRights25/01/24 12:28 PM
-7

Idk, a lot of men wouldn't know how to change oil either. Only 20% of people DIY it. But cleaning up basic messes happens several times a day- to everyone. Even kids. That said, these videos are clearly played up for views. No way these guys are actually that incompetent.
/r/MensRights25/01/24 12:14 PM
3

I watched some of the videos, and it seems like the partners are in on it. I mean, no one would actually clean a counter that way. Clearly, these are fake to get more views.
/r/MensRights25/01/24 12:00 PM
2

Come to NY- we have paid FMLA leave.
/r/MensRights25/01/24 12:22 AM
2

I'd love to see more states adopt a policy like we have in NY. Everyone pays into a state run insurance plan that provides payment for any FMLA leave not already covered by an employer or other insurance policy. Including parental leave.
/r/MensRights25/01/24 12:18 AM
2

True, but it's unpaid. Maternity leave is generally paid out by the employer's temporary disability insurance, but paternity leave is left to the employer to pay, if at all.
/r/MensRights25/01/24 12:12 AM
0

Did you know that most women who abort in the US already have children? And the main reason given is not having the resources for a (or another) child. Abortion is based on situation, not genetic predisposition. Best way to reduce abortions is to focus efforts on preventing unwanted pregnancies.
/r/MensRights24/01/24 05:31 PM
1

What do you not understand about the difference between paid and unpaid labor? If law enforcement, military or judicial system employees work to create a safer community, they receive a salary. Therefore, it is not unacknowledged unpaid labor. Previous commenter was specifically talking about protecting his SO everytime they left their house. This is a strange and unusual situation. Most men don't have to do this, and should not receive credit for such as unpaid labor.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 09:50 PM
1

The main discussion around unpaid labor is whether it's evenly distributed, not if it should be paid. And it should be even. As in, partners should spend roughly equal time on paid work + commute + unpaid labor.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 12:23 PM
1

So you're saying women are claiming credit for housework they didn't do? That's not how I read the post at all. It seems to be about men wanting credit for work they actually did. Like yardwork or home improvements. Not bs like "I existed around my partner in public."
/r/MensRights23/01/24 12:09 PM
1

Yes, because that's how jobs work. You get paid for your time whether you're doing anything or not. That's not how relationships work. You don't get credit for work you didn't do. By this logic, I could say any time I spend at home counts as unpaid labor because I'm watching for a house fire and am ready to act. The only difference from your argument is that I actually have put out a fire in my house before.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 12:04 PM
1

I don't think it's just feminists. There are commenters on this thread suggesting I've only been safe all these years because my husband was with me.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 11:10 AM
0

I'm not married to those men, so it has no impact on what my spouse can count as unpaid labor. He doesn't get credit for what other people do. Besides, that is very much paid labor, as law enforcement and military are careers. Therefore, not really relevant to this discussion.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 10:39 AM
1

If he never had to actually do anything to protect me, it doesn't count as unpaid labor. There was no labor performed. He doesn't get brownie points for just existing. Sure, if someone is constantly having to fight people on his gf/wife's behalf, he should get credit for it (and rethink his life choices). But that's not a typical man's experience.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 10:34 AM
1

In the past, we've done a chore list and estimated how long each task took. Then, each of us was responsible for our list of chores for the week. That worked well to divvy things up, and having a routine takes the guesswork out of it. Now, we tend to do housework at the same time. For example, after work, we both do 45-60 minutes. I make dinner and tidy the kitchen while my husband cleans. Similar with yardwork- he mows and I tend the flower beds. Also, flexibility is really important. For a whi…
/r/MensRights23/01/24 10:30 AM
4

We're honest about it- like adults. Running a family is a team effort. It doesn't work if one partner is trying to get one over on the other.
/r/MensRights23/01/24 12:51 AM
-7

You mean police? I'm paying for that service- it's hardly "unpaid labor." The point is, most people don't have to fight off anyone. So protection isn't exactly a common service.
/r/MensRights22/01/24 09:38 PM
-8

That's very specific. Most women don't need to be protected by their SO every time they go out. I've been married 22 years and haven't needed my husband to protect me yet.
/r/MensRights22/01/24 09:09 PM
5

Agreed, couples should account for all labor when dividing up household chores. My spouse and I make sure we each have an equal load of paid work + commute + unpaid work. And everything counts- cleaning and cooking, but also running errands, home repairs, lawn work, filing taxes, shopping for the household, etc.
/r/MensRights22/01/24 07:22 PM
13

This makes perfect sense. Men tend to die earlier and the survivinh spouse keeps the house. Even if single men and women buy houses at the same rate, there will be more single women owning houses.
/r/MensRights22/01/24 12:21 PM
1

Of course. Because pop I'd blind and generally inoffensive.
/r/MensRights21/01/24 10:21 AM
1

Really? My daughter graduated high school 3 years ago, and students weren't allowed to play anything with profanity on personal devices, let alone for a school-sponsored event. Also, isn't rap more popular among men? If your school was playing rap, how can it be a gendered issue?
/r/MensRights21/01/24 01:22 AM
1

True. Pop really has no substance.
/r/MensRights21/01/24 01:19 AM
-1

Metal is deliberately controversial (both language and topic) while pop isn't. It's as simple as that. Add to that, a lot of metal uses profanity, so it isn't as easy to play for a younger audience in movies, schools, etc. It's the same with punk. Green Day got called out recently because their song made a direct political statement. When was the last time you heard a straight pop song with any political message at all?
/r/MensRights21/01/24 12:51 AM
1

When I look at the "general population" there's a lot of people staying married who really shouldn't, and the kids suffer. I see it all the time with my daughter's friends. They hang out at our house all the time and don't want to go home because their own parents can't stand each other, and it makes home life uncomfortable. It would be better for those kids if their parents split. I agree that parents should try to work it out- when they start having problems. But you have to know when the rela…
/r/MensRights20/01/24 07:07 PM
-4

As a child of divorced parents, having them split was so much better than staying together when they couldn't stand each other. Two calm, happy households > one that's tense and miserable. Staying together for the kids is usually a bad idea.
/r/MensRights20/01/24 06:51 PM
9

It sounds like you're both overworked and stressed out. If I'm reading this right, you work two jobs and do some housework, and your wife works, cooks, grocery shops, and cares for a 10 month old. And you're also dealing with your mother's illness and childcare issues. I would sit down with your wife and discuss how to a) lighten the overall workload for the household and b) spend time together that doesn't involve housework or parenting. As for complements/being appreciated, why not tell your w…
/r/MensRights20/01/24 03:26 PM
1

I'll do my part to stem the tide by not thinking about friendless/single men.
/r/MensRights18/01/24 08:06 PM
5

Here's one example- women who reported as lesbian had fewer STIs than those who reported as bisexual or straight. Also, CDC information regarding HPV, noting that vaginal and anal sex are the most common forms of transmission. Basically, PIV sex is more likely than some other types of sex to a) cause microtears in the skin and b) allow for a transfer of fluids into those tears, allowing virus to pass between people. I found that out (and a lot more) when I was asking my gyn for safe sex informat…
/r/MensRights17/01/24 06:25 AM
12

Yes, the virus is the same, even though it causes different cancers.
/r/MensRights17/01/24 04:53 AM
1

It's differences in anatomy. Lesbians in general have fewer STIs because the types of sex they have are less likely to transmit disease. Most women get HPV from penis in vagina sex, which has a higher transmission rate.
/r/MensRights17/01/24 04:43 AM
24

It's not exactly a new problem. Young people, historically, are the least likely to vote out of any demographic. Less than 50% of people 18-24 are registered to vote (60% for ages 25-34), but it's 70% and up for those 45 and older, in reading for each age group. Increasing voter engagement among young men would go a long way towards getting proportional representation. Also, making voting more accessible with early voting and mail in ballots.
/r/MensRights16/01/24 04:59 PM
2

Several of the studies cited mention an increased maternal mortality rate among women of color. That's definitely a well-documented phenomenon. And certainly contributes to the US having the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. Just skimming through the studies linked in the article (over 20!) it seems to be mostly support for the race differences in medical treatment.
/r/MensRights16/01/24 11:55 AM
1

Yeah, I get it. I also put effort into my appearance for work to cultivate my professional image. I want to project competence and status to upper management (mostly men). My professional clothes are also fashionable and pretty because that's what I like, and it's a good way to fit in with other women (mostly peers). Otherwise, it's very occasion specific. Date night? Pretty and sexy. Girl's night out? Fun but not flashy. Shopping for a car or other big ticket items? Casually wealthy. Tailor the…
/r/MensRights14/01/24 08:15 PM
1

One thing I've noticed about makeup and fashion is that men never care the way that women do. A man might notice that you look different and make a comment about "looking nice." But a woman will be interested in the minutiae of the outfit (where it's from, does it have pockets), ask how you did your hair, and talk about the new Anastasia eye palette. Like all things, it's never just one reason. Fashion (including makeup) is fun, it boosts self-confidence, it signals membership in certain groups,…
/r/MensRights14/01/24 02:23 PM
3

I don't really think we can use the experiences of people with rare medical conditions to generalize that men are held to higher physical standards. Those are outliers. Also, I'm shaking my head at your alopecia example. You're basically saying you're less likely to be made fun of for a disability if no one can tell you have it. Do you think a woman with a shaved head (due to alopecia) would be more or less criticized for her looks than a man with a shaved head (due to baldness)? Keep in mind th…
/r/MensRights14/01/24 07:21 AM
1

The nice thing is, makeup isn't the necessity it used to be, especially compared to my mom's generation (or my grandma's). Most women I know wear minimal or no makeup for everyday. I usually can't be bothered- with good skincare I don't really need it. I save makeup for social events, vacations, and when I need to make a good impression (like an important meeting for work). I doubt makeup use will ever go away. People like being able to change their appearance too much. As for the cost- there's …
/r/MensRights13/01/24 07:54 PM
0

The steps needed to look well-groomed are just different for men and women. My husband and I are both attractive and take care of our appearance, but it consistently takes me more time to get ready. For starters, my routine just has more steps. Things like plucking eyebrows, exfoliating, moisturizing and deep conditioning hair. To be honest, some things he probably should do, like daily spf, but he's a grown man and I can't make him. Then, certain things just take longer for me than they do for …
/r/MensRights13/01/24 05:47 PM
0

Forget makeup, it's hair that takes up the most grooming time. My husband washes his hair (no conditioner), then pushes it into place with a little wax and he's good to go. When I wash my hair, I have to use conditioner, detangler, and heat protectant, then spend about 30 minutes blowing it dry. Basic makeup is easy- less than 10 minutes for an everyday look.
/r/MensRights13/01/24 05:35 PM
-21

Video games and comics books aren't "spaces" at all- they're products. Going after the largest possible market is just smart business on the part of creators. If inclusiveness wasn't profitable, they wouldn't do it.
/r/MensRights12/01/24 08:39 AM
2

The real takeaway here is that everyone should have a plan to support themselves if they want anything like a comfortable life. To each their own, but I wouldn't be comfortable with the amount of risk involved trying to have a family on $50k. That's what my spouse and I made when we were just starting off, but it was tight. And that was over 20 years ago!
/r/MensRights11/01/24 09:55 PM
5

40- 50k isn't going to provide financial stability for a family- at least where I live. Maybe a couple could play house in an apartment, but homeownership, savings and kids are going to be unaffordable for most people on that salary. A woman whose husband makes $40-50k is still going to have to work.
/r/MensRights11/01/24 08:06 PM
4

Depends where they went to school. Most NY state residents can have their tuition paid by the state (my daughter does). And I had the last $30k of my debt forgiven (thanks Biden!).
/r/MensRights11/01/24 06:33 PM
10

I saw this study in another article, too, and the measurement system seems kind of silly. I mean, asking someone every 30 minutes if they're having romantic feelings is a mood killer to begin with. Plus, people in longer relationships tend to be older, as in more mature. I love my spouse much more than when we started dating, but I'm also more capable of focusing on the task at hand than I used to be. Averages for how couples split household chores is just that- an average. It's hard to draw con…
/r/MensRights10/01/24 10:52 PM
3

It's so important not to ignore symptoms, even if they don't seem serious. My husband had a persistent sore throat that ended up being an aggressive cancer. And it took three doctors to have it taken seriously. Also, get your sons vaccinated for HPV. Every sexually active person is at risk for an HPV related cancer.
/r/MensRights09/01/24 10:14 PM
1

Yes, the public perception of incels has changed, but I think the reason for it is the other way around. Radical incels- those who are bitter, misogynistic and violent- have co-opted the term for themselves. Because this minority group makes the news, and are vocal about their opinions, that's what people think incels are. A quick search for "incel definition" backs that up. They're men who are involuntarily celibate and also bitter, blaming women/society, having violent thoughts, etc. It's not …
/r/MensRights06/01/24 02:45 PM
0

Hang on. If this person's friends are paying $2 more on their restaurant checks- it's not the friends using people as resources. I had to laugh at the audacity of them complaing because their friends won't let them be a mooch.
/r/MensRights06/01/24 01:07 PM
9

I think society, in general, doesn't think about incels at all. Outside of gender themed social media spaces, the only mention I see of incels is the occasional news article. It's not really something people talk about. Reddit doesn't reflect real life. I agree (at least in the US) that access to mental health is seriously lacking. Yes, it's technically covered under health insurance, but for most people it's still prohibitively expensive.
/r/MensRights05/01/24 02:49 PM
1

Who said all reasons were covered? You listed three specific examples. Bonding with a new child (born, adopted or fostered) and caring for an immediate family member (parent, spouse, child or sibling) are eligible for paid family leave. Dealing with your own serious disease is covered as disability leave. I'm always a bit surprised when anyone in the US wants less coverage for employee time off. We're already woefully behind most of the developed world regarding what employees can take for both …
/r/MensRights05/01/24 01:30 AM
1

It's not for all reasons, but the ones you listed are all covered. It's technically not even all the same program. "Family leave" covers pay for up to 12 weeks to bond with a new child (born, adopted or fostered), take care of a seriously ill family member (child, parent, spouse or sibling) or to assist with family issues on behalf of an immediate family member who's deployed military. Also, all employers are required to carry temporary disability insurance to cover employees who are unable to w…
/r/MensRights05/01/24 01:12 AM
3

"Why should someone who chooses to have children be entitled to more time off than someone who’s dealing with a serious disease, a dying parent, etc.? " All of these instances of leave should be covered. I'm in NY and they are covered by a state run insurance plan if they aren't already covered by disability insurance. I went on a paid 12 week leave to nurse my spouse through cancer. Interestingly, most companies don't actually pay maternity leave from theirown pocket. It's covered by disability…
/r/MensRights04/01/24 06:52 PM
2

I wouldn't say so. I know several couples who didn't really discuss kids (how many or how they would be raised) and were surprised when their partner wasn't on the same page. I think it's that idealistic attitude that love can fix any differences. That seems like the more common scenario. I have a couple of relatives who changed their minds on having kids, but they went from not wanting kids to wanting them. 2 of the three ended up divorcing because they were no longer compatible with their part…
/r/MensRights03/01/24 02:06 PM
3

I have to wonder if they talked about this before marriage. Wanting kids (or not) isn't something you can compromise on. A partner who wants the opposite is simply not compatible. It always boggles my mind when couples find out they disagree after already marrying (sometimes years after). This is stuff they should have discussed when they started getting serious.
/r/MensRights03/01/24 12:59 PM
1

Oh, can you tell who's phony just by looking? Most people have to interact with someone and observe their behavior to figure it out. Hence, wasted time. Back when I was dating, there were a couple of guys who weren't interested in waiting to get physical, so it fizzled out after a date or two. I'm not sure they were actually "nice guys" but I could tell we weren't compatible. My husband is someone I took months getting to know before dating, so I was pretty well aware of his character from the g…
/r/MensRights31/12/23 05:21 PM
-1

That's quite a leap. Sure, I can tell who's phony after I've wasted time interacting with them. If people wore their true nature on their sleeves it would save the effort. It probably would be better for everyone else if "nice guys" didn't bother with the act.
/r/MensRights31/12/23 04:36 PM
0

Right, people are being nice (ie superficially pleasant) to benefit themselves. Good for them that they understand social niceties, but it's not really something to value. That's basic entry level to society On the other hand, it would make it easier to know who to avoid if "nice guys" showed their true colors up front. People who are actually kind would continue to treat others well while the superficial ones wouldn't. Then we wouldn't waste time on people who don't deserve it.
/r/MensRights31/12/23 04:11 PM
-4

No, I think the phrase is apt. "Nice guys" are superficially pleasant. But that's all they are, there's no substance. And the "niceness" is conditional- they expect sex in return. Also, "nice guys" often brag abt being nice, as if it's some kind of flex. That's where the phrase comes from. If a person had an actually good character, you'd refer to them as: kind, empathetic, loyal, sincere, generous, etc. A description that goes beyond the surface. Again, nice is the description for someone when …
/r/MensRights31/12/23 03:34 PM
6

Nice is a nothing word when it comes to descriptors. As in, it's so overused that it doesn't convey any real meaning. I call someone "nice" when they're polite and pleasant enough but there's really nothing else to say about them. And, yeah- it's not a big deal. You would expect most people to be superficially pleasant most of the time.
/r/MensRights31/12/23 02:45 PM
1

Sounds about right. My spouse and I each make a bit more than that and it's a sweet spot where we don't really feel the need for more. There's enough to not worry about money, have savings, and indulge in some luxuries.
/r/MensRights31/12/23 11:19 AM
1

How so? I don't see how my last comment contradicts anything I said previously.
/r/MensRights30/12/23 08:35 PM
1

You don't know anything about my opinion in other areas- you're just jumping to conclusions. Op asked a question, I gave a factual, verifiable answer. Simple as that. Although, at my last job I worked with a committee that gathered ideas to attract women into manufacturing jobs. The company had diversity goals to meet and the suggestions were used by recruiting and HR. What have you done to increase the number of women in dirty/dangerous jobs?
/r/MensRights30/12/23 05:52 PM
1

That's not my experience at all. Boomers are more likely to support women than the generation before was, but generally less than younger generations. And the numbers support that interpretation. Boomers were all voting age by 1982, but the number of women in Congress didn't increase significantly until the 2000's.
/r/MensRights30/12/23 05:48 PM
0

Women shouldn't get equal representation in government because they don't take enough roofing jobs? That's like comparing apples to fish.
/r/MensRights30/12/23 05:32 PM
1

It seems to be generational, not split by gender. Social change happens slowly. The number of women in Congress has only picked up in the past few decades. Since 1990 the number of female Congresspeople has more than doubled, but before that, increases were very slow. And the first female Supreme Court Justice was sworn in 1981. Like I said in other posts, the trend is likely to continue as younger generations take over as the majority voters.
/r/MensRights30/12/23 05:30 PM
2

Society tends to become more progressive over time, including voters. Do you really believe boomers are equally inclusive to younger generations (Gen Z, for example)? The difference in attitude between my parents' cohort and my daughter's is huge. In regards to women in politics, specifically- the number has been rising for decades and there's every reason to think it will continue to do so.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 05:09 PM
1

It is if someone refuses to vote for female candidates. I definitely know people (mostly boomers) who won't vote for women, POC, Muslims, and/or LGBTQ folks. Textbook bigotry.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 04:54 PM
-2

You're not wrong. But people exercising their democratic rights still make choices that are bigoted, closed minded and morally repugnant. I'm not obligated to value those opinions.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 04:32 PM
-7

I think govt should pretty closely match the mix of people it's supposed to represent. That increases the likelihood that what those politicians do lines up with the needs of their constituents. Needs and concerns for different demographics are different. An elderly Baptist person from the Bible belt is going to have different concerns from a young, urban LGBTQ man, or a single mother, or a Muslim family, or POC. Having a good mix of different kinds of people in government helps keep the interes…
/r/MensRights29/12/23 03:46 PM
-4

If I had to point a finger, I'd say old people too stuck in their ways- all genders. It's the largest voting demographic. Societal change happens slowly and usually takes multiple generational turnovers.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 02:18 PM
-1

Honestly, I think it's that general attitudes are changing but older people vote most. People in my parent's generation (aka boomers) are a lot less likely to support women in political positions (or POC, LGBTQ folks, religious minorities, etc). As those older folks continue to drop out of the voting pool, the mix of candidates will continue to change. Lately, I'm more likely to see women discussing politics since reproductive rights are in the news daily. Before, it was a pretty even split. Exc…
/r/MensRights29/12/23 01:56 PM
4

I want competent female politicians. That's really not so much to ask. I think we'll get to equal representation eventually, as public opinion shifts and younger, more inclusive voters make up a greater percentage of voters. I'm not totally convinced it will be in my lifetime. I'm not sure what typical hours worked by gender and affirmative action has to do with it, since politicians are elected and judges are appointed. Normal hiring practices don't apply.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 12:29 PM
-9

Glad we can agree that unequal government representation is an issue that needs to be addressed. I agree with you on HR as well. It would be best to have a more even split.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 11:58 AM
1

I didn't get chosen for the others I've applied to. There's not much I can do about that.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 11:51 AM
-3

I participated in one clinical trial, and I do encourage my family to participate as well. Partly because it's easy money. But also, good citizenship. Cpr performed by untrained people, unfortunately, is basically useless. But there are a lot if people who get cpr certification for their jobs or roles in community and sports groups. That training should be optimized to be as effective as possible.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 11:37 AM
3

It's definitely not like kidnapping. Medical researchers advertise for and pay participants (I made $600 once on a vaccine trial). If they aren't getting the right mix of participants, they need to change their recruitment techniques.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 11:26 AM
-1

So we shouldn't correct a problem that exists now because of a misguided approach in the past? I don't really see what other point you're trying to make here.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 11:22 AM
-5

Where do you think "bystanders" learn cpr? They take classes. Here, they're given at the same local college that offers EMT certification. The one that got boobs for their dummies. Nice deflection. This is regarding medical knowledge about women, not educational opportunities. I'm curious, why not require research to include proportional numbers by gender (or ethnic group)? It improves medical results overall, so why not do it?
/r/MensRights29/12/23 11:16 AM
-3

You don't think knowledge is a resource? Smh Drugs metabolize differently for women vs men. Diseases present differently in women vs men. Having that information is key to proper medical treatment. Also, women are less likely to be administered cpr in an emergency. Experience with female cpr dummies can help close the gap.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 10:34 AM
-13

Something men get disproportionately more of: government representation Women make up 50% of US population, but only 25% each of congress and the supreme court. It's been getting closer to representative, but there's still a lot of room for improvement. I'm not a lurker or a feminist, but as a woman, that's a pretty glaring discrepancy.
/r/MensRights29/12/23 10:27 AM
2

Agree with you on medical studies (at least here in the US). Researchers are required to include women in any research where the findings would be applied to the general population, but there's still a disproportionate number of male participants in research. The law should be expanded, requiring researchers to use proportionate numbers of male and female participants. Same goes for ethnic minorities, who are also underrepresented in medical research. My daughter TAs for an EMT class at the loca…
/r/MensRights29/12/23 10:19 AM
1

Women have certainly warmed up to the idea since.
/r/MensRights28/12/23 04:53 PM
1

If I had to choose between living the life I want vs being widely attractive to the opposite sex, I'm going to choose personal satisfaction everytime. I think most people would. But in my experience, there's enough men out there who do want their wives to have a career that this isn't a problem. I'm happily married, with a child and also work a mid level management job. It's a pretty common experience among my friends, coworkers and neighbors. Also, you don't have to choose between being indepen…
/r/MensRights28/12/23 12:35 PM
1

Unconditional love is for pets and small children. Love between adults should be conditional. Anything else is unhealthy.
/r/MensRights27/12/23 06:24 PM
1

How do you manage to have only 4 loads a week? I'm doing closer to 10. No one's saying it's a day and a half of labor. It's just one of many tasks, and it adds up.
/r/MensRights24/12/23 02:25 PM
1

The thing about laundry is just that it's never done. At my house it's 3-4 loads per week of sheets and towels, plus a load a day of clothes. It adds up. Like most housework, really. None of the tasks take that long individually, but the list of things to do just keeps going.
/r/MensRights24/12/23 02:18 PM
1

"There's "nothing impressive about doing paying someone to do a little housework"" The difference is that I'm not expecting a gold star for it like the guys doing one load of dishes or similar. We could afford lawncare, but you have to draw the line somewhere, you know? It's certainly possible for both partners to be happy without things bring fair. I wouldn't consider division of labor in my marriage fair unless we were spending roughly the same amount of time working. I also wouldn't be happy …
/r/MensRights24/12/23 01:42 PM
2

At my house we pay someone to clean gutters and change oil, so it's never an issue. Maybe you could ask your girlfriend to chip in? I prefer to work outdoors because you can be in the sunshine and fresh air. My husband mows the lawn and I take care of all the flowers and veggie/herb beds. As long as both partners regularly spend equal time on housework and are both happy with the division of labor, I'd call it fair.
/r/MensRights24/12/23 12:44 PM
5

Constantly being worried your partner will leave sounds miserable and romantic gestures done out of fear are cheap. I definitely wouldn't call that a healthy relationship.
/r/MensRights24/12/23 12:22 PM
3

65% of married women with kids work in the US (per 2022 US Bureau of Labor). That's the comparable demographic to SAHM. I think we can all agree that there's nothing impressive about doing a little housework when both partners work.
/r/MensRights24/12/23 12:16 PM
9

Agreed. Cleaning your own house and washing your own dishes is bare minimum. Adults should clean up after themselves. No one deserves a reward for that.
/r/MensRights24/12/23 10:50 AM
1

Biology may not have changed in the last 100 years, but technology and society sure have. With labor saving household appliances and smaller families, women just don't need to devote as much time to homemaking and childcare. And, since so many jobs are mental rather than physical (again, tech advances), there's no obstacle to women being successful in the workforce. A gender based division of labor is no longer a necessity to keep a family running. I think that's great, since each couple can dec…
/r/MensRights23/12/23 12:33 PM
1

"There are positive aspects of traditional masculine culture, such as hard work, loyalty, reliability, honesty, and integrity." This doesn't sit right with me. If we label these traits as "masculine," we're basically saying women aren't expected to act this way. I'd say these traits are part of being a good person of any gender.
/r/MensRights23/12/23 12:26 PM
0

Yeah, it seems pretty stupid when it's put like that. Most women are going to work for both, so the smart thing is to make the best of it.
/r/MensRights23/12/23 12:05 PM
23

Yep, most gen z aren't even getting married yet. Too young to be stepdads.
/r/MensRights22/12/23 08:01 PM
7

Seems like a decision for each couple to make on their own. Who cares how other people choose to use their bedrooms.
/r/MensRights21/12/23 04:33 PM
1

It sounds like the discrepancy is you're not counting a lot of things as work that actually are. I mean, I like cooking, but it still takes 40+ minutes a day to make dinner, and someone has to cook food for lunches and portion it out. That counts as work. I think you misunderstood me about occasional chores. We pick a different one to do each week. This week it might be scrubbing the fridge, next week it's light fixtures, or organizing the pantry, or moving furniture to vacuum. But it's somethin…
/r/MensRights21/12/23 12:35 PM
1

We're not doing anything crazy. There's 3 adults and two cats in my family and we live in an average size house (2000 sq ft). It's just that everything adds up. I don't know how anyone can manage on just 6.5 hours of housework- I spend that much just cooking. Every day it's cooking dinner, packing lunches, wiping down kitchen counters/sink, 1-2 loads laundry, 1-2 loads dishes, scooping catboxes and generally picking up. Weekly- dusting, vacuuming, mopping, scrubbing bathrooms, scrubbing the kitc…
/r/MensRights21/12/23 11:45 AM
4

Well, that's the main objection to paper abortions, isn't it? That it costs the taxpayer money by shifting financial responsibility from the parent to the government. If we had good social support systems to begin with, the expense becomes kind of a moot point.
/r/MensRights20/12/23 08:54 PM
4

Who would care for all the children taken from parents who are too poor? There's already kids languishing in foster care because there aren't enough people interested in adoption. If parents are willing and able to fulfill their parental responsibilities without funds, subsidizing those families will generally be the less expensive option (to the state), as well as being healthier for both children and parents.
/r/MensRights20/12/23 07:42 PM
1

They spend 90% of their time waiting for a woman to do what? I've been married over 20 years and I socialize with a bunch of other married couples in their 30s and 40s. It's not normal for a spouse to treat their partner like shit unless they're on the verge of divorce.
/r/MensRights18/12/23 06:23 PM
1

That sounds like relationship problem, not a gender issue. Why would you marry someone who doesn't value your time?
/r/MensRights18/12/23 06:00 PM
1

It's a trade off between time and money. I'd much rather spend the money to keep my time. Especially for things that require tools and some expertise (like car repair). I'll gladly do uncomplicated and moderately enjoyable tasks, like digging a garden bed or painting a room. Also, I'm afraid of heights. I don't go on tall ladders or let my husband, if I can help it.
/r/MensRights18/12/23 05:56 PM
2

I was thinking the same thing. If childcare is such a joy, shouldn't men be glad to take over when they're home from work? Or don't they love their children? I'm lucky that my husband doesn't mind pulling his weight around the house. We both come home from work and do about an hour of housework, and a bit more than that on the weekend. When our daughter was little, we shared childcare tasks, or, more often, did them together. That's what I consider "equal."
/r/MensRights18/12/23 02:20 PM
0

Maybe because it's common to pay someone to fix the car and clean the gutters? I also wouldn't mention those tasks, because no one in my house does them.
/r/MensRights18/12/23 02:10 PM
1

It really depends what she did use her time for. Was it cooking and caring for a small child(ren)? That's a pretty valid reason not to have the house clean and dinner made. And if the "chores" are actually childcare- everyone needs a break from their kids. I've been the one staying home all day and the one being at work all day (worked opposite shifts) and both are tough. Sometimes the best thing to do is just cut your losses, push aside the mess till tomorrow and order a pizza.
/r/MensRights17/12/23 11:43 PM
5

If mom's the only one getting up to care for crying kids at 2am, I expect dad will be the one getting thrown out the window. "Women are better at it" is a lazy cop out. Men make excellent parents. They're more than capable of being patient and comforting to children.
/r/MensRights17/12/23 04:20 PM
2

No! It's my husband and I, our 21 year old daughter and 2 cats. We live in an average size house (2000 square feet).
/r/MensRights17/12/23 02:04 PM
11

The same holds true for paid work. Sure, men might spend more time in the office, but are they actually doing more work? There's a definite brag among older salaried employees (mostly men) about how much time they spend in the office, how little PTO they take, etc. I see it all the time in my office. Our purchasing team has four male buyers, 2 female buyers and 2 female team leads (ie supervisors). Three of the men consistently work more than 45 hours per week, the other buyers and leads work be…
/r/MensRights17/12/23 02:02 PM
5

There is some truth in that. I definitely get bothered by things being dirty more than my husband does. For example, if he loads the dishwasher and they don't all fit, he leaves the extras in the sink for the next load. I hand wash the extras so I can scrub out the sink. Although, he does more of the cleaning overall, since I cook more. I think couples should agree upon a level of cleanliness and have well defined expectations of who should do which chores, and how often. Then revisit the divisi…
/r/MensRights17/12/23 12:39 PM
7

I want to know who these people are spending only 6.5 hours a week on housework. Between cooking, cleaning and grocery shopping my family does about 20 hours a week. More lately, in the run up to Christmas. And in nice weather there's lawn work too.
/r/MensRights17/12/23 12:34 PM
1

To be honest, I'm having difficulty thinking of an instance where supporting my spouse doesn't benefit me in some way. Encouraged his hobbies/interests = more pleasant home life and a partner more willing to help with the burdens of family life. Made sacrifices to further his career = better lifestyle. Nursed him through cancer = continued companionship and a healthy partner (both emotionally and financially). Even if those actions weren't taken with the expectation of a return, it's hard to ben…
/r/MensRights16/12/23 07:41 PM
3

Agreed on not having that many sexist interactions, as a woman. And it's usually annoying, but easy to brush off. Like salespeople automatically talking to my husband, and then I have to point out that I'm the one making the decision. But that's easy enough to deal with, and I'll take the business elsewhere for the worst offenders. Or at work where suppliers assume the man in the meeting is in charge, when they're actually my subordinate. But, again, that's mostly annoying. And a little funny to…
/r/MensRights16/12/23 01:21 PM
-1

The ban also allows an exception if continuing the pregnancy poses a risk of impairment to bodily function. Which it did. Her doctor testified carrying to term and delivering (via c-section) seriously reduced her chances of bearing another child. Any reasonable person would consider that an impairment of bodily function. But the AG of Texas was literally threatening anyone who helped Kate Cox get an abortion. Also, 20 women are currently suing the state under Zurawski v Texas because their acces…
/r/MensRights15/12/23 01:50 PM
1

Kate Cox should have been able to get an abortion in Texas based on the law, since carrying the pregnancy would pose a "serious risk of impairment of a bodily function." The fact that she had to leave the state to get one shows that the exemptions to the abortion ban are just lip service.
/r/MensRights15/12/23 12:23 PM
1

Zurawski v State of Texas says otherwise. https://reproductiverights.org/case/zurawski-v-texas-abortion-emergency-exceptions/zurawski-v-texas/ The law not being clear is exactly the problem. Doctors aren't going to risk life imprisonment if a judge disagrees with their decision on whether an abortion was medically necessary.
/r/MensRights15/12/23 12:15 PM
0

But 14 states don't allow abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Nearly 30% of states isn't most but it's a lot.
/r/MensRights15/12/23 10:16 AM
3

Banning abortion causes more men to be forced into paying to support children they don't want. Seems like a step in the wrong direction to me. I do support the idea of financial abortions, but I think trying to hold actual abortion rights hostage to financial abortion rights will sour most people on the idea.
/r/MensRights15/12/23 10:13 AM
2

One of the reasons is that women are receiving worse obstetrical care in states with abortion bans, and the difference will become greater over time. Take Texas, for example. Doctors can face steep fines and up to lifetime imprisonment for performing an abortion. There is an exemption in the ban allowing abortion to save a woman's life or prevent a serious loss of bodily function. But, since the law is vaguely written, doctors are unwilling to take the risk, and women's access to medically neces…
/r/MensRights15/12/23 09:57 AM
4

Even though it hurts more men, overall? I'm not sure we should be cheering an equality that makes things worse for both men and women.
/r/MensRights15/12/23 09:50 AM
1

I got the count on how many states had which bans by consulting several reputable sources and seeing that the data agreed. Here are a few, but feel free to fact check yourself. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html https://www.cnn.com/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us-dg/index.html Honestly, can't take you seriously if you're going to use Texas as your example of a state w…
/r/MensRights14/12/23 11:06 AM
1

Before the industrial revolution, a lot of the work people did was at home. As in, cottage industry and agriculture. Women absolutely did piecework, mending, laundry, agricultural work and helped with the family business to supplement income. The idea of a "housewife" who only cooks, cleans and watches kids is modern- circa 1950s. And, it was possible during the 50's because the US was in a period of unprecedented prosperity. Wages have kept stagnant since then while costs increased. For many co…
/r/MensRights13/12/23 11:47 AM
0

14 states currently have a ban on abortion from conception and 2 states have a ban after 6 weeks. There is a very real assault on women's reproductive rights going on in the US. Pregnancy is counted from the first day of a woman's last period- technically about 2 weeks before conception. Most women aren't going to take a pregnancy test until their period is a couple of days late. With an average cycle, that's right around 5 weeks. Which is why a 6 week ban is basically a total ban. 1 week is not…
/r/MensRights13/12/23 08:57 AM
1

It's not even about men letting you down. Life happens. The person who can provide today could be unemployed, disabled or deceased tomorrow. Having just one breadwinner is a level of risk I would not be comfortable with.
/r/MensRights13/12/23 12:32 AM
1

It's not even all that traditional. Most women worked for most of history. Only the upper classes had the privilege of a SAHM.
/r/MensRights13/12/23 12:29 AM
0

For most contraceptives, by the time you know that it's failed, it's too late for plan B. It's only effective in the first 72 hours after sex. Most women don't know they're pregnant until about 5 weeks in. I'm on the pill, but I was also on the pill when I got pregnant with my daughter. I switched to a different prescription, but no contraceptives are 100% effective. That's why we need access to abortion
/r/MensRights13/12/23 12:26 AM
1

Why would I? I don't care what other people wear.
/r/MensRights10/12/23 04:55 AM
1

The problem is that you can't buy what isn't there. I'd love it if I could buy dress pants with pockets big enough fit a phone. Haven't found any yet.
/r/MensRights09/12/23 10:34 PM
1

I'd love to buy dress pants with functional sized pockets (big enough for a phone). The problem is that I can't find them. I do have a couple skirts with good pockets, but I bought them from a designer who tailored to fit. I can't afford to buy all custom clothes.
/r/MensRights09/12/23 06:41 PM
1

Maybe it's just what stores we have, but we stopped buying premade costumes for our daughter once she was out of kids sizes because the selection is trash(y).
/r/MensRights09/12/23 06:32 PM
2

We definitely put things together from thrift shops, craft stores and similar. I haven't sewn a full costume since she was little, but usually do alterations. Last year she went as Dionysus to a Greek gods themed party. She wore a purple velvet skirt from the thrift store, a white sarong stitched into a toga style top, gladiator sandals she already had and a wreath wired together from vines and grapes from the craft store. This year it was Howl (from Howl's Moving Castle) with diamond pattern ca…
/r/MensRights09/12/23 03:24 PM
2

I already have a job, I don't need another. The best I can do is support the few companies that do make what I want and have things tailored or custom made where practical. For example, I have several skirts that I bought directly from a designer so they would a) be the perfect length for me and b) have deep pockets.
/r/MensRights09/12/23 03:06 PM
4

Boycotting sexy Halloween costumes is just making your own, or buying the men's version instead and tailoring it. That's a good option for crafty individuals, but it doesn't really solve the problem of the whole Spirit women's section being "sexy (fill in the blank)." I help my daughter (21) with costumes every year because I can sew. But that's never going to register with a costume company as demand for not-sexy costumes.
/r/MensRights09/12/23 02:42 PM
-3

But if sexy options are the only ones available, the choice is to buy sexy costumes or don't buy one at all. Similarly, it's a struggle to find women's shorts in a length between "shorty-shorts" and "bermuda." So I often end up buying ones shorter than I'd like because that's all there is. And the clothing companies keep making short shorts because they sold. But my purchase doesn't reflect what I, as a consumer, actually wanted.
/r/MensRights09/12/23 01:53 PM
1

It's not men's fault, but there's definitely a weird feedback loop going on here. Nearly every Halloween costume for sale for women is some variation of sexy, so even if you didn't really want a sexy costume, that's what there is to choose from. Then companies make more sexy costumes because they sold, and the cycle continues. I help my daughter (21) make her own costumes to get a non-sexy version. It's the same with other clothing complaints, like short shorts and non-functional pockets. You ca…
/r/MensRights09/12/23 01:02 PM
1

Did you miss the part in my previous post where I said I supported paper abortions? I'm not really sure what more you want here. Besides, none of this is relevant to the situation I described. If my husband and I both wanted an abortion, and I couldn't get one, he'd still have to pay a bunch of money for a child he didn't want. How does that help his situation, as a man?
/r/MensRights07/12/23 11:34 PM
1

That's affecting his money not his body. He's going to have to work whether we have another kid or not. It's kind of a moot point for married couples anyway. It wouldn't take a pregnancy for one of us to have a decades long effect on the other's finances. Everything I spend or save affects him and vice versa. In a perfect world, women and men would share the choice and the risk equally. Realistically, you can't legislate totally equality because biology isn't fair.
/r/MensRights07/12/23 08:40 PM
1

Logistically, science has provided a back up plan for unintended pregnancies. It's "ok" to use that option wherever allowed by law. Morally, there's no way I can explain it where we'd see eye to eye. No point attempting that.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 11:04 PM
0

I don't want anything from you. You asked why women fight for abortions and I provided some examples. You think I'm wrong, I think you're worng-, neither of us will convince the other. It doesn't really bother me.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 10:23 PM
0

I already answered that- because it's my body experiencing the pregnancy. My husband doesn't get to make medical decisions about my body and I don't get to make medical decisions about his. In that, we're perfectly equal. I actually support the idea of a "paper abortion" where men have a period of time to sign away responsibility. But in the US, we need much stronger social networks for low income kids to make it feasible.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 10:16 PM
-4

"By having sex you agree to have baby. This is what post was about." Modern medicine and the state of NY say otherwise. I'll defend your right to follow your own moral code, but you don't get to impose it on me.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 09:57 PM
-1

My husband wouldn't have to force me to have an abortion, because I'd already want one. Did you not understand my first comment? As it is, he agrees that I should have an abortion if contraceptives fail. In the end, it's my right to decide because it's my body being used as life support and I'm the one who would suffer injury for a pregnancy/birth. Talking about my neighbor isn't really comparable unless they're using my body for life support. If that were the case, I'd feel perfectly justified …
/r/MensRights06/12/23 09:48 PM
0

There's so many reasons why women want access to abortions. Ask 10 women and you'll get 10 answers. For myself, I want abortion as a back up in case my birth control fails. For my daughter, I want abortion to be easily available in case she ever has a pregnancy go wrong. I would never want her being forced to carry a nonviable fetus or risk her health on a pregnancy.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 09:27 PM
6

Agreed. By the time I was 18 my boomer parents complained bitterly about how difficult it was to raise me and my brother. Ironically, they weren't nearly as involved parents as my spouse and I are with our own daughter.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 02:27 PM
2

It's not like parenting is ever really easy though. Yes, toddlers need more hands on care. But that focus just shifts to other areas as they grow, and an involved parent is going to be pretty busy well into high school. I'd say when they can drive themselves is the major turning point. But then college comes and their needs shift again- mostly it's $$$ and an ear for anxious ramblings. Parenting is definitely not for the faint of heart. Or those who enjoy having their own time and money.
/r/MensRights06/12/23 01:04 PM
2

That's basically the same thing. A phrase used for everything loses all meaning and power as a critique.
/r/MensRights05/12/23 05:08 PM
0

I think most people don't have a problem with "cat lady" because it's an insult without teeth. Staying single, as a woman, doesn't have the same stigma it used to. Besides, people use it as an insult for any women they don't like. I've been called a cat lady online plenty of times but I'm married, with a daughter.
/r/MensRights04/12/23 04:45 PM
1

Education, suffrage and career opportunities are things men historically had more access to than women, which is the point. You're moving the goalposts to argue that inequality didn't exist. Using these same points, you could argue that black men in the US were not oppressed because they had the same access to voting, education and job opportunities as the poorest white men. What's your opinion on that group?
/r/MensRights03/12/23 03:42 PM
3

The simple answer- they need the second income to be middle class. And kids are hella expensive. A house in the suburbs, family vacations, extracurricular activities and college savings add up fast. I'd rather be financially stable with two incomes than scraping by on one.
/r/MensRights02/12/23 08:33 PM
2

Most women also can't find a spouse wealthy enough to support a SAH. This seems like a classic apex fallacy.
/r/MensRights02/12/23 04:01 PM
2

I kind of lump all rumors, secrets and unofficial news under "gossip." It's certainly possible for things to be secret, but not mean. Like finding out other coworkers' salaries or that someone is going to change departments, or take a job elsewhere. Or that a certain project is likely to be canned. I'd much rather be ahead of the tide when it comes to information at work.
/r/MensRights30/11/23 11:07 PM
5

Gossip might be detrimental to the organization, but it can be very beneficial to the individual. Yeah, gossip can be catty, but it can also be a good source of information that hasn't made it through the official channels yet. Especially things like changes in personnel, job openings and new projects/initiatives. Used right, you can make sure you're the right person, in the right place, to benefit. And, women might be more inclined, but they're certainly not alone. A couple of upper management …
/r/MensRights30/11/23 10:08 PM
1

What's there to celebrate? Reading in the lowest performing group of boys declined, and reading in the lowest performing group of girls declined more. None of that is good news.
/r/MensRights30/11/23 12:38 PM
1

No reduction necessary. Having sex in exchange for meals and/or accommodations is pretty straightforward.
/r/MensRights30/11/23 12:26 PM
1

What would you call trading sex for goods or services, then? It doesn't change because the hooker's horny.
/r/MensRights28/11/23 11:42 PM
1

That sounds like prostitution with extra steps.
/r/MensRights28/11/23 08:49 PM
1

And they accept them? I've never been interested in sleeping with men unless I know them very well. I always assumed that disinterested attitude in clubs/bars is why guys weren't buying me drinks. I've been asked out and hit on plenty by men in my social circle, and had some marriage proposals, so I figure I can't be actually unattractive.
/r/MensRights28/11/23 06:19 PM
2

Not being promiscuous is more likely to be the problem. Someone who doesn't sleep around is going to be less comfortable offering sex (or the suggestion of sex) for freebies. I also didn't get free stuff from randos. In relationships, sure. But I've never had a stranger buy me a drink at a bar or ask me to dinner out of the blue.
/r/MensRights28/11/23 02:33 PM
4

France, Italy and Turkey were the problem children. It's a little funny, since I go to NYC pretty often and never had an issue there.
/r/MensRights28/11/23 02:14 AM
11

I've had people try to rob me on a public street/subway (in Europe) and had several people try the local scams. Thanks but no thanks. I think I'll pass on any risky situations with strangers.
/r/MensRights27/11/23 11:43 PM
51

This all sounds extremely dangerous.
/r/MensRights27/11/23 11:12 PM
1

Dramatic effect. Stories told with greater flair are more interesting.
/r/MensRights25/11/23 12:02 PM
1

Sorry, I just don't agree with your take on this. When people talk about men being paid more for the same work,they aren't talking about manual labor. Is there really anyone saying female construction workers or truck drivers are making less than their male counterparts? I've always heard the equal pay complaint about those corporate jobs with a huge pay range. I work in purchasing and the buyers make between $55k and $80k. There's a lot of room for subjectivity. I'm not sure what point you're t…
/r/MensRights23/11/23 01:59 PM
1

So you're only talking about jobs where there is a "safe" option vs a "dangerous" option? That's oddly specific. Most jobs are dangerous because of an inherent risk of the work itself- like there being a lot of driving. Extra danger doesn't necessarily mean more pay. For example, someone doing garbage pickup and a receiver in a warehouse both make about the same, and they're both low skill manual labor, but one is less dangerous than the other and gets to work indoors. I don't think women make l…
/r/MensRights22/11/23 12:18 PM
1

I don't think these types of jobs are what people think of when they say men earn more. I mean, dangerous jobs in the US don't actually pay that well. Most of the highest fatality jobs (loggers, construction workers, truck drivers, sanitation workers) pay mid 40s. That's less than median salary.
/r/MensRights21/11/23 12:24 PM
2

Staying home isn't all it's cracked up to be, either. I usually work, but did the stay at home thing for 9 months during an unemployment. It's incredibly lonely to be home alone all day, every day, and I went a little overboard filling that space with projects. I'd much rather work from a mental health perspective. And the extra $$$ doesn't hurt either. Different situations work better for different people.
/r/MensRights20/11/23 03:35 PM
1

I get what you're saying about quotas in other fields, but that doesn't really answer my question about quotas in this field. Say x number of women apply to be sanitation workers each year. Whether there's a quota or not, you can't hire more than x female sanitation workers. Unless there are women applying for these types of jobs and they're getting passed over for male applicants. That's the only situation I can see where a quota would help. Unless I'm missing something. I'm genuinely curious h…
/r/MensRights20/11/23 12:25 PM
1

And how exactly will a quota help in this situation? Having a quota doesn't mean more women will apply to those undesirable jobs. You can't hire from a pool of candidates that doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights19/11/23 11:52 PM
1

I'm not really for quotas in general, but even more so when it's impossible to enforce. If women aren't applying to those dirty/dangerous jobs, how will a quota fix things? Companies can't hire people who didn't apply. It seems like the real solution is to a) make those jobs cleaner and safer to begin with (or automate them out of existence) and b) find a way to make those jobs more appealing to women, in particular.
/r/MensRights19/11/23 11:50 PM
1

I agree, but there's an additional difficulty in meeting a quota for an undesirable job. If women don't apply to those jobs, it's impossible to enforce the quota. At my last job there was a diversity focus group that was tasked with getting more qualified women and/or minority applicants and they interviewed me after I was hired. They wanted to know everything about why I chose their company, like how I heard about the job, community perception of the company and whether I would recommend the jo…
/r/MensRights19/11/23 04:58 PM
9

How would you enforce it? Those industries can try to attract more female candidates like the corporate jobs do. But, at the end of the day, you can't force people into certain jobs to meet a quota.
/r/MensRights19/11/23 03:20 PM
1

I guess I'm not sure why it matters if you or I (or anyone) thinks certain jobs deserve more pay than others. That's not how wages are determined. If some aspect of a job makes it undesirable, employers should pay whatever is needed to convince someone to take it. Most of the more dangerous jobs here in the US aren't high paying, but it's decent for someone without a degree. But there's much more profitable careers out there.
/r/MensRights19/11/23 11:14 AM
1

I'm kind of amazed that ambulance crews get paid. Here, there's paid paramedics that go on more involved calls (no more than one per crew), but all the EMTs are volunteer. If you're certified and willing to work for free- you've got the job. It's mostly nursing and premed students from the local college who want experience for their resumes.
/r/MensRights18/11/23 03:02 PM
0

Like I said, supply and demand. Employers should pay however much they need to for someone with the necessary skills to be willing to take the job. That does usually mean extra for dangerous jobs. Not so much for manual labor.
/r/MensRights18/11/23 04:05 AM
2

It's not like construction workers make a ton of money either. Median for construction is $45k here, but minimum wage for salaried employees is $55k. I'm in purchasing, and that's basically an entry level buyer. In other words, a college degree and a couple years supply chain experience. I'd argue that the fact men are more likely to excel at physical jobs is a pretty good argument for women not to enter those fields. I'm 5'2 with noodle arms, I was never going to cut it in manual labor. So, a c…
/r/MensRights17/11/23 08:31 PM
10

Salary is all supply and demand, though. I make more sitting at a desk than construction workers do. But there are fewer people with my skill set than those who can do construction.
/r/MensRights17/11/23 07:45 PM
1

We are definitely going to have to disagree on the "most people are selfish" idea. I've been both the giver and receiver of charity, as well as participating in (or organizing) many fundraisers, walks, donation drives, etc. Most people are what I'd call a moderate amount of selfless. They'll give of their time and money as long as it's not too inconvenient. It seems to me that lack of resources (time,money or energy) is what limits people's generosity the most, not indifference. And that's for s…
/r/MensRights15/11/23 04:21 PM
2

Well, bare minimum to get by in society =/= bare minimum to be in a relationship. Not breaking the the law or doing drugs are bare minimum for society. You're allowed to be morally neutral if you want. But, I'd consider what I described as a "good person" to be bare minimum for a relationship. Otherwise, they'd be pretty selfish- not a very desirable partner. Honestly, it seems strange to me that you'd describe those things as something a man would have to go out of his way to do. I kind of cons…
/r/MensRights15/11/23 11:36 AM
2

I don't think most people would agree with your definition of "good." Being normal and not weird is superficial. It just means you have good social skills and can fit in well with others. To most people, being a good person means showing a sense of morality and virtuous character.
/r/MensRights15/11/23 11:21 AM
2

So, what do you consider a "good" person? You mention no drugs, no criminal record, proper hygiene, a sense of humor, and being normal, but those traits are morally neutral. And the baseline of what's expected in society. To really be good, a person has to do good acts. Like being a kind and compassionate friend, a dependable family member and an involved participant in their community. And the character traits that prompt someone to do those kinds of acts (empathy, generosity, loyalty, humblene…
/r/MensRights14/11/23 12:10 PM
0

Tight clothes are more practical when you have to check the lines of your body. Things like dance- style workouts or yoga. I also take figure skating lessons in the winter. Workout leggings are perfect for that.
/r/MensRights12/11/23 04:15 PM
1

This touches on a common gripe for me- there aren't a lot of inseam options for women's shorts. I can think of only one store in my area that carries options between "short shorts" and "bermuda." It's very frustrating, especially because thise short shorts rise up so bad. I usually end up wearing a sundress unless I'm doing something active, or it's windy out. Interestingly, I get more rude comments/catcalls wearing dresses than shorty shorts, even though it's less revealing. Go figure.
/r/MensRights12/11/23 04:11 PM
2

Same. I see plenty of men out and about in exercise tights and shorts- just like women. No one bats an eye at it.
/r/MensRights12/11/23 04:06 PM
0

Sounds like he's telling on himself if he needs to financially strong-arm a woman to stay with him.
/r/MensRights10/11/23 10:31 PM
9

Couldn't disagree more. I'm so glad my parents stopped trying to "stay together for the kids." It's miserable being a child in a house where the adults can't stand each other. Tension at every meal, constant arguments and having to walk on eggshells is not a healthy home environment. Better to leave no fault divorce and, instead, work on fixing the court system so dads can get equal custody.
/r/MensRights10/11/23 10:30 PM
1

That link sums it up. More US men than women are overweight and obese, but more women are severely obese. Bottom line- most Anericans are overweight, regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights18/10/23 10:24 AM
1

In the US, pregnant women can sometimes receive partial payment for parental leave by filing a claim with disability insurance (if they have it). But that leaves men and people adopting or fostering kids taking unpaid leave. 11 state governments have programs to cover paid leave, but the other 39 don't. Some mployers here will keep employee hours just low enough to not be considered full-time so they don't have to cover benefits such as health insurance. Anything to save a buck, ya know.
/r/MensRights17/10/23 11:58 AM
2

But I know of a woman who was made redundant by her employer when she was about take her leave. Wow, that sounds like the grounds for a very successful lawsuit. Lack of parental leave is just one example- the US is just generally bad when it comes to protecting workers. Like, you can take up to three months for disability, parental leave or to care for an ill family member, but it's unpaid. And employers aren't required to provide sick time or other PTO.
/r/MensRights17/10/23 10:06 AM
1

Damn, where do you live where parental leave is 6-12 months? Here in the US, it's 6-12 weeks. I'm seriously jealous of people who live in countries where workers are prioritized.
/r/MensRights17/10/23 08:49 AM
1

And frankly, they don’t do it for men anyway, they do it for themselves and to show up other women. A lot of men don't realize how much women are dressing for each other. Women are constantly forming opinions based on how other women present themselves. Stuff like social status and personality. Besides, compliments from women are the best. A man might say a dress looks nice, but only a woman will appreciate that it has pockets and have a discussion about the brand.
/r/MensRights17/10/23 08:13 AM
1

Women put in more effort, mostly. They tend to pay more attention to skincare, haircare, and grooming in general. Also, women have a lot more options when it comes to fashion. Anyone can dress in a way that flatters her figure if she tries.
/r/MensRights17/10/23 08:02 AM
6

Honestly, involved dads deserve all the praise. Kudos to all the men out there coaching youth sports, running booster clubs, homework helping, playing chauffeur, and showing up for every game/concert/PTA night. Gold star for them
/r/MensRights16/10/23 09:34 PM
1

I'm talking about employers providing leave, sick time, and other benefits. You know, the stuff you said you aren't in favor of. If you let employers do whatever, most will take advantage of employees in favor of profit. That's the nature of capitalism. Government involvement provides a necessary check to protect workers.
/r/MensRights13/10/23 01:13 PM
0

No. That's giving employers carte blanche to take advantage of workers. Government mandates are needed to protect the interests and well-being of individuals.
/r/MensRights13/10/23 12:36 PM
3

But it goes without saying if one group gets special celebratory days then others should too There is an International Day of the Boy. It's May 16th.
/r/MensRights12/10/23 09:38 PM
0

If women does not like the fact that the potential of she can be pregnant results in lower salary either sign a contract or don't do men's jobs It's so hard to tell which is which, you know? I guess purchasing manager must be a woman's job, I'll just stick with that. I really can't say if I would have gotten a different salary as a man, but I'm sure I wouldn't have had a boss ask if I intended to get pregnant. Of course, that boss had been managed out of his position by the time I left that comp…
/r/MensRights12/10/23 06:27 AM
1

You think women lying about their medical history is a better solution than improving family leave access for men? Please make it make sense. I do think it's funny that the paid 3 month leave I actually took wasn't for pregnancy, but as a caregiver for a family member. I guess my boss was right to worry about me being married, but for the wrong reason. Oh well.
/r/MensRights11/10/23 07:09 PM
1

People generally reject anything they perceive as someone else getting a "freebie." Making a policy broad enough to apply to more people activates their self-interest. I seriously doubt most companies would cover maternity leave either if it weren't being paid out as short-term disability by insurance. They're not required to cover it, and many don't. That's not to say there isn't a stigma against men taking the leave they're entitled to. There definitely is, and, as a society, we need to push b…
/r/MensRights11/10/23 11:36 AM
1

The real obstacle is that the US is so pro-corporation at the expense of workers. Even here in NY, it's pretty clear that legislation requiring employers to pay for FMLA leave wasn't going to pass. It had to be set up as a state-managed insurance plan instead, with all workers contributing a very small fee (I pay 1.50/paycheck. The beauty of using FMLA leave as the base is that a) you're building on what already exists, and b) it isn't gender specific. You can use it for parental leave, but also…
/r/MensRights11/10/23 09:41 AM
10

Look at it this way, a young 22 year old comes in, gets hired, then gets married/has kids and now is entitled to the employer paying maternity leave with the potential of the women leaving for good. And that's a big problem. I'm a woman and had my only child at 22, before starting my career. Why should I be treated differently based on the potential to take maternity leave which never actualized? The real solution is to normalize men taking paternity leave. Men get to bond more with their new ch…
/r/MensRights10/10/23 07:15 PM
13

I thought this was a men’s only sub? It's not. Women post here often, too.
/r/MensRights09/10/23 09:58 PM
18

In my experience, married people of both genders readily admit that it's easier to build wealth together. It only makes sense when you've got two incomes but not twice the expenses. And it's easier for marrieds to save money on things like health insurance and auto insurance. A young woman at my work recently asked a male coworker and I (F) how we managed to buy houses by our mid twenties and we both gave the same answer- we have another income!
/r/MensRights09/10/23 09:29 PM
2

How can one know if it was done normally, especially if they had it only once? It's hard to explain the difference until you've seen a few different doctors. A good doctor will go in nice and easy with the speculum and adjust to the tilt of your body. A bad doctor will force it. Also, good docs have all their tools prepped and are in and out scraping for cells, so you're not sitting there with a cranked open speculum up your bits. It helps a lot, too, if you can relax your pelvic and vaginal mus…
/r/MensRights08/10/23 07:08 PM
14

There are regularly posts of women being traumatized when they get a pap smear which involves spreading their vagina and taking a swab sample from inside. To be fair, it's a pretty unpleasant experience. Done right, it's uncomfortable. Done wrong, it can be quite painful. Especially for a first Pap, since the instinct is to clench the muscle, which makes it all worse. I'll immediately switch gyns if they aren't good at giving a Pap test. No point putting up with that.
/r/MensRights08/10/23 05:08 PM
4

It's not even about whether you say something negative - it's how you say it. For example, my husband grew a beard a while back. I'm not a fan of beards, but it's his face, and he was pretty excited about it. When asked, I told him truthfully that I prefer him clean shaven, but (also truthfully) that he was still very handsome. And I found an honest complement I could give about the beard (I liked petting it). Generally healthy couples work it out pretty quickly is one makes the occasional bone …
/r/MensRights08/10/23 04:12 PM
10

I think the solution is simple, more women should train their CPR skill or other survival skills so that they won't need to force random men to help them or other women in an emergency situation. Random men like...paramedics? According to the article, they are also less likely to give CPR to women vs men. I can't see how different quality of medical treatment based on gender of the patient could be a good thing. Truly, more people in general should be trained in CPR and ready to perform it. CPR …
/r/MensRights08/10/23 02:50 PM
-1

But using relationship logic, you should take care not to hurt your partner needlessly. It's ok to be offended if your partner chooses to say something unkind. The worst are the "I'm just being honest" types. 99.9% of the time It's just an excuse for saying something cruel.
/r/MensRights08/10/23 12:44 PM
1

This sounds like a pretty poor example for someone trying to eat healthy. Why not eat balanced meals every day instead of weird extremes?
/r/MensRights07/10/23 09:11 PM
9

And checking those portion sizes now and then with a kitchen scale or measuring cup. Portion inflation by restaurants and food manufacturers gives us a skewed idea of the right amount to eat.
/r/MensRights07/10/23 03:56 PM
15

I know, right? No protein, no whole grains, no veggies, not enough calories. Just yikes all around.
/r/MensRights07/10/23 03:47 PM
20

Of course. Everyone can be underweight if they just don't eat enough calories. You realize this is an unhealthy diet too, right?
/r/MensRights07/10/23 03:13 PM
1

Then men are fools. Someone with terrible credit, or unable to hold down steady work should be a serious red flag. People don't change that much after getting in a relationship. If she's bad with money, not dependable or just coasting through life now, she's not likely to change for the better. On the upside, at least you already know what your future fights will be about.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 12:11 PM
1

The "why" is so important here. Someone living paycheck to paycheck because they can't budget or working a minimum wage job because of a poor work ethic isn't going to make a good partner. Same if they ran up a pile of debt getting an unprofitable degree from an overpriced college. Financial situation is another way to get a read on someone's character.
/r/MensRights01/10/23 12:05 PM
1

State law is often more stringent than federal, though. In my state, it's enough for the discriminatory activity to cause a "hostile work environment" that employer failed to correct. That being said, just one handshake wouldn't create a hostile environment. It would have to be a pattern of behavior.
/r/MensRights26/09/23 10:12 PM
6

It's an interesting situation- basically the intersection of religious discrimination and gender discrimination in the workplace. Not shaking hands doesn't seem like a big deal as long as the person is respectful. And, it goes both ways. Women of those same religions are not allowed to shake hands with men.
/r/MensRights26/09/23 11:00 AM
0

I never claimed it was gender specific. You said that any bad fathers are punished by family court. That's obviously not true, since it's not actually illegal to be a shitty dad. And the OP was asking what MRAs think should be done about bad fathers- not saying that only dads can be bad parents. That seems like a valid question to me. I see a lot of outrage on this thread about men being kept from their children, but not so much for men who are choosing not to be there for their kids. Surely hav…
/r/MensRights23/09/23 04:21 PM
1

Family court doesn't punish men for being absent, though. Or just shitty parents in general, unless they're actually abusive. For example, my parents divorced, and family court didn't do a thing when dad was too caught up with his new wife and kids to visit his "old" kids. What would the court even do? Dad called me 6 months ago (after a 2 year silence) to apologize for being such a bad father and reconnect. Hasn't called since and probably won't for another two years. Some people are just bad p…
/r/MensRights23/09/23 03:59 PM
1

Wow, 5 reply at once. I really must have hit a nerve.
/r/MensRights16/09/23 07:47 AM
1

What if I wanted to quit my job and eat cheese doodles, drink Mountain Dew, and play video games all day at my mom's house? Should I do that if I want to attract a partner? Or should I try to improve myself and acquire traits that the other gender finds attractive? There's a difference between polishing up a little and changing your personality. I know I'm not what traditional men want in a partner. I'm ambitious, don't like being a housewife, I'm not submissive and want an equal partnership. Pr…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 11:23 PM
1

Remember when I said that your personal experiences may not reflect reality? Remember when I stated my actual dating preferences for when I was single and it turned out 1 in 12 men met them? According to the calculator, I'm delusional for thinking I'd find a man with the stats entered. But what actually happened is that I had three serious relationships and three men asking them to marry them. Surely you can see that this doesn't match up. 1 in 12 odds means I'd meet multiple eligible men every …
/r/MensRights15/09/23 11:06 PM
1

What do you think is in romance novels? Hint- it's fucking, described in explicit detail. Sometimes with multiple partners. You're saying it's a fact that women don't consume porn but dismissing the largest category of porn women do consume because...I'm not really sure why. Written descriptions of sexual acts are also porn.
/r/MensRights15/09/23 10:54 PM
1

Increasing your standards isn't going to solve this problem. That very much depends on what your standards are. If I want a man who's attractive and gainfully employed, plus has a good personality and values, that helps the situation quite a lot. Ah, but that's even worse because now you have two sets of standards and preferences that have to match. That's how real relationships work, though. We're all looking for that missing puzzle piece that fits us just right. At the end of the day, whether …
/r/MensRights15/09/23 09:11 PM
1

You've got to be kidding. There's an entire genre of literature built around selling smutty stories to women so they can fantasize about being seduced by a cowboy/fae prince/dom/insert favorite archetype here. The romance section at Barnes and Noble is bigger than any other fiction genre. Then there's sites where millions of women write millions of smutty fanfics about their favorite male characters hooking up with each other. And that's before you even count the women watching porn movies. It's…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 08:31 PM
1

I'm curious-what do you think is the reason that poor women marry less often than rich women? Since it's so easy for them to find wealthy men to marry, why don't they? Honestly, I'm laughing at your description of men dating. Do you think women don't have to take care of their appearance and present themselves well or know how to have a conversation? Sure, some men will cold approach, but they're not really the ones you want to date. Finding a good match is about building a social network and de…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 08:19 PM
1

Why are you so determined to make such sweeping generalizations about all men and all women? It's weird. Most women are not okay with their partners looking at pornography, but men do it anyway for the reasons I've described above. You're thinking about this like a man. Women using porn is very common, and it's fair play for your partner to do the same. women prefer taller men because, more likely than not, a taller man is going to be superior in his fighting capabilities and will be better equi…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 03:54 PM
1

Most people put all the blame on the men, even though the women are the ones screening them. If they screened men better, marriages wouldn't be as awful as they are. In other words, women should be more picky about who they form relationships with, not less. I agree. The marble analogy doesn't really work, because it's only half of the equation. You really have to look at it as two bathtubs, filled with different colored marbles. You're pulling one from each tub to make a match. So, removing a g…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 03:34 PM
1

And no, wealthy people do not tend to marry other wealthy people. No? https://qz.com/work/1812980/high-income-people-in-the-us-keep-marrying-each-other https://www.ined.fr/en/everything_about_population/demographic-facts-sheets/focus-on/choix-conjoint-part-heritage/#:~:text=And%20the%20more%20substantial%20the,heir%20as%20wealthy%20as%20themselves. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/ People marry people like th…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 11:10 AM
1

Why do 50% of marriages end in divorce and half of the remaining couples end up in unhappy marriages? Because people choose poorly, mostly. They get run away with by emotion without considering the practicalities of living with that person day in and day out for the next several decades. Can you elaborate on how it doesn't already take this into account? It's presenting the percent of men with certain characteristics as if it were your chances of finding a partner. But, it's using all men, not j…
/r/MensRights15/09/23 10:32 AM
1

Why would any of the 10 engineers, in this case, pick one woman and settle down with her? Spoken like someone who sees people as numbers instead of individuals. It's very simple- people like having a partner. They enjoy being with one person and building that relationship. Wealthier people are actually more likely to get married and less likely to divorce. And since people tend to marry partners with similar socioeconomic status, wealthy people tend to marry each other. the top 10 or 20 percent …
/r/MensRights14/09/23 11:25 AM
1

It's why some estimates have suggested that around 85% of women will be single and childless by 2040. Which estimates? I've seen this study suggesting 45% of women may be single by 2030, but it doesn't say anything about children. And it includes women who were married and are now divorced or widowed. Over 40% of women in the US are already single, so this isn't even much of a change. There's 100 million adult men in the US, 8% is still a lot of people. That means 1 in 12 men is standard issue b…
/r/MensRights14/09/23 11:11 AM
1

If you want someone who's over 6 feet tall, makes well over the average salary for a man in the U.S., isn't obese, etc., yeah, most men like that are going to be already taken, more often than not, because there's a not a lot of men like that out there. I know. I took one. Seriously though, I think you missed a major point of my previous post. Entering even a pretty low set of standards into the calculator (20s,, single, white, not obese, working at least full time (min $30k here) and just above…
/r/MensRights13/09/23 09:39 PM
1

So expecting men to be single is "standards too high?" Previous poster isn't wrong- that's the main limiting factor. I can practically throw a rock at random and hit an above average height white guy my age with a full time job. They aren't rare. All the guys I dated fit that profile, and three of those were interested in marriage. I am lucky in my husband, though. He's so much more than a set of stats. Truly one of a kind.
/r/MensRights13/09/23 04:34 PM
1

I'm against name calling, by principle. But Incels do hate women, by definition. An incel is a man who is sexless (but doesn't want to be) and blames women/society, holds hateful views towards women and/or expresses violent ideas towards women/general society. A quick search of definitions shows this is the common usage of the term, and it's how I've heard it used IRL.
/r/MensRights11/09/23 07:15 PM
1

Why do think the NY (a literal feminist hellhole) won't choose feminist definition of STEM? Because that doesn't make sense. The state uses those criteria to award full tuition scholarships to students who a) pursue STEM majors and b) take STEM jobs in the state. Deciding which students receive a $30k award based on what will win brownie points with feminists sounds pretty far-fetched. Especially when it's students in female dominated majors not getting scholarships. It's far more logical to thi…
/r/MensRights04/09/23 11:33 AM
1

My "anecdote" is what my state's higher education department considers a STEM major or career to be encouraged via scholarship. I don't think the state of NY is basing their criteria on what feminists think STEM should be. Rather, they're encouraging the fields that drive scientific and technological innovation. Which is the whole point of calling certain fields "STEM" in the first place.
/r/MensRights03/09/23 02:34 PM
2

Medical researchers drive innovation. Clinicians, not so much.
/r/MensRights03/09/23 02:27 PM
0

It makes sense if you think about why STEM is even a thing. Those fields, specifically, are promoted to encourage scientific and technological innovation. Clinical physicians don't really fill that niche. I'd say most people would consider doctors as being in healthcare rather than STEM.
/r/MensRights02/09/23 08:47 PM
8

Or braces. I had them for a couple of years as an adult, and my husband called me his little cheese grater.
/r/MensRights02/09/23 06:04 PM
17

How many women have you known or do you currently know that employed this tactic AND ended up with a wealthy guy? I'll make it even easier- I don't know any women married to a wealthy guy. I'm upper middle class, and all the married people I know are middle or upper middle class. Nobody's got a wealthy spouse. People are looking for someone in a similar place as far as education, career, and having your life figured out. Not this nonsense.
/r/MensRights02/09/23 03:39 PM
2

I've never heard someone claim biology isn't part of STEM. A quick Google search returns a resounding "yes" to the question "is biology STEM?" The major criteria for what constitutes STEM tend to be "hard science" plus "research." Social sciences are soft sciences and medical fields focused on clinical applications aren't involved in research. Biology, obviously, fits both criteria, so it's STEM. Back to the STEM scholarship example, my daughter's a biochem major, but straight biology is also an…
/r/MensRights02/09/23 03:13 PM
6

Excluding social sciences and medicine from STEM seems to be the norm, even when sex isn't part of the discussion. For example, my kid has tuition paid by the NYS "STEM Incentive" scholarship, which is sex neutral. It specifically does not cover medical/dental/veterinary studies or social sciences as they are not considered "STEM."
/r/MensRights02/09/23 01:18 PM
2

Coming of age rituals, ceremonies, or celebrations
/r/MensRights31/08/23 08:48 PM
4

1) barbie is a parody Yes. "Barbieland" is a tongue in cheek take on how girls play with their dolls. Barbie is clearly the main character at playtime. Ken is an accessory and doesn't come out of the toy box until he's needed to be Barbie's date/back up singer/coworker/etc. And that's why Barbie doesn't know where Ken lives. Mattel doesn't make a house for Ken Just like how Barbie doesn't walk down stairs, cook or care for her house. It just happens by "play" logic.
/r/MensRights31/08/23 03:37 PM
2

Yeah, it's kind of funny that you get a can of sealant instead of a spare in so many new cars now. Especially small, high fuel efficiency cars. But it gets the job done. It was interesting when car manufacturers started doing it, but I didn't think much of it till my daughter was learning to drive. Neither of the cars she drives is equipped with a jack or spare, so teaching her how to change a tire was purely theoretical, via youtube.
/r/MensRights30/08/23 10:45 PM
2

Wait, y'all have spare tires? The last three (new) cars I bought had run-flat tires and a can of fix-a-flat.
/r/MensRights30/08/23 11:09 AM
33

Well, context matters. My husband likes to joke that I domesticated him (from fratboy to husband), so sometimes I say it too. Similarly, we both kid that he's the only thing standing between me and too many cats. It's clearly in good fun. It's different if partners are being mean spirited about it.
/r/MensRights28/08/23 10:14 PM
3

Agreed, spoiling should go both ways. I do think a lot of women in happy relationships are spoiling their men, but it flies under the radar. Romantic gifts for women tend to fall into a few categories- flowers, chocolates, and jewelery. But there isn't really a stereotypical gift for men. So far this year, I've done nice dinners and sex for my husband (of course). But I've also given him a circular saw, taken road trips for hiking, escape rooms and double features at his favorite drive in theate…
/r/MensRights28/08/23 08:48 PM
2

I was thinking more along the lines of what you have in your house. For example, when I met my husband, he had a bunch of fraternity swag around his apartment. Everything about the place screamed "bachelor pad." It was fine for an early 20s man just starting to think about settling down. But some of his frat brothers decorated like that into their 30s. That's a red flag for a woman looking for a serious relationship. Maybe have a married friend or female relative take a look at your place to be …
/r/MensRights27/08/23 01:24 PM
12

Is there something in your place that would be a common red flag? My first thought is that she saw something there that prompted the "different places in life" comment.
/r/MensRights27/08/23 11:18 AM
1

Side note: how the fuck could they tell he's have Down syndrome while embryo Screening for Down syndrome (and other potential health problems) is done by testing the mother's blood and looking for certain identifiers in the ultrasound image. If Down syndrome is suspected after screening, a sample of amniotic fluid or placental cells is tested. Down syndrome is genetic, but not usually hereditary.
/r/MensRights26/08/23 04:34 AM
1

Nah, roasted veggies taste better- they have all those browned bits. And it's easy. Just toss with olive oil and seasonings and throw in the oven. The only real "work" is cutting up the veggies and washing the pan.
/r/MensRights25/08/23 10:40 AM
1

You can get legal documents for some of those benefits, but not all of them. A few years ago, my husband had cancer, and I took a 12 week FMLA leave to care for him. Federal law protected my job, and state law made sure I got paid. Those programs are only available to care for a spouse, child, or parent. Similarly, I've been on my husband's health insurance for 10 years (it's cheaper). Only available to spouses and dependent children. Weddings are as cheap or expensive as you choose. We were mar…
/r/MensRights24/08/23 07:06 PM
1

I bought a mini rice cooker so I have fresh rice every day for bento lunches. Total game changer! I like to prep and/or roast a bunch of veggies on the weekend. Mains and sides I'd rather cook fresh. I can't stand reheated meat. And when I'm feeling fancy- French cuisine. But that's a weekend thing.
/r/MensRights24/08/23 06:41 PM
2

Cooking is fun, I would do that for leisure. Cleaning is just something that has to be done. I'll admit, I make sure I'm on chef duty 95% of the time. My husband does dishes and kitchen clean up.
/r/MensRights24/08/23 04:42 PM
1

Good for you? My daughter's faster than me with laundry too, but she also leaves it in the basket until she's ready to wear it. Faster/slower doesn't mean much out of context.
/r/MensRights24/08/23 04:39 PM
27

Your wife is the person you are going to do some VERY hard things with. Just wanted to point out that many of the legal benefits of marriage apply when things go bad (at least in the US). It's what lets you add your spouse to your health insurance plan and protects your job if one of you needs leave to care for the other (FMLA). Being married allows you to make medical decisions when your partner is unable and guarantees hospital/hospice visitation. And, if the worst happens, a spouse gets to ma…
/r/MensRights24/08/23 02:25 PM
1

I think it's funny that you're fixated on the easiest load of laundry and not the ones where we're stripping beds or hanging clothes. Just for giggles, I asked my husband how long he thought a load of clothes takes and he said 20 minutes. If he's right, it's still 4 hours a week. I have 3 adults in my house. There's work clothes 5 days a week, with extras like undershirts, camis, cardigans and tights. Also 2-3 sets of pjs and exercise clothes each and my daughter's EMT uniform washed 1-2 times p…
/r/MensRights23/08/23 01:36 PM
4

I'm not sure what other criteria you would use unless one partner has a particularly strenuous job. I'd say you should make allowances for that. And it can change from week to week. I traveled for work last week so my husband did more at home. He put in extra hours for an audit this week, so I picked up more chores. In my own house, we work (paid) at about the same time and do housework at about the same time. Then our free time is in sync so we can do things together. That works great.
/r/MensRights23/08/23 01:29 PM
0

For one load: sort out from hamper take to laundry room and start washer go back and move to dryer go back and get towels empty lint trap fold towels and put away put away laundry basket in laundry room All of those steps take a couple of minutes and they includes 4 trips to the basement. Every person in my house takes a turn at laundry- it takes about the same amount of time for everyone. Also, clothes sometimes take more than 30 minutes because you have to empty pockets, separate undershirts/s…
/r/MensRights23/08/23 10:19 AM
4

Why should both partners contribute the same amount of time to maintaining the household? It's a fair distribution of labor and helps prevent partners from resenting each other. Why wouldn't the work be split evenly?
/r/MensRights23/08/23 09:55 AM
1

Laundry is one of those things that seems like no big deal- until I think about how much there is. For my family, per week, it's 7 loads clothes, 2 loads bathroom towels, 1 load kitchen towels, and 2 loads bed linens. At roughly 30 minutes hands-on per load, that's 6 hours a week.
/r/MensRights23/08/23 12:49 AM
15

Taking unpaid labor into consideration is pretty important to having a happy marriage/relationship. To be fair, each partner should spend an equal number of hours paid work plus unpaid work. But, it's tough to make sweeping generalizations about who does more since there's endless variability in family arrangements. My spouse and I both spend about 45 hours at work and 15 hours on unpaid work per week. But we divided unpaid labor differently when one of us had a longer commute or wasn't working.
/r/MensRights22/08/23 09:21 PM
1

Is it harder for young people to establish their own households and families while also paying back their parents? Absolutely. How could there be any question? Everyone is free to help their parents if they want to, but I certainly won't be helping mine- mom is dead, and dad calls once every year or two. As a parent myself, the only "repayment" I expect from my daughter is for her to live a happy life, successful in whatever endeavors she chooses to pursue. The financial responsibility only flow…
/r/MensRights22/08/23 06:44 PM
3

then the resources expended on the child are tracked and the child is expected to pay the parents back with interest when they are old enough to do so That's pretty hard on the kids. They didn't ask to be born or have any say in what kind of upbringing they received. I'd say the parents have a responsibility to provide their kid's upbringing, with no expectation of being compensated.
/r/MensRights22/08/23 05:26 PM
2

I'm amazed they have paid EMT crews. Around here, each ambulance has a paramedic (paid) and 1-2 crew members (usually unpaid). You basically need EMT certification, a reasonable amount of physical fitness, and a desire to work for nothing. Mostly nursing and premed students from the local college. My daughter does it to pad out her med school resume.
/r/MensRights21/08/23 05:45 PM
1

This sounds like a recipe for a terrible relationship. I can't imagine my spouse or I calling the other "lazy." That's so hurtful. Finding a partner with a genuine desire to split work, housework, and relationship work means not having to resort to keeping score.
/r/MensRights18/08/23 04:09 PM
6

As a woman, this feels a little patronizing. Books by female authors are great. Packing them in pink boxes with beauty products- not so much.
/r/MensRights17/08/23 11:12 PM
1

Since you're asking, the problem with college funding isn't who's giving private scholarships for what. I have no problem with people specifying who they want to give their money to, even when it excludes me. No point making that more complicated than it needs to be. The real issue is that college tuition at state schools should be covered by taxes, for all students in good standing. My kid's entire tuition is covered by the state of NY (STEM Incentive). Back in the day, my tuition was covered i…
/r/MensRights12/08/23 05:25 PM
0

I have never seen a sex specific scholarship that was tax funded (I'm in NY). I absolutely agree that those shouldn't exist. But privately funded programs and scholarships are a different thing altogether.
/r/MensRights12/08/23 03:11 PM
1

I'm not sure what the point is of having applicants submit blind essays, not knowing what the scholarship grant committee is looking for. It seems super frustrating and won't put students in their best light My daughter's in college now, and the scholarships she was awarded were for very different achievements. Such as: volunteer work, student leadership, membership in a particular marching band, academics, intent to enter a STEM major (and high academics), and activism in the LGBTQ community as…
/r/MensRights12/08/23 03:07 PM
1

From a practical standpoint, donations for scholarships will probably dry up if scholarships were open to everyone and anonymous. Think about how private scholarships get set up in the first place. Usually, someone has a pet cause, and they want to promote it. So they set up a scholarship to benefit people in their in-group of choice. Sons of Italy only want to support Italians, Pride coalitions want to help LGBTQ kids, and the Jewish community center is focused on assisting Jews. Tell all those…
/r/MensRights12/08/23 02:32 PM
2

Women only scholarships are privately funded too (at least in the US), because those are exempt from Title IX. Any educational institution that receives federal funding can't discriminate based on sex. So, a Women's Business Association can grant women only scholarships, but the college that group is affiliated with cannot. Same thing applies to groups granting men only scholarships- like fraternities, for example.
/r/MensRights12/08/23 02:18 PM
3

There already are scholarships that are only for men. For example: https://scholarships360.org/scholarships/scholarships-for-men/#:~:text=Scholarships%20for%20men%20are%20less,top%20college%20scholarships%20for%20men! https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarships/scholarships-by-type/scholarships-for-men/ There are more scholarships for women,but both kinds exist.
/r/MensRights12/08/23 12:34 PM
-2

When the criteria is just "women or nothing", that's not specific at all. It doesn't have to be specific, though. The main take away is that scholarship granting groups/individuals can pick absolutely any group they want to promote. Are there people out there who want to encourage women, in particular, to go to college? Sure. Just like there are those giving scholarships just to Catholics, or people of Italian descent, or wrestlers. That being said, we reviewed hundreds of scholarship opportunit…
/r/MensRights12/08/23 11:54 AM
-4

Here in the US, women only scholarships are private scholarships. Private scholarships are basically a donation by a group or individual to whatever type of student they prefer. Disadvantage doesn't have to figure into the equation at all. I helped my daughter search scholarship databases recently, and there were so many niche criteria for different scholarships. Things like race, religion, and ethnic heritage- but also playing a particular sport or instrument. Among those my daughter received w…
/r/MensRights12/08/23 10:11 AM
1

Is it what they want to see? I'd say so. Women have been saying for years that they want models who look more like average women. As in, a wide variety of sizes, body shapes and looks- without photo retouching. Other lingerie brands using more inclusive models have been very well received. Like Aerie, who feature models of varying sizes and ages, as well as some with visible disabilities. Savage x Fenty takes it even farther with trans models, models with prosthetic limbs, and plus sized male mo…
/r/MensRights11/08/23 10:59 AM
1

Hope the ESG scoring is adequate for their investors to counter the declining customer base - but probably not. Yeah, it probably won't turn things around for VS- they've been losing market share for years. Going inclusive now just seems desperate. I mean, jumping on the body positive bandwagon only after they were called out in a top 40s song feels a bit...insincere.
/r/MensRights10/08/23 07:00 PM
1

I'd need good luck to find an actual VS store. They used to be in every mall, but not anymore. It's no great loss, though. It's not good quality for the price anyway. There's much better options out there.
/r/MensRights10/08/23 02:45 PM
2

How large are we talking? VS's largest panty size is XXL/20.
/r/MensRights10/08/23 01:37 PM
3

Most of Victoria's Secrets customers are women. Basing the website/catalog on what they want to see is just good marketing.
/r/MensRights10/08/23 11:17 AM
-3

What I'm hearing is that you agree that relative income isn't the best way to determine how to split up work at home.
/r/MensRights05/08/23 01:39 PM
0

That kind of inflexibility isn't very conducive to a happy marriage. And it ignores the fact that most couples enjoy both having free time so they can spend it together. Besides, by the same logic, one partner shouldn't shoulder any more of the household responsibilities when the other has to take on more hours, but not more pay. For example, my husband had a nine month stint where he was being sent out of town M-F every week and was only home on weekends. Another time, he had to take a job with…
/r/MensRights05/08/23 12:09 PM
-11

I was just going to say this. I couldn't care less what dirty thoughts got my SO riled up if I'm the one reaping the benefits.
/r/MensRights04/08/23 02:46 PM
1

What I'm saying is that skills fewer people have are in higher demand- that's it. Yes, I've got over a decade of experience and a truckload of training to do what I do. Not everyone is interested in or has the opportunity to pursue those skills, which makes them less common. For example, I'm currently working on a certification that will open doors for advancement. I know I'm lucky to have the time for months of classes and an employee tuition assistance program to foot the $5k bill. But those l…
/r/MensRights27/07/23 10:21 AM
1

Good for him? It's not a contest, they can both be gross Working hotel laundry was my summer job when I was 17. I learned quickly that it wasn't for me. On the other hand, my daughter spent last summer shadowing a (female) pathologist through a series of autopsies as a prep for med school. She loved it. It takes all types to make the world go round.
/r/MensRights26/07/23 01:10 PM
1

But there's still a lot of people who can move a fridge, so the relative demand for that skill is low. As a supply chain professional, I do tasks that receivers at my company can't do, and they do things I can't (such as lifting heavy objects). One of those skill sets is less common than the other and earns a much higher salary.
/r/MensRights26/07/23 01:04 PM
-2

Ok, so what point do you think I missed here? I never said oil rig workers (or anyone) were sissies. The previous poster just jumped to conclusions. Op asked why more women weren't working dangerous jobs, and I provided one possible answer.
/r/MensRights25/07/23 06:56 PM
-5

When did I say that? I'm not expecting any kind of special treatment. I've been more than willing to compete with men for every position I've had. Every candidate should be evaluated solely on their merits. Op asked why women aren't as likely to work dangerous jobs, and I offered my experience as a woman. I'm just not qualified. It's not like every woman works a desirable job either. There's plenty of thankless, manual labor work in women dominated fields, such as health aides, housekeepers, and…
/r/MensRights25/07/23 06:53 PM
1

It depends on the task. The rarer the skill, the more you can charge.
/r/MensRights25/07/23 05:11 PM
1

It's all relative, I guess. I thought it was pretty gross washing linens with strangers' blood, urine and semen- others may disagree. It's definitely dirtier than my current job.
/r/MensRights25/07/23 05:09 PM
-7

People in general aren't interchangeable, regardless of sex. Everyone has different skills and abilities. Mine just happen to be better suited to management than manual labor. Some women are just fine with heavy lifting, just like some men aren't. But there's no denying that men on average are stronger than women. Gender is a social construct. Biological sex is the part that's fixed
/r/MensRights25/07/23 03:57 PM
-7

Congratulations on missing my entire point. If I struggled to lift a 30 lb bag at a home improvement store, do you think I'd have a promising career as an oil rig worker? I'm just being realistic about what my abilities are..
/r/MensRights25/07/23 12:19 PM
-6

As a woman, here's my take on it. Dangerous jobs are generally physical jobs. And I've never considered a career that involved physical labor for two reasons. Like a lot of kids, I was taught that going to college and getting a white collar job is the path to success. I was never going to be able to be competitive in a job that required physical strength. So, it made a lot more sense for me to go for a job that emphasizes my strengths. I went to college and got a white-collar mid level managemen…
/r/MensRights25/07/23 10:08 AM
3

It's always been the case that people with small kids get more leeway with flexible hours, work from home, and time off. My husband and I certainly did when our daughter was pre-school/school age. Now that she's in college- not so much. But, the requested vacation in the article had nothing to do with her coworkers being moms. They just submitted their time earlier. Simple as that.
/r/MensRights24/07/23 11:54 AM
8

Yeah, it's not about kids. Nothing is stopping OP from putting her requests in way in advance in the future. PTO is generally approved first come, first serve.
/r/MensRights24/07/23 11:46 AM
10

I could see that. I live in the kind of suburb where the women's garden club maintains a flower garden in the local park, so flowers are kind of a big deal. People definitely talk behind their hands if you don't have landscaping beyond just grass.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 04:31 PM
13

but the only way they got to that figure is ignoring cutting the grass, cleaning the gutters, fixing the drain I have to ask- are wives not doing yard work other places? Around here, the norm is for men to mow and women to take care of flower beds and planters/baskets. In my experience, planting, weeding, pruning, mulching, and watering is roughly equal to mowing, in terms of hours worked. I see yard work brought up as something men do so often that I'm wondering if the normal chore split here i…
/r/MensRights23/07/23 04:20 PM
86

It is interesting how the "women's spaces" you mentioned are named after the purpose of the room, while a "man cave" is all about gender. We should call a space by what it's for. The men I know have game rooms, home theaters, workshops, and greenhouses. Not man caves.
/r/MensRights23/07/23 01:38 PM
16

I'm pretty sure the pregnant doll was one of Barbie's friends, rather than Barbie herself. (Midge, maybe?)
/r/MensRights19/07/23 04:18 PM
31

When I was a kid, Mattel accidentally made a gay Ken. They wanted him to wear current club fashions to appeal to girls, but missed the mark. Best selling Ken they've ever made. Yes, Ken sometimes has careers to complement Barbie's. But he's had 40 different jobs and she's had 200. Barbie has always been the main character, and Ken is the attractive boyfriend/sidekick. Which makes perfect sense for a toy marketed to little girls. No one was clambering to play Ken when the Barbies came out.
/r/MensRights19/07/23 01:14 PM
89

Well, Ken has always been "Barbie's boyfriend." That's his whole identity. It seems like the movie is setting up a character arc for him to come out of Barbie's shadow- at least a little.
/r/MensRights19/07/23 10:46 AM
113

That seems pretty on brand for Barbie. I mean, she's the poster child for being a career girl. There's a "wedding Barbie" but she's never actually a wife or mother. And Ken is an accessory. It seems like the movie is leaning into all those tropes, but poking fun at the plastic fantastic ideal.
/r/MensRights19/07/23 10:26 AM
7

Honestly, I can totally relate to the woman. When I'm stressed, having to figure anything out is just an extra burden. The real issue here is ranting about it online instead of talking to her fiance like an adult. If I have a rough day and don't want to be bothered with dinner, I ask my husband to figure it out. Nicely, and explaining that I'm too wiped out to care what we eat. Nobody's the villain. Communication is key.
/r/MensRights16/07/23 06:03 PM
1

I've never had a job application ask my pronouns/gender. Is that common in other places? Although I have a gender neutral name, so recruiters and interviewers sometimes assume the wrong sex until we speak on the phone or face-to-face.
/r/MensRights15/07/23 01:10 PM
17

Dress codes still have a purpose. They communicate what the expectation is for a company (or school) image and make it easy to resolve any question of whether a particular item of clothing is acceptable. I've consulted my handbook from time to time to confirm which shoes/clothes are allowed at my job. Women definitely have a larger range of what's acceptable, but that has more to do with differences in fashion than sexism. For example, it's been 80° here the past week, and I've been wearing shor…
/r/MensRights13/07/23 09:33 AM
5

That in and of itself begs the question of whether sexuality should be a topic in schools let alone non-heterosexuality Are you honestly arguing against sex ed in schools? A populace that knows how to prevent the spread of STIs is in everyone's best interest. If the purpose of schools is to raise adults prepared for the real world, comprehensive sex ed is essential. children are primitive, which is why they seem so much more cruel (read: indifferent) Bingo. Children are indifferent to things suc…
/r/MensRights08/07/23 01:42 PM
8

LGBTQ is only an adult topic if you're just focused on the sex. There's a whole lot more there to talk about, from self-expression to civil rights. It seems like you're talking more about a school setting, and I absolutely think LGBTQ topics have a place there. Kids should be taught from an early age that not everybody is the same - and that's ok. That's how we reduce bigotry in future generations. Like a kindergarten class reading "And Tango Makes Three" and discussing all the different types o…
/r/MensRights08/07/23 11:44 AM
1

If I'm honest, you seem to be taking it personally that someone else prefers a different way of doing things. Not every path is going to be best for everyone, and that's a good thing. Every couple has different personalities, different priorities, and different situations. It's not worth being bothered about.
/r/MensRights04/07/23 10:03 AM
1

I guess having a parent at home with our child was a risk we were willing to take. That's the beauty of everyone being able to choose what works best for them. They can fit their own situation. I'm glad my husband and I were both able to work without sending our daughter to daycare. It worked great for us. $11k now is what we spend on a family trip every other year - no big deal. But it wouldn't be that way if my husband and I hadn't spent the past 20 years busting our asses to get ahead. And I'…
/r/MensRights03/07/23 09:26 PM
1

Ok, but that's still $13k in lost wages and expenses... Though the US is pretty poor when it comes to worker or family protections. No wonder people don't want to have kids.
/r/MensRights03/07/23 09:00 PM
1

Two of my uncles are Baptist ministers- religion runs in my family. It's mostly my aunts and cousins who are SAHMs among my acquaintances. It's all very traditional. Also, why would you not have financial security just because one parent stayed at home? We wouldn't have had the extra income to save. If I stop working, that's half the household income. Now, he makes $75k, and I make $80k. But when our daughter was school age, one income wouldn't have been enough for us to comfortably own a house.…
/r/MensRights03/07/23 07:10 PM
1

In addition, who do you know in this day and age where the breadwinner is the head of household and makes the major decisions? All the families I know with a stay at home parent are religious and very into traditional family roles. So...all of them. There's no way I would accept that kind of dynamic. I absolutely could not hand my child over to a daycare Neither could I. My spouse and I worked different shifts and got grandma and grandma to help when our daughter was preschool age. Both of us ha…
/r/MensRights03/07/23 05:19 PM
1

Are you seriously saying a SAHM is not an equal partner? No offense, but I don't consider SAH an equal partner. SAH and breadwinner is more of a complementary relationship. As in, each partner is responsible for different areas of household management. And generally, the income earner acts as "head of the household," making the major decisions. That works for some people, but it's not my cup of tea. To me, an equal partner is someone you can split decision making and each household responsibilit…
/r/MensRights03/07/23 11:49 AM
1

"Only putting up with it for so long" is usually years, even a decade. But there's no denying that cohabitation is much more popular than just a few decades ago. For starters, it gives people the flexibility to have a long term live in relationship without the commitment of marriage. And even those that eventually marry usually do a trial period and live together for a couple of years first. It just seems logical that the changing role of marriage would result in fewer people deciding to actuall…
/r/MensRights02/07/23 02:08 PM
2

But how many of those unmarried 40 year olds are, or have been, cohabitating? Not married =/= single. Previously, getting married was the socially acceptable way to access sex, children, and living together. Of course the number of people opting out of marriage will increase if you can have those things without tying the knot.
/r/MensRights02/07/23 11:59 AM
1

I get it- it can be tough to build up that discipline to not overextended yourself with credit. When I was younger, I ran up a few thousand on a high interest card and learned a painful lesson. But, a cc can be a great financial tool. I use mine for absolutely every expense that's feasible, then pay promptly and use the points for travel. It's enough to cover airfare for a trip every other year. And there's other perks, like legal protections for disputed purchases (all cards) as well as trip in…
/r/MensRights30/06/23 02:21 PM
4

Credit card is not technically good for your financial stability as one mistake and you are screwed with predatory interest rates. That's all on whether you use it wisely. Having a good credit history/score affects all sorts of things, like loans, insurance rates, and job applications. A few cards, open several years, with high available balance, really help drive up that score. Also, a quickly available line of open credit eases a lot of the stress of "what if there's an emergency?" Knowing you…
/r/MensRights30/06/23 01:03 PM
33

Really, this is good advice for just living a happy life. In broader terms: Find an equal partner (no SAHM) Work-life balance (take all available leave) Spend quality time with family (childcare) Take care of your health (stay fit) Establish financial stability (have a credit card) Live a virtuous life (don't cheat) Have a strong social support system (get male friends) Overall, these will increase your well-being and your chance of being in one of the marriages that do succeed.
/r/MensRights30/06/23 12:41 PM
-1

can you not travel a short distance out of state to a haven state to have it done? Only if you're lucky enough to be near a state with abortion protections. But states with similar political ideals are often near each other. This map does a good job of demonstrating that. If you live in Louisiana (middle of the southeastern "restrictive" area), you'd have to drive 12 hours to the nearest state with widespread abortion access (Illinois). So thats travel costs, missing work and the cost of the abo…
/r/MensRights25/06/23 04:10 PM
1

Abortion was always illegal in your United States and never a constitutional right until the power was given to the federal government. Not true. Abortion existed in the US since colonial times and wasn't banned until 1850- 1910 (depending on state). It's been legal in the US longer than not. Also, the push by conservative politicians is very much for a national ban. For example, legislation to punish traveling to other states for abortion and the attempt to have mifepristone pulled from use nat…
/r/MensRights25/06/23 02:47 PM
1

How would you get unwilling men to comply? I mean, say a guy doesn't want to be involved with the child (broke up with mom, one night stand, etc). What would compel him to report for DNA testing? This is the part of mandatory paternity testing that puzzles me.
/r/MensRights25/06/23 01:15 PM
1

I (43) would discourage my daughter (21) from dating someone from my age group. From the perspective of experience, those two stages of personal growth are too different to be easily compatible. Also, I know she's looking for more of an equal partner than a provider, a lot like my own marriage. A large age difference makes it more likely for the marriage to fall into a leader/follower dynamic. Imo, it's better to find someone similar in age, life experiences, and education/career level and then …
/r/MensRights25/06/23 12:11 AM
0

You can work, while still raising kids. You just need to alternate hours with your husband. For sure. I did this when my daughter was pre-k. There was always a parent home.
/r/MensRights23/06/23 09:01 PM
1

We regulate who they can hire so why is giving money any different? For starters, because rights of individuals trump rights of companies in the US. Under federal law, individuals and small businesses (less than 15 employees) can discriminate in hiring to their heart's content (Civil Rights Act Title VII). Also, the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that donations are protected as a form of free speech. And, from a practical standpoint, people only donate to groups they care about. People will …
/r/MensRights21/06/23 10:54 PM
1

I'm all for college tuition being paid for by taxes. I'm in NY state, and since 2018 most kids middle income or below qualify for full tuition scholarships at state schools (Excelsior scholarship). My kid's tuition is paid by the state's STEM Initiative program and she applied for scholarships to cover fees and books.
/r/MensRights21/06/23 10:23 PM
2

The right to not be discriminated against is in the constitution. Not in the US. It's in the Civil Rights Act. Which protects against discrimination in very specific areas- employment, accommodations (hotels and rentals) and businesses open to the public. And colleges are covered by Title IX if they accept govt funding. Scholarships don't fall in any of those categories. Racism isn't illegal, and we can't legislate it out of people's private lives. Nor should we. If someone wants to be a bigot o…
/r/MensRights21/06/23 03:47 PM
5

Discrimination shouldn't be acceptable in any circumstance This is a ridiculous statement. That would mean you can't discriminate against people in your personal life based on any protected class (age, sex, religion, race, etc). Such as choosing who you associate with socially, what businesses you frequent, or what members are allowed in a private club. The right to not be discriminated against only includes the specific circumstances protected by law (title IX in the case of scholarships). And …
/r/MensRights21/06/23 02:15 PM
5

I don't agree. A scholarship is a donation from a group/person to a student. We don't regulate how people donate their money in other areas. For example, I've donated to the Hispanic Federation and the Trevor Project. Both are perfectly legit nonprofits that offer services only to members of certain groups.
/r/MensRights21/06/23 01:53 PM
5

I think it's less about who needs the scholarships and more about the donor's interests. As in, the person or group who set up the trust for a scholarship just wants to help students from a certain group. I recently went through the scholarship process with my daughter, and there were so many different special interest groups. There were definitely ones open for "women entering a certain field." But there were also scholarships for Jews, people of German decent, single parents, adult learners, m…
/r/MensRights21/06/23 01:51 PM
39

The irony is most of these could just open up for male students and yet these feminists would rather axe the program just to spite men. The scholarships are probably paid for by a donation/trust from an individual who specified they have to go towards certain recipients. You can't really force people to keep donating money if it's not the cause they wanted to support. Even if it's discriminatory. I suspect these women only scholarships won't really be eliminated and will switch to being private …
/r/MensRights21/06/23 10:32 AM
1

Glad I'm not the only one! All these comments about women not paying their share, but that's not what the study/article were about. I make more than my husband, but he's in charge of financial responsibilities at our house. As in, he pays the bills, does banking, and researches large financial decisions. But all that money comes from one joint account.
/r/MensRights19/06/23 09:12 PM
12

So, the study found that men tend to still manage the money, regardless of who earns more? That doesn't sound like a problem to me, as long as both partners agree to it.
/r/MensRights19/06/23 10:25 AM
2

From what he's saying in the video, the parents decreased their standard of living (not eating out, giving up extra space in their home, etc) to accommodate the extra expense of the child. But the additional expenses of raising the child still exist. He also didn't touch on some big ticket expenses, like insurance, doctor's visits, and childcare. When my daughter was school-aged, we spent $6000 a year just on after-school and summer care. Plus, those smaller expenses add up fast. Things like clo…
/r/MensRights14/06/23 10:20 AM
6

Women are picking up the slack. Doesn't seem to be the case. Percent of women in the workforce in the US rose steadily from 1900 (19%) to 2000 (61%) and then pretty much leveled off. https://www.infoplease.com/business/labor/women-labor-force
/r/MensRights13/06/23 10:56 PM
17

If a man ever writes a book called"the power of the dick", people would have him hanged in no time. It already exists and has a three star rating on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Power-Dick-Dating-Marriage-relationship-ebook/dp/B01G7SBGHE). Doesn't seem to be as popular, but women are more likely to read self-help in general.
/r/MensRights12/06/23 11:55 AM
11

Since 1993, it's required by law for clinical medical research in the US to include women (and also minorities) as subjects when the findings would apply to both sexes. We could change that law to include equal numbers of participants of each sex. As always, the onus is on researchers to find the appropriate participants for their studies. You can get people to participate in anything if you pay enough for it. My doctor's office is constantly looking for patients to participate in studies. I did…
/r/MensRights11/06/23 01:30 AM
1

Victoria's Secret is problematic for lots of reasons. Luckily, there are better clothing options out there.
/r/MensRights09/06/23 01:04 AM
6

Does reading some articles really make someone a scientist now? Family spending is what pops up when you search for why women spend more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2013/03/06/the-real-reason-women-shop-more-than-men/?sh=247053d874b9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2017/04/15/most-businesses-fall-short-with-female-consumers-new-study-reveals/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/09/24/among-u-s-couples-women-do-more-cooking-and-grocery-shopping-than-men/#:…
/r/MensRights08/06/23 10:25 AM
8

the Pink brand originally (if I'm not mistaken) using breast cancer awareness to sell clothing provide funding for research. I think you're confusing the brand "Pink" with the companies slapping breast cancer pink on everything and making a vague promise of a donation to boost their sales. Pink, the brand, was Victoria's Secret's way of extending their market into the teen/preteen range and building brand loyalty young. There was never a link with breast cancer.
/r/MensRights08/06/23 09:47 AM
15

Women drive 70-80% of the consumer market, in essence keeping capitalism alive and well. Because women tend to do the shopping for families. Like grocery shopping, household furnishings and supplies, and buying for children. Also, wives often have the final say on big ticket purchases like houses, cars, and vacations.
/r/MensRights08/06/23 09:33 AM
0

you put effort to pick nice one I picked dresses that I actually own and wear often. Because I can say with confidence that you don't have to have a lot of skin on display to get creepy comments. As you said, creepers will be gross regardless of what women are wearing. For some reason, men are more likely to make comments when I wear a sundress like this (or any skirt) than shorts and tank top. Even though the second is more revealing. My point about previous poster's links is that they're extre…
/r/MensRights04/06/23 12:41 PM
-2

Summer dresses, yes. Maxi dresses and baggy dresses, definitely no. Fitted waists and skirts mid thigh to just below the knee are the best-looking, by far. Like this or this. You know, classy without screaming "Mormon." Although, I've gotten crass comments from guys in both of those. So...shrug.
/r/MensRights04/06/23 12:14 AM
-1

Ngl, all those clothing options are ugly. Is there nothing between "potato sack" and "stripper"?
/r/MensRights03/06/23 09:29 PM
-6

To be fair, you never said anything about men being excluded either. You only mentioned men being the "second option." My point is: who cares if a women picks someone else as her primary support person and the husband is secondary? Post covid restrictions, both are still in the room.
/r/MensRights03/06/23 12:50 PM
1

Is this really an issue now that laboring women can have multiple support people in the delivery room again? Why does it matter, as long as the husband isn't being excluded from the birth? The women I know who had another support person picked their own mothers. Maternal comfort and the experience of having been through it seems like a good choice for such a stressful event. And, their husbands were still there. To be honest, I would have rather not been present for my child's birth, and I'm the…
/r/MensRights03/06/23 12:07 PM
4

Have you ever loved a man unconditionally? Nope. Loving a romantic partner unconditionally is unhealthy. It's good to have boundaries beyond which you lose regard for a partner. Things like abuse, neglect, disrespect, and disregard for the other person's needs. Although, I have nursed my husband through cancer and was the breadwinner through periods of unemployment. So, make what you will of that. Eta- this post prompted an agreement that my husband and I would help cover it up if the other murd…
/r/MensRights03/06/23 12:10 AM
1

no economic incentive to maintain a relationship with a difficult partner. Not true. The economic incentive would be the rest of the husband's income that she loses out on by getting divorced. Is that enough incentive to stay? Well, that's all down to personal variables. I'll consider my own marriage as a real world example. There's 21 years left on our mortgage and I'd have to buy out my spouse's half of the equity if I kept the house. Then I'd probably have to sell it to pay off the mortgage a…
/r/MensRights02/06/23 11:21 AM
0

Why would a woman stay married to a man if she can get him to pay her the same as a part time job? Financially, it makes more sense for her to stay married. A couple years of alimony and/or a percentage of the man's income as child support is less than access to his full income and assets. And, there are fewer expenses for a couple vs. two single people. This reminds me of one time my husband jokingly said I was going to leave him and take half his stuff. So I pointed out that if I stayed with h…
/r/MensRights31/05/23 10:37 AM
5

they have to buy sanitary hygiene products and men don't, which is a tax on women, ... The ridiculous part is that 22 US states still impose a sales tax on menstrual products. It doesn't make a lot of sense when things like healthcare items, diapers, clothing, and food are exempt from taxes. Before my state changed the law recently, condoms weren't taxed, but pads were. Just nonsensical.
/r/MensRights29/05/23 10:56 PM
0

Have I gone mad, or did it used to be "stay at home mother"... The term used to be "housewife." Generally, the wife handles the errands, cleaning and cooking in those situations. Not too common though, since most couples want the security of a second income. I lost my job during covid and did the SAH thing for a while- would not recommend. It's super lonely, and I ended up creating redecorating/organization projects to deal with the solitude. The one nice thing is that we weren't scrambling to f…
/r/MensRights28/05/23 04:53 PM
13

that reasoning completely falls apart when it comes to child support for born children, who only the mother can choose to create (carrying a pregnancy to term) Louisiana has a total abortion ban, though. The only allowed exception is to save the life of the mother. I'd expect to see more laws like this in places where abortion is illegal. Pre-birth child support strengthens the argument that life begins at conception, not birth.
/r/MensRights21/05/23 05:29 AM
6

The simple answer- there is no clinically approved HPV screening test for men. So far, all tests that have been developed for men give inconsistent results. Typically, doctors identify HPV related cancers in men by looking for lesions. Then, a biopsy is taken to test for HPV. If you haven't already, get the vaccine. Roughly 80% of people will have an HPV infection in their lifetime, and condoms don't fully protect against transmission. My husband had HPV related throat cancer a couple of years a…
/r/MensRights16/05/23 11:30 AM
30

Not surprising when biology isn't a required course for the major. I have a BS Psychology and took chem as my science elective. But anthropology, physics, astronomy, environmental science and geography were some of the other options.
/r/MensRights15/05/23 11:24 AM
6

There's no right or wrong answer, it's all about preferences. I want someone else to cook my meal, and enjoy a little day drinking (mimosas) with my MIL and SIL. My husband, on the other hand, likes to smoke some meat and have a bunch of people over. Both are a lot of fun.
/r/MensRights13/05/23 12:29 PM
10

It's interesting how differently we celebrate Mother's Day vs. Father's Day. Everyone takes their mom to brunch - it's literally the busiest restaurant day of the year. But Father's Day is for BBQs. I would think at least part of the spending disparity is based on cookouts being cheaper than eating out.
/r/MensRights13/05/23 10:11 AM
2

It's not like there's a DNA database of every man in the US. If a woman said she didn't know who the attacker was, how would law enforcement know which men to test for a match? And how would they justify the huge invasion of privacy if men are forced to be tested for paternity against their will without being accused of any crime? Or even being named as a potential father?
/r/MensRights12/05/23 12:18 PM
4

This argument is clearly nonsense. You don't have to throw someone under the bus to make a false accusation. Just describe the most average looking guy in existence and claim that it was dark and hard to see. From a purely practical standpoint, a fictitious attacker is less risky anyway because they won't refute the story or have an alibi.
/r/MensRights12/05/23 09:47 AM
27

The women I know are less likely to apply to jobs where they don't meet all the requirements- hence, fewer applications. I stopped doing that when my husband was helping me find work after my previous employer folded during covid lockdowns. My husband pointed out that companies would overlook even hard requirements if there wasn't a more qualified candidate. And he was right - I was offered several jobs where I didn't have all the "required" skills/experience. Now, I apply when I meet 60-70% of …
/r/MensRights07/05/23 01:14 PM
1

the whole point is that there is a range you would accept Sort of. If I enter my preferences in my 20s (ie. who I actually dated), it's pretty close, % wise. Similar age, single, white, not obese, working at least full time (min $30k here) and above average height. Apparently, that makes me a "cat enthusiast." Also that is because many men aren't single, not that 80% of men earn below minimum wage Doesn't that go against the "women's standards are too high" argument? If the main thing weeding me…
/r/MensRights06/05/23 05:59 AM
2

For giggles, I put my spouse's information in. Just 1% chance of meeting a guy with those characteristics. Lucky me. Although, I also tried just single men my age earning as much as a min wage full-time job (any height, weight, or race)- just 20%. That's a lot lower than I would have expected.
/r/MensRights06/05/23 04:19 AM
15

Interestingly enough, the original book "The Handmaid's Tale" was never intended to be feminist. The author, Margaret Atwood, has stated she set out to write dystopian fiction from the female perspective and that it's anti-totalitarian. She said the idea sprang from the backlash in the 80s that women belonged in the kitchen and what would be needed to put them back there. In the author's own words: "The Handmaid’s Tale has often been called a “feminist dystopia,” but that term is not strictly ac…
/r/MensRights23/04/23 01:21 PM
4

1/4 of Marriages with a Sick Spouse Will End in a Divorce I wonder how many of those are medical divorces, where a couple divorces for financial reasons but doesn't actually split up. Being treated for a life-threatening illness is ridiculously expensive in the US. And income caps on Medicaid incentivizes elderly couples to legally split so one partner qualifies for aid while the other holds the assets. I'm curious how much that type of divorce is inflating the numbers. When my husband was diagn…
/r/MensRights22/04/23 08:13 AM
27

IMO, maintaining a strong relationship with your spouse should take priority. It gives a good foundation to build a family and ensures your spouse will still be there after the kids are grown. I've been married 22 years, with a 21 year old daughter. She'll be moving away for grad school next year, but my marriage is likely to last another 30 years.
/r/MensRights19/04/23 11:03 AM
1

True, jewelry can be a pretty impersonal gift. Unless it's a piece your SO is really into, or has an additional meaning, it won't be as treasured as something tailored to their interests. It's been years since I've wanted jewelry that wasn't a trip souvenir. But those pieces always bring back happy family or couple memories. And they weren't all that expensive.
/r/MensRights18/04/23 05:05 PM
18

The true solution is to date/marry women who aren't that into jewelry. There's plenty of people out there who would prefer something else as a gift. You can't stop the ads- they have to sell the romantic angle to sell the jewelry. Or the "gift for mom," which dad usually pays for anyway.
/r/MensRights18/04/23 01:31 AM
1

is it only Christian religions that you dislike? I don't dislike Christian religion- two of my uncles are Baptist ministers and my dad is Mormon. Love them, but I wouldn't let them make medical decisions for me. I do have a huge problem when people deny their kids medical care and use religion as a shield against child abuse charges. If you're forcing them to pay for it, then it is. Employers are forced to pay salary too, but they don't get a say in how people spend it. It might not be money, bu…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 01:45 PM
1

some insurance providers refusing to cover certain things doesn't matter because other insurers exist. It does matter because people in the US don't directly pick their insurer. The employer makes that choice. If I don't like my insurer, I have to switch jobs to get a different one. And you don't know what the insurer options are until after you start the job. For profit health insurance companies are morally repugnant to begin with. They will take any opportunity to avoid paying out claims for …
/r/MensRights16/04/23 01:22 PM
1

I buy mine from a pharmacy (as does pretty much everyone else whose condom buying habits I know) so they would also be affected by something like this. Around here, drug stores (like CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid) are a combo of a retail store and a prescription pharmacy. Only the prescription side is considered a "healthcare provider." Retail stores are not covered under this bill. Condoms are also available at gas stations, grocery stores, and general purpose retailers like Wal-Mart. It's an electi…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 12:47 PM
1

I see, that's Christian Scientist with a capital C and S That wasn't a trick- Christian Scientists are a religious sect. They make national news occasionally when their kids die from not receiving proper medical treatment. You can read more about this religion here Is the employer forced to provide part of the insurance payment? Yes, federal law requires employers with a certain number of employees to provide subsidized health insurance. The employer is free to pick any healthcare plan that prov…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 12:16 PM
1

Female contraceptives are women specific, Female contraceptives are the only ones you have to see a doctor to get. Condoms can be bought freely- you don't need a prescription or healthcare provider for that. Why should the 1 in 3 be forced to provide services that they do not wish to provide when the other 2 in 3 will provide them willingly? So, I live in a state other than Florida (thank god). Here, no one is forcing medical providers to perform services they are morally opposed to. But, provid…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 11:40 AM
1

IVF is a procedure performed on a woman and contraceptives are prescribed to or inserted into women. I'm not sure how you'd say they aren't women specific. Concerning LGBTQ rights, conservative employers have been pushing back on insurance covering gender affirming treatment and drugs to prevent transmission of HIV. This bill would allow them to do that Do they make up any significant portion of the healthcare industry or insurance providers? Actually, they do. Roughly 1 in 7 hospital beds in th…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 02:34 AM
1

Yes, other people hold beliefs that I disagree with, what is the problem here? The problem is when one person's beliefs infringe upon another person's right to healthcare. My employer, insurer, or the pharmacist at the local drug store shouldn't be allowed to block my access to healthcare based on their beliefs. I'm no doctor or nothing, but I think if you need a heart transplant... you're probably not going to be doing so well without one, same for transfusions, Some people wait years for a hea…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 02:13 AM
1

Contraceptives, sterilization, and IVF are the first ones that come to mind. Strict Catholics have strong objections. Also, screening for and treatment of STDs- though that overlaps with other affected groups (particularly gay men). Basically any health issues related to sex would be an easy target.
/r/MensRights16/04/23 01:46 AM
2

I'm assuming this "medical treatment" for women is abortion? You are assuming incorrectly. Any healthcare service that is not considered "life saving" can be denied by the provider (doctor, pharmacy, lab tech, etc) or the payer (insurance company or employer) if they have a sincerely held moral or religious objection. From the bill text: "Health care service" means medical procedures, medical care, or medical services provided to a patient at any time over the entire course of treatment, or medi…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 01:16 AM
1

Why should I get involved? Because this bill creates a dangerous precedent for insurers to deny payment for medical services that should be covered. Religious, moral, and ethical beliefs covers an awful lot of ground. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses are against blood transfusion, Amish don't get heart transplants, Catholics are against contraceptives, and Christian Scientists oppose medicine altogether. Based on the wording of this bill you could be refused any of those treatments if you weren'…
/r/MensRights16/04/23 12:37 AM
-2

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. DeSantis is in the news all the time targeting LGBTQ, and this healthcare bill is an extension of that rhetoric. It's terrible, and the attack on LGBTQ is the main reason I would never consider going to Florida (WDW excepted). Jokingly calling DeSantis Florida Man doesn't change that.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 01:15 PM
-1

I understand that I made a joke by calling Ron DeSantis Florida Man. And that you didn't get the joke.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 12:59 PM
0

No, you've got that backwards. I have a political opinion, then made a joke about it. Ron DeSantis and the Florida legislature are doing bizarre and objectionable things, making themselves and the state into a joke. But the legislation and political rhetoric are very serious and should serve as a warning flag to anyone considering any affiliation with the state that lasts longer than a vacation.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 12:47 PM
-1

Florida Man is a joke. As in "Google your birthday and Florida Man and that's a description of you." Or calling someone Florida Man after doing something particularly stupid. It's not a slight on actual people in Florida. It's funny you choose to argue over a meme and not the many concerning things that are happening in the state. Priorities, amirite?
/r/MensRights15/04/23 12:38 PM
-1

No, "Florida Man" is a meme: "Florida Man is an Internet meme first popularized in 2013,[1] referring to an alleged prevalence of men performing irrational, maniacal, illogical, delusional, insane, and absurd actions in the U.S. state of Florida. " "Florida Man" has become common slang for anyone acting in a way that's bizarre and/or dangerous.That pretty much sums up DeSantis. He's completely off the rails. It's gotten to the point I expect something absurd whenever I see Florida in the news. A…
/r/MensRights15/04/23 12:25 PM
0

It doesn't really matter. Ron DeSantis is Florida Man at this point. The only thing that could tempt me into the state now is a Disney vacation. Luckily, they also can't stand Florida Man.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 11:47 AM
-2

Do you honestly think this bill is not intended to target gender affirming treatment? When Florida Man is constantly on the news targeting LGBTQ people, it's pretty easy to see the bill's intent. And contraceptives, as well as treatment for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, are another easy target for this bill. Overall, the bill is just a terrible idea- even if you set the bigotry aside. It gives insurers a nice loophole to refuse payment for expensive procedures. It will start by affecting LG…
/r/MensRights15/04/23 11:31 AM
3

Stop and think about this bill in practice. Which treatments are providers/insurers likely to object to on moral or religious grounds? The bill doesn't have to specifically mention certain groups to be intentionally targeting them.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 11:06 AM
6

Agreed. The biggest targets for this bill are gender affirming care and birth control. Florida lawmakers are making no secret of it. So, yeah, LGBTQ folks and women would definitely be denied care if it passes.
/r/MensRights15/04/23 10:48 AM
6

the workforce had to admit women. Not only that, but there was a huge push to encourage women to join the workforce. Just look at all the war propaganda telling women that filling those empty jobs was their patriotic duty.
/r/MensRights13/04/23 10:38 AM
2

So, you just want everyone to use the contraceptive method you prefer instead of the one that works best for them. That sounds pretty self-centered. Also, regarding "affording children"- one of the best ways to prevent children being born into poverty is giving people control over when they have them, and how many they have.
/r/MensRights13/04/23 10:22 AM
14

It's a combination of factors. There was a cultural shift during WWII when women took on a lot of jobs previously done by men. This carried over to future generations, so working outside the home became accepted, then commonplace. At the same time, changes in technology created more clerical jobs, which were considered more suitable for women (particularly married women). And, rates of high school and college graduation among women increased significantly throughout the 20th century, making it e…
/r/MensRights13/04/23 03:06 AM
4

Yeah, there's no way I would trust the "pull and pray" method. That's how you end up with unwanted kids. Contraceptives for men is not desirable Even condoms? They're not the most reliable, but still better than nothing. I'm a woman (43), and I've been on the pill 24 years out of 25 with my husband. And for any periods of time when we couldn't rely on the pill (missed dose, drug interactions, etc), there was absolutely no penetrative sex going on. That's what we all have to look forward to if co…
/r/MensRights12/04/23 11:09 AM
5

This raises an interesting point. In 12 US states it's not a separate crime to harm/kill a fetus. It's simply assault or murder of the woman. In other words, there is no "line."
/r/MensRights12/04/23 10:53 AM
1

Just ban contraceptives, remove child support and any economical support from the government to mothers and you will see casual sex rates go down. And also the rates of sex in marriages and committed relationships. Is that really a desirable outcome? Most couples only want 1-2 kids. Should they just have a headache the rest of their lives?
/r/MensRights12/04/23 10:24 AM
-22

I think most people want to sleep with their fiance before marriage, but you do you.
/r/MensRights10/04/23 01:02 AM
-21

I'm not triggered. It's just the opposite of what most "real woman" comments are. It's usually along the lines of "a real woman is traditional wife/mother." Therefore: odd.
/r/MensRights10/04/23 12:51 AM
-2

It's pretty contradictory to the traditional view of what women should do/be. Which is to marry and have children. I think calling someone a "real man" is nonsense (every man is a real man), but it's usually in praise of traits traditionally considered masculine.
/r/MensRights10/04/23 12:48 AM
-38

So all wives and mothers are...not real women? That's an odd take.
/r/MensRights10/04/23 12:31 AM
5

I don't agree that the sides are equal here. If I were uncomfortable using gender neutral pronouns in conversations, I could simply avoid using pronouns. For example, I can refer to my friend Jayce by name if I don't want to say they/them. I don't have to be hurtful and use a pronoun that makes that person uncomfortable. In that light, knowingly choosing to use a pronoun that makes a person feel bad is, in my opinion, a deliberate attempt to stir something up.
/r/MensRights08/04/23 11:28 PM
2

I think the studies on trans vs cis brains are really interesting. There's not a huge body of work yet, but the data suggests trans people's brains are more similar to the gender they associate with. Like in this study
/r/MensRights08/04/23 11:17 PM
3

All the non-binary people I've actually met seem ok with just they/them for neutral pronouns. I agree, it would be confusing trying to remember a whole bunch of different ones. I've never had someone get upset if I slip up on their pronouns- they just appreciate the effort. The wailing and nashing are reserved for those who want to argue the point. The world is rough enough that I couldn't care less how people choose to label (or not label) themselves. It's already tough for people to find their…
/r/MensRights08/04/23 11:14 PM
1

The practical solution would be to just use the person's name and avoid pronouns altogether, if it bothers someone that much. However, I don't understand why using they/them is upsetting to some people. I know a few non-binary folks, and it's very little effort for me to use their preferred pronouns, but it makes a big difference to them. Insisting on addressing them with the wrong pronouns would be like continuing to use a nickname that I knew the person hated. Pretty inconsiderate.
/r/MensRights08/04/23 11:04 PM
-2

I don't understand what the objection is to neutral pronouns. Using them costs an individual nothing but makes the other person more comfortable. I guess I don't see what the harm is. On a personal note, I loved that my previous job used preferred pronouns in our professional signatures. I have a gender neutral name and often get misgendered when communicating over email. Problem solved.
/r/MensRights08/04/23 03:29 PM
-2

I didn't misunderstand you. I don't agree with tampons being free either. But I strongly disagree with paying sales tax on them, which happens in nearly half of the US. And that's clear duscrimination. It's a literal "pink tax." As in, a tax being applied to an item only women need and use.
/r/MensRights07/04/23 12:03 PM
-4

Are you saying we should tax all healthcare supplies that not everyone uses? That would be nearly all of them. Not everyone needs glasses, or diabetic supplies, condoms, or a prosthetic limb. But these are tax-free in most states. When there's a tax exemption on medical/healthcare items, it should apply to everything in that category - including pads and tampons. I'm in NY and they finally did away with sales tax on period products in 2016.
/r/MensRights07/04/23 11:45 AM
-9

Paying sales tax on tampons is discrimination, though. When other healthcare items like medicine and bandaids are tax-exempt, there's really no excuse.
/r/MensRights07/04/23 11:32 AM
4

Is AI trustworthy? Absolutely not. John Oliver did a good job covering the problems with AI in this clip. It's definitely worth a watch. Basically, he explains how AI programs have been shown to have unexpected biases based on the source data given. Also, that AI programs create fictional responses and present them as facts. Also, because of the way AI is created, developers aren't always sure why the system gives the responses it does.
/r/MensRights06/04/23 10:54 AM
89

Honestly, this is good advice for everyone. A partner you're unhappy to be around is worse than no partner at all.
/r/MensRights01/04/23 06:33 PM
1

Around here (NY state), anyone can get free condoms at Planned Parenthood or health clinics. Is that not the case in other places? Also, vasectomies are covered by insurance at no cost by state mandate- but I know only a handful of states do that.
/r/MensRights30/03/23 10:09 PM
1

There's this study: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm
/r/MensRights30/03/23 12:07 AM
2

Hopefully, you understand that your preference (of not being approached romantically) is unrealistic. Yes, but a girl can dream. I try to be standoffish if I see it coming. Not everyone takes the hint... Also, IMO, it's quite a stretch to compare wariness of men in a narrowly defined social situation to interactions with a whole race of people. Why? Because the men who come on to me self select into a certain group by their behavior. Even more so the ones who see and disregard the ring. I'd say …
/r/MensRights21/03/23 06:52 PM
2

You don't have to know that. I'll still be polite to men who ask politely (or who I'll still have to deal with later). I'll just also be looking for the least confrontational way out of the interaction. Think of it like missionaries. You answer the door once and you're stuck talking to them. So next time, you don't answer the door, or you make an excuse to leave. I wouldn't even say that I'm traumatized by men being jerks- I just don't want to repeat the experience Again, someone asked why women…
/r/MensRights21/03/23 06:47 PM
1

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've only dated guys I already know socially. College classmates, friends of friends, or coworkers. That's my comfort level. I also don't stop to help people with broken down cars and cross the street if I see a stranger walking alone at night. Those people are probably perfectly nice, but I'd rather be cautious.
/r/MensRights21/03/23 06:41 PM
2

what are Men supposed to do? Be respectful. That's really all there is to it. I don't really mind if someone asks me out and doesn't push the issue. Since I've had my fair share of pushy types, I'm planning a strategic exit every time a guy tries to shoot his shot.
/r/MensRights21/03/23 06:34 PM
-2

So, what do you expect me to do about it? I don't want to be approached romantically. I've had bad experiences being approached in the past. By men- since the two women who've tried flirting with me were fine with "no thanks." What exactly do you think I should do? Not be cautious of my surroundings and situation? Not worry about a possible negative outcome? Also, IMO, it's quite a stretch to compare wariness of men in a narrowly defined social situation to interactions with a whole race of peop…
/r/MensRights21/03/23 03:17 PM
-11

I'm not sure why you assumed it's a disagreement. I was simply answering the question. Op asked why women act like men approaching them is a threat. I pointed out it could be because they feel threatened. Since I don't know which guys approaching me are going to get aggressive, pushy, or angry, I have to treat them all as potential threats. That is, assess the relative risk of the situation and what I can do to avoid confrontation.
/r/MensRights21/03/23 01:25 PM
2

Have you tried asking your friends why they feel that way? As in, what makes them feel threatened by men's attention? For me, it's the men who won't take no for an answer or become angry when rejected. It's not all, or even most, but it's enough to be wary of any men approaching me romantically. When I was younger, I had to file a restraining order when a rejection turned into stalking and threats. But that's not the only instance where "not interested" or even "I'm married" wasn't enough to get…
/r/MensRights21/03/23 11:10 AM
6

The problem with sex strikes is that most women aren't sleeping with the men in a position to make the desired change. So, not very effective. Take the Roe v Wade ruling, for example. There were some calls for a sex strike, but most pro choice women already don't sleep with pro life men. It doesn't have any impact for them to deny sex to their boyfriends/husbands with the same political views.
/r/MensRights20/03/23 10:50 AM
2

Oh, I just meant you could use the tactic whether you have another offer or not.. When I was offered my current job, I wanted to see if I could get more, so I said I was really interested in their company but had another offer. They came back with an extra 5k. I already had a good job at the time.
/r/MensRights19/03/23 01:33 AM
1

Also even without a secondary offer Or just say you do have a second offer- they don't know. And if you're polite and professional, employers won't rescind the original offer. They'll just hold firm on the salary.
/r/MensRights18/03/23 11:17 PM
2

Great, but then they can't complain about earning less. Do they earn less? I make more than the folks doing manual labor at my company, by a lot. That's actually true for every distribution/manufacturing place I've worked. Most office staff make more than warehouse/production/receiving workers for sure, because the skills are in higher demand. The people who make more than me are upper management. Those are the positions white collar workers are gunning for. Yeah, they're predominantly men now, …
/r/MensRights18/03/23 10:17 PM
3

The smart approach to work is to be as efficient as possible while appearing to be chained to the job. Like making sure you're either first in or last out of the office (just by a few minutes) and auto scheduling strategic emails to send outside normal business hours. Perception is just as (if not more) important than reality.
/r/MensRights18/03/23 09:12 PM
5

So why should someone that can lift more be told that isn't fair because it is sexist? I never said that it was. But I do see a lot of guys criticizing women as being lazy for taking white collar jobs instead of physical labor. It seems to me those women are just being realistic about their capabilities and utilizing their strengths.
/r/MensRights18/03/23 07:49 PM
1

Women never took the 30 lb lifting, 25-50 times per hour. That was all men. Are you sure it wasn't that they just couldn't do it? I can lift 30 lbs a handful of times, but that's about it. At my old job, I sometimes needed 30 lb cases moved around and usually had to get a cart or have someone from inventory control do it. There's a reason I picked a job where the heaviest thing I lift is a laptop.
/r/MensRights18/03/23 06:53 PM
3

How do you know you are not being advantaged solely by your gender? There's no way to know for sure, but the evidence is against it. Partly because I changed my behavior and got a different result, but my sex stayed the same. And partly because I can compare my position to other women buyers in my company, who all have significantly lower rank/salary than I do. Although, I've been helping one of them with her negotiation skills to "pass it on." Also, re: resumes, I have a gender neutral name. No…
/r/MensRights18/03/23 06:33 PM
5

Yeah, but it should be a competition based on skills and experience, when in reality it's who can market themselves better. The things I did to get a higher salary had nothing to do with hours worked or competence for the job. I demanded extra money and refused to take on extra work without more pay. Then, I paid for someone to create my resume/cover letter and did extensive interview training. When I took my current job, I got an extra 5k by claiming to have a competing offer. It's kind of a sh…
/r/MensRights18/03/23 05:48 PM
3

Yeah, keeping salaries secret really hamstrings employees from negotiating for fair wages.
/r/MensRights18/03/23 05:24 PM
17

Well, I've always seen wage issues as less "men vs. women" and more "employees vs. corporations." Companies are always going to try to exploit their workers by squeezing out maximum work for minimum compensation. That affects everyone, regardless of sex. Not to say there aren't still some sexist bosses around (my company's new VP is a prime example), but they're mostly part of the "old boys club" and are on the verge of retirement. Not nearly as much of a threat to my livlihood as corporate gree…
/r/MensRights18/03/23 05:21 PM
96

When there's so many variables being used to determine salary, it's difficult to say with certainty whether sex was a deciding factor or not. I'm a buyer for a large manufacturer, and the set salary range for buyers has a 35k spread. But there's tons of factors that go into the decision- education, experience, hard skills (software and technical knowledge), soft skills (negotiation and communication), and the job market at the time the person was hired. That being said, women, in my experience, …
/r/MensRights18/03/23 01:34 PM
9

it in humanity's best interests for women to guard their sexuality and keep their number of partners lower than men, By the same argument, it's also in our best interest to keep men from having many partners. If a woman has only a few partners, but they slept around, that's still a considerable risk.
/r/MensRights17/03/23 03:48 PM
1

Keep that optimism, I guess. Medical costs, in general, tend to rise over time. Especially in the US with for-profit care. It doesn't seem likely for that trend to change anytime soon. As much as I'd love for technology to make it easier to extract eggs (especially for infertility treatment), you're still manipulating a biological function and surgically removing the eggs from inside the body. Tech can only do so much to simplify the process. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that women will …
/r/MensRights15/03/23 08:55 AM
1

OP was talking about artificial wombs available for men to use free of cost. If you still have to pay for eggs, it doesn't really change the situation from what it is now. Rich single men can be dads and poor men can't. Egg extraction can run up to $5k just for medical costs. It's expensive even before you pay the woman providing the eggs. Let's be honest, would you undergo hormonal treatment and risk harming your own body so someone else could have a child? With no compensation or close relatio…
/r/MensRights14/03/23 05:00 PM
9

I say to my wife all the time that it's not how hard you worked. It's about how much work you produced. A lot of the time, it's not even about how much work you actually did so much as how much you appeared to do. A less efficient employee working extra hours, working from home, and complaining loudly about their workload is often perceived as a harder worker. The smart approach to work is to be as efficient as possible while appearing to be chained to the job. Like making sure you're either fir…
/r/MensRights14/03/23 04:47 PM
1

Surrogate mothers get paid. A lot. The only women doing it for free have a personal connection to the infertile person/people.
/r/MensRights14/03/23 04:34 PM
4

It's not just misdiagnosis when there are different symptoms. Women and men also metabolize medicines differently. So a study using only one sex can't accurately predict how a drug will work for the other sex. It leads to wrong dosages and less effective treatment.
/r/MensRights12/03/23 11:04 PM
7

I think part of it too is that many men feel uncomfortable watching a woman do physical labor. That happens to me all the time where men will want to help with any strenuous physical task. Because of that, some women who would be fine doing chores like shoveling, don't. My husband will often insist on shoveling, or take over if he sees me doing it. Partly because he knows he's stronger and partly because he doesn't want the neighbors to think he's lazy. My neighbor will also come over with his s…
/r/MensRights12/03/23 12:04 PM
2

It sucks that it's taking so long for body positivity for men to catch up to what women have, but there's definitely progress being made. For example, IMG (one of the world's top modeling companies) has a plus sized male model division since 2016. Their models are featured in mainstream and high fashion ads. Retailers are starting to use bigger figured male mannequins, and I've seen Cosmo and Vogue run articles and photo spreads on which plus sized male models are popular. Even runway shows are …
/r/MensRights11/03/23 11:55 PM
0

Just to be clear- you're disagreeing with the following statement that women should be subject to the same laws as men? "He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband" And you also disagree that women should have the rights to vote, have well paying jobs, work in and attend college, and own their own property after marriage? Since you're saying there's no merit to the document. The Declaration of…
/r/MensRights10/03/23 04:11 AM
-2

Of course women would be keen to marry if it's the most viable/socially acceptable source of income available. Plus, it was the only respectable way to access sex and children. Prior to mid 1800s, coverture was the norm in the US. A married woman's property and wages were legally her husband's to use as he saw fit. That's exactly what is being referenced in the Sentiments. Interestingly, another point made in the document was that women weren't being held to the same legal standard as men. Isn't…
/r/MensRights10/03/23 03:10 AM
-1

I'm not sure how you would counter them- they're pretty straightforward. As in, you can argue with the conclusions drawn about patriarchy and oppression, but the sentiments themselves are facts that can be pretty easily checked. Women couldn't vote and were mainly excluded from government office, religious leadership, college attendance and prestigious and/or well paying professions. Women were judged differently than men in both legal and social situations. Married women gave up autonomy and ow…
/r/MensRights10/03/23 02:39 AM
1

You'd still need women for eggs, though. Egg extraction is expensive and involves risk, hormone treatment, and a medical procedure. I can't imagine many people would go through all that for a stranger.
/r/MensRights08/03/23 10:53 PM
2

I'm not sure what you mean by female bosses. Men can be harassed at work by all the same people as women- any coworker, customer, vendor, etc. And the harasser can be male or female.
/r/MensRights04/03/23 12:30 PM
0

Of course men can be the victims of sexual harassment at work. Even the state mandated yearly training video agrees. Actually, the only person I know who was fired for harassment was accused of touching another guy's butt. The company had a zero tolerance policy, so that was that.
/r/MensRights04/03/23 02:51 AM
0

I'd say that the core meaning of the term has changed, because those associations are what most people perceive "incels" to mean. Just think about how most people encounter the term. They see an article about violence or potential violence, or see an unhinged rant from some radical incel forum. Then they google the term, where the top definitions and articles are more of the same. So the meaning changes to become more extreme. Regardless, if someone is using "incel" as an insult, they definitely…
/r/MensRights03/03/23 12:58 PM
5

Using the word incel is akin to slut shaming. It isn't the same though, it's much worse. Calling someone a slut is only about sexual activity. But calling someone an incel is saying they can't get sex and also are hostile towards women/society/sexually active men, with violent thoughts or tendencies. Basically, the kind of self identified incel radical you read about on the news.
/r/MensRights03/03/23 11:38 AM
1

Well, I'm not really surprised. It's human nature to downplay other people's efforts and overestimate your own, if you're just thinking off the cuff.
/r/MensRights01/03/23 01:42 PM
0

Other people can split their finances however they want- that's a decision between spouses. But, married couples that do this generally end up bickering over who's turn it is to pay for things. And it seems like a significantly higher earning partner would get frustrated living a lifestyle to match the lower income budget- smaller house, cheaper vacations, fewer perks for kids, etc. Someone who keeps score like this wouldn't be a good partner, IMO. Believing that your free time is more valuable …
/r/MensRights01/03/23 11:33 AM
-1

if you are both putting equal time into things like childcare and chores then the man is going to have put more into the family If both spouses work 40 hours a week and split housework/childcare, they have contributed equally to the household, regardless of their respective incomes. Experiencing that variance is what happens when you have an equal partner and work as a team. Sometimes one partner gets laid off, or suffers a disability, or has to take a lower paying job. It's just how life goes. …
/r/MensRights28/02/23 08:51 PM
-4

Nope, I can't agree with that. Time is more valuable than money. If both partners are investing equal time and effort into a marriage, it's a fair distribution. This kind of nickle and diming transactionality sounds like a recipe for disaster. It's just so antithetical to the teamwork needed to make a marriage work. And I'm saying this as someone who's been married more than 20 years and experienced: having the higher income, having the lower income, being unemployed, and being the sole breadwin…
/r/MensRights28/02/23 08:33 PM
-4

It should be based on the relative number of hours worked, not whether one partner earns more. So that number of hours paid work + chores + childcare is roughly the same for each partner. That's equitable. Not to say that earning more than your partner doesn't have its perks. For example, my W2 shows I made $300 more this year, so I can refer to my spouse as "fancy-pants sugar baby" until the situation's reversed.
/r/MensRights28/02/23 07:53 PM
9

That's our regular weekly cleaning. I went through the chore list and just added everything up. This includes: daily picking up, laundry (and change sheets), bathrooms scrubbed, kitchen scrubbed, whole house dusted and vacuumed and kitchen and bathrooms mopped. I'll admit I have a decent sized house, but it's not huge. All the deep clean, under the bed stuff is just twice a year- before Christmas and late spring. Generally, my husband and I split the household tasks, but I did them all for nearl…
/r/MensRights28/02/23 05:43 PM
44

Honestly it's quite silly to count the time the machine is running as "time worked". Yep. The only instance "waiting" should count is if you're sitting around a laundromat.
/r/MensRights28/02/23 05:27 PM
-3

doing laundry does actually take longer than 1h30 per week in nost cases I was thinking that too. It takes me (or my spouse) roughly 30 hands-on minutes per load (sorting, loading washer/dryer, folding or hanging up). It's a load a day of clothes or towels and 2 sets of bed linens per week. So, 4.5 hours for a couple and just bedding/towels for our daughter.
/r/MensRights28/02/23 04:23 PM
41

Yeah, 40 hours sounds really high for a family with no small kids. As someone who's done the whole SAH thing, it's more like 10-12 hours cleaning and 13-14 hours of cooking/dishes/getting groceries.
/r/MensRights28/02/23 03:40 PM
1

Companies mostly do the same thing for international men's day as international women's day- change their social media page for a day. It's like he said earlier in the video, be performative but don't actually accomplish anything. I don't know anyone who acknowledges either day IRL. I kind of thought that's what the joke was.
/r/MensRights27/02/23 11:39 AM
3

I rewatched that ad and thought it portrayed the dad in a very positive light. Protagonist-style music, people cheering him on and calling him a hero. He comes across as a very dedicated father. I really don't think the ad creators were going for a "dumb dad" message. As a parent, it's funny because kids are so fickle. Today's favorite binky/toy/whatever is tomorrow's old news. And because constantly forgetting things is part of being a new parent. Surprisingly, women make up 46% of Superbowl vi…
/r/MensRights27/02/23 11:17 AM
2

It's funny how he flipped the (actually female) mascots to male only to switch them "back" for wokeness. Very clever.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 10:58 PM
5

Wendy's mascot has always been female...along with nearly all the other mascots in the video. It was satirical.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 10:56 PM
1

It's a joint responsibility- the individual as well as society. That's the only way to truly make a difference in the % of people overweight. Obesity is a public health issue- like smoking. The rate of smokers in the US didn't drop just because people took responsibility and quit. It was also the result of a massive national education campaign, strict government regulations and subsidized support for those wanting to help themselves. Same approach is needed for obesity. Also, I'm self-aware enou…
/r/MensRights26/02/23 02:20 PM
2

This post kind of misses the big picture because it doesn't address the root causes of obesity. I mean, we're talking about a society where 3 out of 4 are overweight, not giving advice to one heavy friend. Everyone already knows that exercising and eating nutritious foods in proper amounts leads to healthy weight. So why aren't people doing it? The answer to that question is the root cause, the issues that really need to be solved to combat the obesity epidemic. And there's a lot of things we, a…
/r/MensRights26/02/23 01:57 PM
5

You've got to think about cause and effect here. An increasingly overweight population caused the body positivity movement, not the other way around. It makes sense if you think about it. Body positivity in advertising and media is primarily focused towards women, but there's a greater percentage of overweight men in the US (77% men vs 69% women). If body positivity were causing people to be overweight, women would be more likely to be overweight, by a large degree. But they aren't. Also, averag…
/r/MensRights26/02/23 11:21 AM
5

Yeah, there's no way kissing someone much taller than yourself would be uncomfortable /s I'm 5'2 and my ex is 6'4- it was a literal pain in the neck. I never dated anyone taller than 6' after that. My husband is 6 even- just right. Short enough to kiss comfortably but tall enough to tuck me under his chin when we hug. The idea that there's no upper limit on height preference is just absurd.
/r/MensRights26/02/23 12:02 AM
3

As a short woman, I can confirm. If you get a crick in your neck from looking up at/kissing your SO...too tall.
/r/MensRights25/02/23 06:34 PM
1

It can, but that depends on which blush someone wears and how it's applied. Blush can also put the natural color back in your cheeks since foundation gives a "flat" look. Or it can be used for a sun kissed look, or to make the wearer look more cutesy. Makeup is like clothes. Some is overtly sexual (cough, "Nars blushes"), most isn't.
/r/MensRights25/02/23 01:10 AM
5

On the bright side, the labor shortage has been good for workers because it's giving them leverage to negotiate better compensation. I make 40% more than I did just two years ago- by switching companies and taking advantage of the lack of workers with my skillset (procurement). It's a similar story with a bunch of my friends and coworkers.
/r/MensRights24/02/23 11:27 AM
3

Who wouldn't enjoy cats? They're great. But if you mean "enjoy being alone" you missed the mark (again). I'm married, with a kid.
/r/MensRights24/02/23 09:45 AM
3

Have you never had a customer service job? Or even been a customer? The customer complains about what in their opinion is a bad experience with a business or it's employees. Simple as that. It's up to the manager to determine whether the complaint has merit, and in this case they did. I'm not sure what consequences you mean. People who complain about a bad experience usually have their problems fixed. So, I guess that's a consequence. It's the employee's responsibility to represent the company w…
/r/MensRights24/02/23 03:10 AM
6

It took like 20 seconds to find out this lady is married (from post history). I wonder how many of your other assumptions/interpretations were also incorrect. If someone is being unprofessional or giving poor customer service, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making a complaint. And it's not up to the customer what disciplinary action the employer takes. Nor is it the customer's problem to worry about.
/r/MensRights24/02/23 02:13 AM
40

They could be dating each other. 7% of Americans identify as LGBTQ, which would be 9 million women by the numbers above.
/r/MensRights22/02/23 06:08 PM
4

Honestly, finding 10% of men attractive seems too high. At least, if you mean "attractive enough to date." Speaking for myself, it's closer to 5%. But, they aren't going to be the same group for every woman. For example, I'd hard pass on redheads or facial hair but other women like those traits.
/r/AntiFeminists16/02/23 12:54 PM
5

Attractiveness is power for everyone, really. It's a pretty well studied phenomenon that attractive people are treated better, regardless of gender. Also, others tend to perceive attractive people as having all sorts of positive characteristics, like intelligence and competence at work. Anyone who wants to get ahead would be wise to increase their attractiveness as much as possible- through clothes, grooming, healthy weight and, yes, makeup.
/r/AntiFeminists15/02/23 11:18 AM
29

They're referencing previous studies showing women wearing makeup are viewed more favorably. Basically, study participants are shown pictures of women with different levels of makeup, from none to heavy glam. Then they're asked to rate the women on different characteristics. Women wearing makeup are seen as friendlier, more competent and more trustworthy than those without. However, there's evidence that women wearing heavy makeup are viewed as less trustworthy and more frivolous than those with…
/r/AntiFeminists15/02/23 04:55 AM
1

Yes, God forbid I use the term being discussed 🙄 You have to know that the term doesn't mean what it used to. I mean, just Google "incel." Even the literal dictionary definitions include hatred of women, society and sexually active people. That's just how average people use the term. Eta- I'm laughing at undesirable and unattractive. The bouquet of purple roses I received today addressed to "my greatest love" would certainly suggest otherwise.
/r/AntiFeminists14/02/23 01:02 AM
6

There certainly were far more different topics before.
/r/AntiFeminists13/02/23 10:47 PM
-4

Radical incels are the ones who changed the meaning of "incel" to what it is now. Average Joe/Jane hears about incels from news reports of violence or screenshots of crazy posts from incels.is. Those are what changed incel from meaning "involuntary celibate" to "bitter, misogynistic involuntary celibate with violent ideation."
/r/AntiFeminists13/02/23 10:22 PM
1

Agreed. Or the idea that women don't want sex.
/r/AntiFeminists13/02/23 02:04 PM
20

The answer's in the first rule of the sub: "Feminism isn't synonymous with women." Of course you're going to get your wrist slapped for violating it. What did you expect? As far as modern women, most people just can't be bothered with being any kind of "ist." They're just living their lives in the society that exists. Personally, I've only got the bandwidth to really care about a couple of issues at a time. Too busy to be an activist.
/r/AntiFeminists11/02/23 08:05 PM
1

I'm not saying women can't be nasty. I'm just surprised people are still using gay as an insult. First, because it doesn't have any teeth- there's nothing wrong with being gay. And second, someone using gay in a derogatory way is likely to be labeled anti- LGBTQ and get a reputation for being intolerant.
/r/AntiFeminists11/02/23 10:09 AM
-2

Do they? I don't really hear "gay" used as an insult anymore. Mostly because there's no insult in it- being gay is fine. I live in a very liberal state, though. It probably varies by region.
/r/AntiFeminists11/02/23 12:56 AM
85

Shaming men for cuddling their family members does seem pretty toxic though. Regardless of whether you call it toxic masculinity or something else.
/r/AntiFeminists10/02/23 10:59 PM
2

Puerto Ricans are Americans. How I'd that not "western"?
/r/AntiFeminists08/02/23 04:31 PM
-2

They're certainly doing a lot of complaining about overweight women, though.
/r/AntiFeminists08/02/23 04:14 PM
0

But most US men are overweight too (77%). Overweight is the new "average" size.
/r/AntiFeminists08/02/23 03:59 PM
5

I think you're underestimating how much effort women put into looking put together. As a woman, a typical morning involves: healthy low cal breakfast, 30-60 min workout, shaving legs and underarms, multi step skincare routine, picking an outfit, styling hair, and applying makeup. It can be two hours plus, and that's all before work. Plus there's a bunch of beauty maintenance- hair treatments, face masks, exfoliating, plucking eyebrows (and elsewhere). Sure, some people roll out of bed looking fa…
/r/AntiFeminists07/02/23 05:18 AM
1

There have always been a small minority of women that act this way. Social media makes the minority look like the majority.
/r/AntiFeminists05/02/23 10:59 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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