TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

peter_venture Archive

View 0 posts and 2,399 comments by peter_venture 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)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 2,399 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
80

Hmmm, what could be causing this 'unfortunate' situation? Oh, I know! It's their own sexism and hate! It's their own self imposed discrimination!
/r/MensRights03/08/26 03:03 PM
7

Yeah, but does it really? Feminism is really just concerned with challenging female roles and leaving men as they are. They're only too happy to continue life on a pedestal and on easy mode. My examples aren't at all funny, they were literally chosen to show that this is what feminism embodies and preaches. No more traditional roles for women while they continue for men. Let us know when feminism encourages women to take the more dirty and physical higher paying jobs like men do. Let us know whe…
/r/MensRights01/08/26 09:08 PM
6

The name comes from the fact that women wanted (and want) to gain rights and advantages apart from what men have. Freedom from traditional women's roles while still expecting men to be traditional, doing the dirty work and the heavy lifting. Initiating contact, which then conveniently means paying (YOU asked ME). It's Schrodinger's Feminism. It's great when it advantages you while at the same time absolving you from the messier aspects.
/r/MensRights01/08/26 07:53 PM
7

No. The name itself quite literally tells you the focus is FEMales. Hence FEMinism. You're thinking of equalitarianism. ☠️
/r/MensRights01/08/26 03:25 PM
30

OMG! I saw this on Court TV yesterday. I was amazed (although I shouldn't have been) about how the 'reporters' were tripping over themselves and each other to find reasons to make her the victim. What happened to make her do that? Why wasn't she given the help she needed? Post partum depression is real! Where was her husband while this was going on? (At work, supporting her depressed ass.) It's really bizarre how they can look past a woman murdering her three small children. No accountability ev…
/r/MensRights30/07/26 06:30 PM
6

On an early episode of The Big Bang Theory Leonard's Mom tells Penny that she's been responsible for her own orgasms for years. Lots of laughs. But why? Why shouldn't Beverly be responsible for her own? It's a foregone conclusion that her husband is responsible for his own. Of course in a loving relationship we should all be helping our partner to reach that goal. But pseudo intellectual nonsense terms like orgasm gap seek to make it a men problem. Men know what they have to do to reach the fini…
/r/MensRights27/07/26 03:19 PM
2

This reminds me of the somewhat infamous Barbara Walters interview with Sean Connery. At one point she asks him if he believes women should be hit. He says oh yes, women sometimes deserve to be hit. This statement was immediately taken as misogyny and as inciting violence against women. Barbara never asked Sean if he believed men should also be hit. He had a reputation as kind of a carousing type of man, and he certainly would have said yes, men sometimes deserve to be hit. He wasn't singling wo…
/r/MensRights25/07/26 02:49 PM
1

So a step forward for men is bad? We shouldn't do anything for men unless we do something for women, who already have an advantage? That's an awful lot of white knighting going on. Dude, listen to yourself. Men should be allowed to make strides in dress codes. These changes don't have to include women. And women already have a lot of room wardrobe wise. We shouldn't limit mens choices based on women feeling left out. They should be working on their own issues right along, rather than trying to l…
/r/MensRights24/07/26 03:43 PM
1

What world do you live in? Men are used to women having dress code advantages. If they got another most men wouldn't even notice. It's just expected. So to recap, men get an attire exception for during the hot weather. It's not permanent. But oh no! Women can't still be superior! As women like to say for men, maybe it's up to them to try to change things for women, rather than tearing down men? It's a step in the right direction, but since it favors men, we just can't have that, right?
/r/MensRights24/07/26 03:09 PM
1

Dude, do you know what words mean? The entire article is telling us that men can wear shorts and show their legs, if they choose. Nothing has changed for women. What's the problem? That it's not all about women? Your simping here is beyond belief.
/r/MensRights24/07/26 03:00 PM
1

What have you added to the conversation? The linked article says women say there is an expectation, not a rule, but that's not good enough for you. In dress codes women always have more choices and always are able to show more flesh. So what have the women lost here? Nothing. The dress code is still the same for them. Men make a rare gain, women most affected, right? Why does everything have to be about women? They never worried about what men had to wear before.
/r/MensRights24/07/26 02:49 PM
1

The article isn't exactly Pulitzer Prize winning reporting. It's just another hack piece looking to blame men for gaining just a smidge of equality with women. Women are always the victims, aren't they? Even when it's just men not being expected to roast in hot weather? Keep believing that, because Women Are Wonderful™, right?
/r/MensRights24/07/26 02:29 PM
1

I love how you can't comprehend that the only ones expecting this of women are the women themselves. I love how when men get just a taste of dress code equality these women can't stomach it and you feel the need to white knight the women. Have fun pedestalizing them and thinking they are fragile innocent little things. Some of us believe we should all be treated equally in the workplace.
/r/MensRights24/07/26 02:55 AM
1

From: https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-international/2026/07/20/UISGTD6UHZFWPJAG6ALIUX2MWQ/ Although the policy allows both men and women to wear shorts, some argue reality is different. Men are not judged for what they wear at work, they say, while Japanese women still face pressure to cover their legs with pantyhose or long skirts. So, women aren't being required to wear tights. They just FEEL like they should. Some women just can't deal with a tiny bit of equality in the dress code.
/r/MensRights24/07/26 02:32 AM
1

It's not an employer expectation, it's a social thing The rules were relaxed for men only because it was men only who were forbidden to show their legs previously. Women could wear dresses or skirts or even dresses. Men were told by the rules to wear pants. But now that the playing field is more level some women have a problem with it? They're just upset that they no longer have a comfort advantage. That's obvious to most here.
/r/MensRights24/07/26 01:39 AM
2

If it's your job it's a job requirement, not an expectation. No one is required to wear stockings. And it's probably other women expecting this. No, the women don't have a point here. It's just sour grapes.
/r/MensRights23/07/26 11:27 PM
10

It's important to remember that men were also accused of being witches in Salem. Five of the 14 executed were men. It's always portrayed as a men against women thing.
/r/MensRights23/07/26 06:22 PM
13

Why are men expected to make sure women cross the finish line, but there is no expectation that they do the same? We often hear that men are selfish lovers or that women haven't orgasmed in years. Whose fault is that? Their own. Men orgasm more (or so we hear) because we know what needs to be done to reach that point and we do it. All while trying to accommodate our partner as well. We should be able to enjoy ourselves while helping our partner, but they need to take responsibility for themselve…
/r/MensRights23/07/26 05:55 PM
0

Chaplin may have been a womanizer, but I suspect it was his extreme wealth that incentivized those women into accepting his advances. As for the age gap, he married his 36 years younger wife in 1943 and stayed with her until his death ☠️ n 1977. During this time they had eight children together. It seems to have worked for them.
/r/MensRights22/07/26 06:33 PM
1

The key word is 'expected'. It's not a requirement. Before this, the men were required to wear pants and weren't allowed to wear shorts.
/r/MensRights22/07/26 05:37 PM
4

Good thing they wear the same size!
/r/MensRights22/07/26 05:33 PM
2

Reading comprehension is your friend. The qualifier 'even if' isn't a concession. It means even if it's true OR NOT. As in, no matter who started it, you know it's wrong, so if you keep doing it then that's on you. You are accountable for the actions you take even if you're just following the lead of someone else.
/r/MensRights20/07/26 03:54 PM
10

Even if that's true it doesn't matter who set it up. It matters that it keeps happening more and more, but the perpetrators say 'I didn't set it up.' Guess what, you are responsible for your own actions.
/r/MensRights20/07/26 01:46 AM
7

But it is discrimination. Legalized discrimination.
/r/MensRights20/07/26 01:33 AM
1

Just because it doesn't usually happen that way doesn't mean it's not true. Never underestimate a woman's ability to be bitchy to anyone.
/r/MensRights19/07/26 08:51 AM
5

It can be both😀
/r/MensRights18/07/26 07:17 PM
1

Misogyny doesn't necessarily come from men. Women can be misogynistic to other women about some things and not others.
/r/MensRights18/07/26 06:15 PM
14

It is frustrating, but honestly, subs that can't bear to tolerate the presence of those who may possibly have a differing opinion aren't worth your time. Let them wallow in their ignorance.
/r/MensRights18/07/26 06:12 PM
0

Sexism? Or truth? You know women aren't right all the time, right? Remember, when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 07:15 PM
0

Something something typical woman having to have the last word, no matter how wrong she is
/r/MensRights17/07/26 06:33 PM
1

Wow. Are you even arguing with the person you think you are? Out of nowhere you accused me of blaming women for my issues - what issues? All I said was that women run HR and that women decide who to date, also true. When I said that it set you off on other tangents. I NEVER said women are the problem. Are you delusional? I said that women need to be treated as men are treated, not like they're made of glass. Do you have some meds you're off of now? Because you are making little to no sense here.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 05:29 PM
1

What? You know nothing about me. You built a totally false narrative of me 'blaming'' women for everything based on me saying that women run HR and that women choose who to date, both perfectly true. You accused me of thinking I'm a victim of women. Not even remotely true Being more inclusive does NOT mean capitulating to women at every turn and giving in to their every demand. It means equal opportunity, with give and take from both sides. You need to stop playing the white night and treat wome…
/r/MensRights17/07/26 05:14 PM
0

Oh, continually overbearing and pompous? Yeah, you just can't stop yourself, can you? Imagining transgressions that no one else can see? That tracks. You continue to be overwhelmingly tiresome and full of yourself. Please take it elsewhere.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 04:14 PM
1

You keep talking about how you need to lead men to do what's best for them. Because apparently they don't know. It's your superior attitude that says you think you know more than men. You talk down to everyone every time you're here. Who invented any argument? That's all on you. You were told, politely, you were wrong and you spiraled. Typically.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 03:45 PM
1

Cool. Continue living in the past. Which, 'most of the last century' isn't even true. And was I 'blaming' anyone? It's a true statement, but apparently it's uncomfortable for you. If we're going to move on from the past we have to expect the same from both women and men.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 03:41 PM
0

If men have an easier time accessing health care, why are women able to do it so much more? Women visit the doctor 33% more than men, it's true. So the policy is to shame men and call them stupid? To never look for the reasons why? This isn't helping. It's bullying because men aren't like women. That's your methodology too.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 03:38 PM
1

Are you blind? HR is run by women. I have seen more than once HR being women-centric in their doings and policies. And what else did I say? That women decide who to date. That's always been true. Things that are called unreasonable for men are just boundaries for women. Stop ignoring facts.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 03:31 PM
0

Who's hand waving issues away? That's you whenever you're pressed on an issue. Who says I don't promote men to go to the doctor? True, I don't try to shame men into anything. I understand that many men don't have the wherewithal to run to the doctor at the drop of a hat as many women do and don't take a morally superior attitude. This is something you made up to have an argument with. You come in here pretending you're an expert on mens issues while being wrong about many things you say, and can…
/r/MensRights17/07/26 03:20 PM
1

Who's using women as the villain? Stating facts is NOT villianizing anyone. Pay attention to the reality all around you. Just to clear things up: I am not a victim of women, or anyone else. I couldn't ask for a better wife, my sisters are the best, and my daughters are phenomenal people (as are my sons). I see plenty of good women in the world. But that doesn't mean they all are. And for some reason, while men can be bad mouthed and talked down till the cows come home, it's somehow verboten to s…
/r/MensRights17/07/26 03:10 PM
0

So all your talk about Canada was about years ago? Yes, you need to spell it out when you're talking about two different things at the same time. And you bring up foreigners taking children to the doctor like that's relatable? And I'm have no substance? Remember, this started with me correcting your misinformation on prostate exams, and you went on to claim you are correct and know better than men know about their own bodies. You need to show yourself out and refrain from lecturing men about how…
/r/MensRights17/07/26 05:38 AM
0

And here you are again, telling other people and especially men how easy they have things. And earlier you said you're in Canada, but now you're running your mouth on how easy it is in America? Everything isn't as simple as you try to make it, and you're too dense to comprehend. So keep living in your world of delusion. You're probably happiest there.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 05:27 AM
0

Yes, I agreed testing is higher for women, and told you why. BECAUSE THEY HAVE PLENTY MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SO. Men have to work, women can or not, depending on how they feel. BTW, you avoided a lot of my questions (like what makes you such an expert on men). But I don't really expect one, since you're just here to act superior.
/r/MensRights17/07/26 04:28 AM
0

Strawman argument? Where? You mean things you simply don't agree with? You're the one here deciding what's normal and logical for men to do without any reason other than because you feel that way. Testing and complacency is higher for women than men? Weren't we talking about prostate exams? Or are we talking about how mens jobs tend to not have the same flexibility or leeway that a lot of womens jobs do, and that a lot of men can't just take time off at the drop of a hat? That a lot of men have …
/r/MensRights17/07/26 01:03 AM
1

Quite simply, your lived experience isn't the standard. Yes, elevated numbers lead to that but in the majority of cases aren't elevated numbers. Maybe lead with this to those less likely to have the test. But really, isn't that the doctors' role? You still haven't answered the question of how you became the all knowing lord of how all men feel. The manner you show here is abrasive and off putting.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 11:40 PM
1

Maybe talking about things you actually know about would be embraced more. Maybe not lecturing men about how they should feel and how they should act would stop all the downvotes you get? A few years back I worked with my aunt to raise money and awareness on breast cancer research, but that doesn't make me an expert on tits. Honestly, I just came on here to give you an FYI on the most common test for prostate cancer these days and you took it as a personal affront. Don't come on here setting you…
/r/MensRights16/07/26 10:22 PM
3

Organizing a drive is quite the accomplishment. Good for you for doing that. Does it make you an expert on prostates or mens issues? No. Stick to the administrative side and things you have practical knowledge about. You're on here a lot trying to explain to men the way men think, and you're so far from correct.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 09:22 PM
6

Or perhaps your ramblings aren't as clear as you think. You were wrong and tried to doublespeak your way out of it. You poorly attempted to explain why men do what men do. You clearly have no idea what it's like for men. And that's okay, but you need to quit acting like you do. Maybe stop acting like you're the savior for men.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 08:53 PM
10

I see no goalposts being moved to simply acknowledge the methodology currently in use. And the point is that your mistaken belief that men aren't doing this because they see it as 'gay' doesn't track because it's not true. Maybe let men tell why is they do what they do. Don't speak for them.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 07:26 PM
14

FYI about prostate exams: Guidelines have shifted in recent years. The PSA blood test is considered the primary and more accurate screening method. Routine DREs (digital rectal exams) are no longer heavily relied upon as standalone cancer screenings but may still be performed to investigate specific symptoms.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 05:49 PM
1

Even if that was true in the past, which it isn't (women have always worked), what about now? We're talking about now. Women run HR, women decide who they are going to date. Women are calling the shots there. Stop blaming men for things women are clearly in charge of.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 03:00 PM
1

Denial. More than a river in Egypt. Yeah, women aren't the helpless silent little victims many like to portray.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 02:48 PM
1

Predates women? Women were always there adding their opinions. The power behind the throne and all that.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 02:45 PM
1

Who DID make that rule? In a work setting, HR is run by women. Outside of work, women are the ones who have the choice of saying yes or no to a date. Yes, if course it's their choice, but no one is making them do that. It's pretty clear that it's women making that rule.
/r/MensRights16/07/26 02:26 PM
5

We can do both.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 10:37 PM
3

But he's a big fat lazy nincompoop.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 10:29 PM
0

This is his experience. If you want to say his experience is atypical then say that. Don't act like his lived experience never happened.
/r/MensRights15/07/26 10:25 PM
1

So you think that because in some places women have things worse than whenever that poster is from that the men on the receiving end of the misandry and sexism should ignore whatever inequalities are going on where they are? Why would or should they do that? How does it help women in third world countries to let women in non third world countries run rampant with misandry and sexism? GTFO with that 'logic'.
/r/MensRights14/07/26 06:59 PM
6

I wonder what grandpa did all those times to deserve this. /s
/r/MensRights13/07/26 06:59 PM
6

Yeah and in this case the perpetrator was shot and killed by the police. The end results aren't at all comparable.
/r/MensRights13/07/26 06:54 PM
3

Sorry, I'm just trying to understand how you just pulled this scenario out of your ass and just expect that everyone will just buy this nonsense. Nothing remotely leading to events like this was said or implied, yet, here we are
/r/MensRights13/07/26 06:45 PM
1

Probably a lot, but male angels present a lot differently than female angels.
/r/MensRights12/07/26 07:50 PM
7

I think you're confused. OP does believe in free speech, but there's no due process in Are We Dating The Same Guy and other similar sites. They exclude men from seeing what was written about them, which is often mainly lies, and includes a lot of doxxing and sharing of personal information with a lot of misinformation.
/r/MensRights12/07/26 07:43 PM
7

No we haven't been watching movies with full frontal nudity of women for years. Occasionally breasts were shown, but we're often told women should be able to be topless in public like men, and that seems fair. But there was an uproar to show male genitalia even though female genitalia was rarely shown. And we do it
/r/MensRights12/07/26 07:29 PM
4

The actor is Jason Isaacs. Have a look.
/r/MensRights12/07/26 07:24 PM
2

I don't know what world y'all live in, but this has been an awesome unrealistic expectation for literal decades. Some 'make it work' and scrimp and cut back on a lot of things, but for most it isn't easy and hasn't been for a while now.
/r/MensRights12/07/26 06:39 PM
1

Men in the US still need to sign up for Selective Service, with very real consequences if they don't. Women never have consequences. They can run their mouths and call everything sexist and not be expected to do the hard work, and it's okay. They can lie about statistics and refuse to verify, but that's okay too. Google is your friend. Google 'Which gender spends the most worldwide by percentage for your snswer. Men are 75% of homeless but social services are all about helping those poor women. …
/r/MensRights12/07/26 03:21 PM
1

Sorry, that 85% is a worldwide statistic. And while there is still gender bias and discrimination in the world, those are in very small areas. I think we can all name four or five countries still in the dark ages gender wise, but they are the exception. No one is stopping you if you want to help these women. And remember the point of this post, that women have more rights than men, mainly by not being subject to conscription the vast majority of the time. That's s still true, which is why you're…
/r/MensRights12/07/26 01:56 AM
1

Ever hear the saying 'Behind every great man is a woman'? Women love taking credit for everything a man does, if it's good or well received. They could also say 'Behind every bad man is a woman' and it would be just as true, but no one wants to take credit for the bad. As for money, women are responsible for 85% of all expenditures. So men may technically hold the wealth, women control the purse strings. And when you talk about policy making decisions, remember that women are approximately 51% o…
/r/MensRights12/07/26 12:09 AM
10

Trying to build themselves up by tearing others down.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 09:25 PM
10

I think the point that you are actively avoiding is that the idea that she was lying is NEVER considered. No one has to automatically assume, yet no one EVER looks at that possibility. But back to this particular case. She was found to be untruthful yet there are no consequences. And why do we splash the man's name to the world? Yes, this is a UK issue, but people need to talk about it to get things done. There seems to be a real effort to keep the status quo.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 08:12 PM
12

Why do you suppose women's health isn't discussed in this sub? Because they lie all the time that men have better care. Mens symptoms are dismissed all the time. The fact that women go to the doctor way more than men (don't we always hear how men don't go to the doctor) that then leads to their complaints being dismissed more. They assume that men are prescribed drugs at the drop of a hat with exactly zero evidence. They think of it as a competition, without seeing that if it is, they're the one…
/r/MensRights11/07/26 08:02 PM
6

But is anyone even trying to do anything like this? No. When women are found to have lied holding her responsible is never even considered.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 07:48 PM
1

Maybe not responsible, but did you ever hear of the White Feather Campaign? A lot of women have been only too happy to send men and boys off to horrible fates for a long time now.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 07:40 PM
3

Men hear all the time that we have to do things to help women and feminism, but women are allowed to sit back and say 'Wasn't my fault! Not me!'? No, it's up to EVERYONE to do what needs to be done to correct things. And don't act like things like conscription were agreed upon by men while women sat in the kitchen wringing their hands saying 'Oh my, this is so wrong, but what can I do? I'm just a girl'. Plenty of men were opposed while many women spoke their minds to their husbands. It wasn't a …
/r/MensRights11/07/26 07:28 PM
30

Except she wasn't raped. As proven in court. Her name should be released to the public and sung from the mountaintops.
/r/MensRights11/07/26 06:24 PM
9

Don't you dare try to take my victimhood away from me!
/r/MensRights11/07/26 05:05 AM
2

Great words to live by. Now let's try to get everyone else to do likewise.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 05:05 AM
1

Just because a lot of people talked about dating doesn't mean that was the sole focus. And yes, attitudes toward mens grooming are rightfully evolving, but this experience is by no means universal. There are still a lot of old fashioned attitudes out there, and men often play along to get along. To pretend that everyone is able to wear their hair as they please is ignoring the reality we live in. But hey, you're free to do this.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 04:29 AM
1

I'm sorry that has been your experience. But that's more of a choice by the recruiting office, whereas mens hair length is often enshrined in the job handbook. No leeway allowed to the recruiters. As for who invented these policies, I don't recall anyone blaming feminists or anyone else. But that's not the question. The question is about how things are done now. Nothing says anyone has to follow what was done in the past.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 04:03 AM
0

The post is titled 'Long hair shunned on men because...' I don't see in what capacity being mentioned. The hair envy thing struck me as completely off the wall and not a real thing, but that doesn't change the fact that men with long hair are viewed negatively while women aren't, just for existing. I believe that is the point here, that it's normalized and it's wrong.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 03:53 AM
1

Of course women can have choices in dating. Just like men do. Who said they can't? Don't put words in my mouth. It's when they also are then denied jobs because of their hair length. There are an awful lot of women in HR, you know.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 03:40 AM
0

Dating isn't even mentioned. It's about life in general, which includes work. But you seem to be agreeing that it's an issue employment wise. So this is okay with you? And if men have to have shorter hair for work, of course they likewise will in dating. The two are intertwined.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 03:18 AM
2

No, it's definitely a male/ female thing. Men can't be clean cut with hair the same length as many women? That's just sexism. I agree it's more beneficial to go along to get along, but that's playing the same sexist game. It shouldn't happen this way, but it is.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 03:13 AM
0

What are you even talking about? No distinction was made between dating and occupation. Both are in play here. Attempting to police this is where the bad faith comes into play. Both are shunned. But while dating is a personal choice, hair length should be enforced on both genders equally in regard to employment. That's what everyone is talking about here, except maybe you.
/r/MensRights10/07/26 03:00 AM
4

Don't forget Al Franken. He was elected US Senator from Minnesota. Then someone began circulating a staged photo of him seemingly lecherously approaching a woman with hands poised over her breasts. There was no touching and it was later revealed that both parties set this up as a joke. No matter. It was presented as disrespectful to women and he was heavily pressured to resign. Looks like old tricks work best.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 10:14 PM
3

The evidence is 'because she said so'. You know, Believe All Women™.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 10:07 PM
0

Try asking the men who had to cut their hair just to have a job opportunity. It's a real thing.
/r/MensRights09/07/26 08:50 PM
0

That's not how that works. And why should they have to do that anyway? Women are allowed in the men's locker room without any explanation or justification. Just free access anywhere, any time.
/r/MensRights08/07/26 09:37 PM
1

You mean like the womens locker room is? Men aren't allowed to freely walk in there, are they?
/r/MensRights08/07/26 09:14 PM
57

Why do you think men have no right to privacy? Do you think women would be so blase if male custodians freely roamed the womens changing rooms? After having removed their shower curtaind as well? We all realize that when using a mens locker room that we will probably be seen naked by other men. But there's a reasonable expectation that women will not be present. Why should men whose values and morals include gender privacy have those values ignored while the same is never expected or forced on w…
/r/MensRights08/07/26 02:49 AM
15

Have you heard of simps? White knights? And a lot of times they aren't even aware they're doing it. They're so determined to come to the rescue of the damsels in distress they blame others for any misfortune that may arise. Because, you know, Women Are Wonderful ™️.
/r/MensRights02/07/26 02:38 AM
15

Livvy Dunne is a social media influencer with over 10 million followers. She literally feeds on the attention. She generates a lot of publicity and attention. These men pursuing her aren't fans. They're paparazzi wanting to get pictures and videos they can sell across social media, her aforementioned stomping grounds. These are men trying to make a living in a climate created by her. I'm sure it can get to be a bit much, but it's a world of her own making. She's no victim here.
/r/MensRights30/06/26 08:50 PM
2

Tangentially related, same idea: Most of us have heard the saying: Behind every great (or good) man is a woman. So mother or wife usually gets credit for instilling the good or great qualities. But every man has a woman behind him, so what about the bad men, or even the kind of sketchy men? Shouldn't women be taking the credit or blame for them too? But no, it's only the good stuff they claim.
/r/MensRights29/06/26 08:23 PM
14

Sparky? For explaining reality? Even if she's genuine, that not enough for men to start throwing caution to the wind. It'll take a long time for wounds this deep to heal. Letting her know things will take a lot longer to change is giving her one of the answers she is apparently seeking. Why would this be a problem?
/r/MensRights28/06/26 06:23 AM
19

Well forgive us if we don't just take your word that it's okay to be ourselves and start opening up. If you really do get what I'm saying you can be one of those who call out other women and girls for acting like they're owed the world just for existing and treat men as beneath them.
/r/MensRights28/06/26 12:58 AM
137

'...we live in a day and age where society is constantly shouting to be yourself and open...' No, that's shouted only to women. Men have to watch every thing they say and do, since it's so easy to be labeled a creep, or difficult. Even if it's a small number of women doing it, the consequences are severe enough to warrant men staying away. Maybe women who don't do this should call out their friends and relatives who do?
/r/MensRights27/06/26 08:33 PM
1

Those two particular words? Yes, they trend more towards women. But curse terms in general? There are way more words used nearly exclusively toward men, and that's apparently okay. Asshole, bastard, fucker (with endless variations) dick, fag, cock (and variations), douche/ douchebag, cum guzzler / dick sucker, and so forth. Of course any of these may be used also for women and some are kind of unisex. But as I said earlier, it's okay in society to say these and other swears about men. I know I'l…
/r/MensRights27/06/26 02:58 PM
7

Wait... 'slut' and 'whore' are mysoginistic terms? I have often heard the terms used to describe men. One example is in the Red Hot Chili Peppers song 'Outside': She want to know if I'm still a slut... And on the same subject, it seems that men can be called any and every name possible and no one ever worries about it. Men apparently are impervious to such insults, while women must be protected from the same words.
/r/MensRights27/06/26 02:18 AM
4

That's not true. These women aren't being killed just because they are women. There is often a history between the two, but these men aren't saying 'Oh, I've been dating this woman for a while, but suddenly I feel an animosity toward all women, so I'll kill this one'. No, that's ridiculous. There are many reasons, but it's easier to say it's just because she's a woman.
/r/MensRights26/06/26 03:14 PM
5

Silly men must have forgot: it's all their own fault. Also, Women Are Wonderful™.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 07:12 PM
1

It wasn't sex that did them in.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 09:17 PM
3

No, that's egalitarianism.
/r/MensRights21/06/26 07:52 PM
4

'I'm not going to deny that women are often infantilised in the court system...' Those are your words. Then you say I'm ignoring nuance or lack basic understanding? Stop ignoring what's right in front of your face. Stop falling for the Women Are Wonderful ™ effect. Stop simping. Join the real world.
/r/MensRights21/06/26 12:50 AM
4

I can remember her being celebrated for shooting Andy Warhol. Memories like this certainly color your perception of things. Yes, Dahmer, the Memendez brothers and others are for some incomprehensible reason shown as victims as of late, but that's only for the objectively attractive male murderers. For the opposite gender all it takes is being female.
/r/MensRights20/06/26 10:23 PM
5

It's not at all the same. Women are seen as victims. Men are seen as perpetrators. Ted Bundy and a few others acheive cult status, but most are vilified. Not the women. Poor girl, she never had a chance. No, the public reaction is not at all the same.
/r/MensRights20/06/26 09:49 PM
9

You're right. But she's usually portrayed as misguided but understandable, as someone who made wrong choices but they came from a good place. A sanitized version of a psychopath. That's worrisome.
/r/MensRights20/06/26 09:29 PM
1

Arizona State University: Taught in specialized Women and Gender Studies courses (such as Hate Speech, Manifestos, and Radical Writings University of Wisconsin-Madison: Included in topics on feminist theory and social/cultural theory. University of Pennsylvania: Covered in introductory sexuality studies and queer theory courses. Cornell University: Taught in drama/performance studies focusing on queer history University of Utah: Examined in honors courses dealing with radicalism and intellectual…
/r/MensRights20/06/26 08:35 PM
6

Arizona State University: Taught in specialized Women and Gender Studies courses (such as Hate Speech, Manifestos, and Radical Writings) University of Wisconsin-Madison: Included in topics on feminist theory and social/cultural theory .University of Pennsylvania: Covered in introductory sexuality studies and queer theory courses. Cornell University: Taught in drama/performance studies focusing on queer history. University of Utah: Examined in honors courses dealing with radicalism and intellectu…
/r/MensRights20/06/26 07:36 PM
3

You know there are ways to avoid the having children part, right?
/r/MensRights15/06/26 08:38 PM
2

Is that what you've been told? You've been lied to. The maker wants you to be a good person, but sex in and of itself isn't bad.
/r/MensRights15/06/26 08:37 PM
1

It's truly nice that you and your wife each found a like-minded person to spend their life with. But not everyone shares those values and that's okay too. To expect others to hold that same standard is arrogant and unworkable in a free society.
/r/MensRights15/06/26 08:04 PM
2

Who said that respecting women is bad? You seem to be massively projecting.
/r/MensRights13/06/26 07:00 PM
2

Disagreement =|= hate.
/r/MensRights13/06/26 06:58 PM
6

Huh. I'm a 5'7" man so a lot of men and some women are taller than me. It's never made me anxious or anything else like that. I know there are bad people on the world and I'm not under any delusions otherwise. But most people aren't bad and we can't live our lives in fear of everyone with a larger stature. So if that did happen, most of us would make do, as we always have.
/r/MensRights12/06/26 06:22 PM
1

This is a terrible idea. At least we can call people out for sidelining or totally ignoring Father's Day. We can shame stores for not having Father's Day sales and events. But with a single Parent's Day we can praise women to the heavens until the cows come home while pushing men so far aside that they are totally hidden and most won't notice. We need that higher level of exposure and attention.
/r/MensRights11/06/26 06:11 PM
-17

Name calling now? Sure, that's the mature path to take. As you just stated, the article shows that women got way worse. But you choose to downplay that and say 'Oh, but men have improved' trying to take away any influence the women's actions have. It's the mens actions that are the difference? No, women got worse and there's no need to try and take any responsibility away from them.
/r/MensRights10/06/26 07:49 PM
-16

What's the subject of this post? 'Actually it's not men who minimize SA against men, it's women' And then you say men aren't SAing as much? Not that women have been minimizing and dismissing these actions right along and society is just now admitting it? Why is the burden on men when it's women ignoring what's happening?
/r/MensRights10/06/26 07:36 PM
-28

'...men have improved...' So men now don't deserve it as much as they used to? Isn't this called victim blaming?
/r/MensRights10/06/26 07:02 PM
7

Did you respond with: 'That wasn't the question. No comparison to women was needed. Please answer the question as asked.' I had a similar situation recently and kept pushing back until it acknowledged that yes, men have it worse and women are favored. Will this ultimately do any good? Probably not, but we should keep at it anyway.
/r/MensRights09/06/26 08:41 PM
23

Two different women can have children with the same man. Right there we have twice as many mothers as we do fathers.
/r/MensRights09/06/26 02:04 AM
0

Did anyone say he's just randomly doing it? Did I say it should be applied to random people? If it's a true statement, what's wrong with saying it? Are you saying he's not allowed to be truthful? Before shaming anyone we should determine if they're being truthful or not. The truth should not be denied just because some may not like hearing it.
/r/MensRights06/06/26 04:24 AM
0

Were these women sluts and bitches?
/r/MensRights05/06/26 08:22 PM
63

Cool. Now do 'How Do I Prevent My Daughter From Becoming A Self Entitled Pretentious Little Twat'.
/r/MensRights04/06/26 03:11 PM
7

From Wikipedia: Some recipients of feathers were in fact serving soldiers on leave or wounded veterans, incidents that exposed the zealotry of the campaign. Occasionally injured veterans were mistakenly targeted...Others had completed their tour of duty, and due to the contracting of diseases such as malaria, or post-traumatic stress, did not seek to voluntarily reenlist. And On more than one occasion, white feathers were handed out to teenagers, who then lied about their age to recruiters in or…
/r/MensRights31/05/26 09:08 PM
2

I have NO issue with someone seeing me nude in a place where it's expected and where I've willingly placed myself. In fact just last week I was admonished for walking nude from my locker to the shower with my towel over my shoulder rather than around my waist. I laughed because that's ridiculous. People are naked in a locker room. The issue is when the opposite gender just appears there too, like they belong there. The locker rooms are separate for a reason. But that just part of it. We all know…
/r/MensRights29/05/26 10:07 PM
2

What you 'could' do and reality for most people is apparently very different and you probably know that. 'Why is it so hard to believe that of the other way?' Our life experience. We live in the real world where that isn't true the majority of times. If it's different for you that's great, but it's not that way for most of us.
/r/MensRights29/05/26 06:28 PM
1

Apologies for assuming it was the same person who invented a scenario to argue against. But thanks for not caring about a random person.
/r/MensRights29/05/26 12:13 AM
8

So now you're butt hurt so you report me to r/RedditCaresResources? Seems like a misuse, but, whatever. No one should disagree with you!
/r/MensRights28/05/26 09:37 PM
12

Why are you arguing something that wasn't said? Yes, it's a gym, with gendered locker rooms. The expectation is that one may be seen naked by other men, and that isn't the problem. The problem is that division is ignored for the men and not the women. How you feel is fine for you, but don't expect everyone to be so blase about abandoning the privacy expectation for men only.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 09:28 PM
11

Some do care, and that's fine. Someone else's feelings shouldn't be forced on those who disagree and rightfully have an expectation of privacy.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 09:15 PM
15

That's you, and that's fine. Most of us expect locker rooms to be segregated and don't like that they supposedly are but then aren't, but only for men. I don't have a hang-up about nudity, but it shouldn't be a surprise and it shouldn't be only men experiencing this.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 09:12 PM
3

If no prostate cancer is found as a result of screening, the time between future screenings depends on the results of the PSA blood test: Men who choose to be tested who have a PSA of less than 2.5 ng/mL may only need to be retested every 2 years. Screening should be done yearly for men whose PSA level is 2.5 ng/mL or higher. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/prostate-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/acs-recommendations.html EDIT: u/Future-Stretch-401, please take note.
/r/MensRights28/05/26 08:46 PM
27

They're not wrong.
/r/MensRights24/05/26 04:03 PM
1

You haven't had anything of meaning or consequence to say for days, and yet you keep coming back. Does this make you feel like less of an asshole after having been shown that you know absolutely nothing about what you are going on and on about? Good for you! You don't let facts get in your way!
/r/MensRights23/05/26 03:24 PM
24

When someone says men aren't doing anything when these things happen, ask them: Who are the policemen and rescue workers? Who are the firemen and paramedics? Yes, some are women but the vast majority are men. The men are there, taking care of you in their normal everyday tasks. You're just taking them all for granted.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 07:37 PM
2

Oh you dear sweet confidently incorrect child! When you're demonstrably proven wrong you vaguely imply you didn't say that? Okay, whatever makes you feel good. Just keep your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and maybe stomp your feet and reality will change to whatever you think it should be. Good luck with that.
/r/MensRights21/05/26 03:37 PM
2

https://www.sss.gov/ I'm not sure what you hope to gain by insisting something isn't true when it's just an easy Internet search to prove it is true. I'm not crying about anything, but just stating easily verifiable facts. You can deny them all you want, but you're ridiculously wrong. Get help.
/r/MensRights20/05/26 09:33 PM
2

What are you even talking about,? Selective Service is still active and still requiring men only to sign up within 30 days of their 18th birthday. In fact, effective in December of this year men (only men) will be automatically signed up for Selective Service as they turn 18. THIS is the latest change in the law. Redundant or not, that's the way it works. Whether it's not the only way to do it or not, that's the current process. How often is the US government on the cutting edge of technology? I…
/r/MensRights20/05/26 04:03 AM
3

Read what I wrote and try to comprehend. True, there is no draft, but in 1980 Congress decided there should be a back up plan and reinstated Selective Service. Why do you think it exists? This way there's a pool of available recruits that can be called into service in a hurry, and of course this list includes only men. Of course Congress decides, so where are they going first once the decision is made to draft again? Why, to the back up plan, of course. And far from being an ancient document and…
/r/MensRights19/05/26 06:56 PM
13

Selective Service is men only, so if it's decided that conscription is 'needed' it's still a 'No Girls Allowed' club. Selective Service is so we're ready if necessary, but apparently only men have to be considered. Ooh, big difference.
/r/MensRights18/05/26 05:27 PM
1

Who's feeling like less of a man? That's another assumption on your part, again with no evidence. Do you even live in the real world? Sorry, most men don't base their worth on their penises.
/r/MensRights15/05/26 04:37 AM
1

So, no evidence, just assumptions? No, you're wrong. The majority of men don't waste their time and energy worrying about where they rate. It's just not a concern to most. What would make you think that?
/r/MensRights15/05/26 03:56 AM
1

Okay, I'll grant that there are a few out there. Much like a small number of people equate jealousy, the green eyed monster, with these people. Not a lot, much like your subject here. And you never did answer my question, do you really think men sit around worrying about something that's been with them all their adult lives? Other than sex workers and whores as I mentioned before. It appears that you're trying to create an issue where there's none.
/r/MensRights15/05/26 02:40 AM
1

Likewise, people aren't complaining about straight mens penises. Stop projecting.
/r/MensRights15/05/26 02:01 AM
2

Are you saying men don't call each other out when needed? My experience is that yes, we do. We often hear from women that men don't or that men don't help women enough. But who are the police, the firemen, the infantry men, and the like who keep order in our societies and who hunt and punish the wrongdoers? Men keep order in society but since it's not shangrala it's seen as not enough by many. Most men already embody these ideals. Just look a bit deeper.
/r/MensRights14/05/26 11:58 PM
1

I'm intrigued. Do you really think men sit around contemplating the size of their penises and basing the manner in which they live their lives on the result? The only men I've encountered and heard of who are so obsessed with penis size are sex workers and whores. And that's only because they have a vested interest there. Honestly, the question is somewhat akin to asking 'What do straight men with green eyes do?' It's a ridiculous question because it has no bearing on how they live their lives. …
/r/MensRights14/05/26 11:34 PM
8

How many?
/r/MensRights13/05/26 09:26 PM
5

I'm giving the scenarios most often quoted. And the 'scurrying away from everything male' was clearly mostly hyperbole but not all since you're also saying women have reasons to fear all men. Or FEEL intimidated to use your words. Having said all that, men are the victims of violent crimes in 78% of all cases so it would seem using the same criteria that men should likewise feel intimidated, but they aren't. This isn't me 'arguing for the sake of argument' but rather using statistics to show tha…
/r/MensRights12/05/26 07:08 PM
4

Who's denying reality? There's a difference between being aware of your surroundings and taking appropriate measures and and scurrying away from everything male. The percentage of men committing crimes is very small, often stated to be only 8%.
/r/MensRights12/05/26 04:57 PM
2

I'm an older man on the smaller side of average who's been around for a while and been to a lot of places. I can categorically state that I have never felt intimidated and/ or fearful when meeting an unknown person who is larger than me. I'm concerned if there's an actual threat although that seldom happens. Stop fearing the unknown and the unfamiliar.
/r/MensRights12/05/26 03:41 PM
28

This, like so many other sexual harassment cases, boils down to one thing: a man spoke harshly to a woman, and we can't have that, can we? Even if the man talks to other men the same way, women deserve to be treated with kid gloves, and just special, right? In case it isn't clear, the above statements are heavy on sarcasm. Not sarcastic that it happens, because it clearly does happen, all the time. The sarcasm is that this is accepted in society today and we treat it as normal. It's clearly a do…
/r/MensRights08/05/26 11:55 PM
6

Say you were responding in kind, because you respect women and girls and speak to them the same way you do to men and boys.
/r/MensRights05/05/26 07:10 PM
1

Yes, that line is there because that's exactly what women do. But you seem to be agreeing that 'all men may be misogynistic in some way'. There are, I'd say, a lot of men who aren't at all misogynistic. So don't allow them to play the victim. That's all
/r/MensRights04/05/26 09:14 PM
0

Uhh... those two statements aren't at all the same. Conceding that feminists may be right about some things isn't at all the same as 'all men may be misogynistic in some way'. No, ALL men aren't. But sure, let's play the eternal victim.
/r/MensRights04/05/26 06:41 PM
0

No where does this say it's all men, or that 'so many' men are unsafe to be around. You started with a conclusion you wanted and went looking for facts to fit there.
/r/MensRights30/04/26 04:55 PM
1

At at the same time men get much harsher sentences for the exact same crime. Add to that women are more likely to get a pass when men get arrested. Plus men get arrested when making domestic violence calls, because 'women aren't violent that way'. The list of differences between the way men and women are treated for the same actions is endless. Almost as if the system is built to favor women and punish men.
/r/MensRights30/04/26 04:54 PM
5

The first line of your title is a lie, then your second line seeks reasons for that lie. There cannot be any logical discourse when the foundation has no truth. No, most men aren't unsafe to be around. The absolute majority of police, firefighters, the armed forces, and all of those defending their nations are men. What are they doing? Oh, making things safer. If you're going to say 'so many' men are not safe to be around, please provide a source for the claim, showing those numbers adding up to…
/r/MensRights30/04/26 03:34 PM
9

I bet there're a lot of people who'd like to Politically Protest her bank account to themselves.
/r/MensRights26/04/26 07:57 PM
1

Google is your friend: https://www.ourtownny.com/news/planned-first-ave-homeless-shelter-now-to-house-women-AH5559460 And of course women needed the help of men in power. That's the whole point. Men helped women because they need it and it was the right thing to do. That's the part of OP's post I was referring to. Women saying men need to do everything for themselves while that's not the way it worked for women. I ignored your snarky '... don't expect to sit around and have everything done for y…
/r/MensRights26/04/26 02:18 AM
6

Well you did say 'Okay but South Korean men are a different breed'. That sounds a bit like throwing all the men under a bus while feeling sorry for the women. So yes, you did say something like that.
/r/MensRights25/04/26 07:09 PM
1

Seventeen days later? Okay... Think this through. Women succeeded with the support and help of men. Anything started by men is ridiculed and sidelined and downplayed to eternity. It isn't allowed to succeed or gain a foothold because women do everything in their power to stop it. One example is women openly protesting a shelter for homeless men and causing it to not get built, because it would be all men living there. Women also fight against things that mainly benefit men.
/r/MensRights24/04/26 09:59 PM
1

I read the story this came from. The poster complains that -- horrors!-- she 'had' to fake an orgasm. Why do most women think they are owed an orgasm? That they can just lie there starfishing and it's up to a man to figure out every bizarre little quirk she requires to get off. Conversely men need to do all the work, and more often than not, know what they need to do to achieve ejaculation (not necessarily orgasm, just ejaculation). Of course, the female anatomy provides the basic needed materia…
/r/MensRights24/04/26 04:12 PM
5

Men are the victims in a higher percentage of crime than are women, in every category except rape. And that exception is only because the definition isn't applied consistently. Made to penetrate isn't counted and is often laughed at. Men aren't allowed to claim they were too drunk to consent. And prison rape on men just isn't counted. Before you say, but who is committing the crime? Other men! But does that make them any less a victim? Are they less injured? Less shot? Less dead because the perp…
/r/MensRights23/04/26 12:45 AM
2

I agree with you. Sadly, a lot of people haven't reached that realization yet.
/r/MensRights22/04/26 06:57 PM
2

OP evidently has a very strong opinion on this that many disagree with, but many of us took that to mean he believes that way too little attention is paid on this matter. Since many seemingly have no idea that this is even a point of contention, then wanting more focus here is understandable. If you're merely saying no, that's too much, that makes sense, but your original response reads as if you also favor ignoring it. Apologies for misinterpreting your response.
/r/MensRights22/04/26 06:20 AM
3

I agree with this assessment. Your original response sounds like you're agreeing with routine circumcision, but the position that it's not worth worrying about something we can't change is more likely what we're seeing. This doesn't mean we support the continuation of the practice.
/r/MensRights22/04/26 05:35 AM
6

I think most men in America who are circumcised aren't as much glad that they are as they are indifferent to it. It was done to them decades ago when they were a newborn and there's nothing they can do about it, so some will play it off as being glad about it. Although I'm sure a few may actually be glad, most are just accepting of a situation out of their control.
/r/MensRights22/04/26 12:56 AM
11

The fact that it's CNN, who is (or at least was) known as a somewhat reputable organization, gives it extra traction. It's hard to understand why they'd portray it as such, and yet, here we are.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 07:51 PM
6

And this is how the abuse continues and grows. Someone takes an inch and you let them. No, draw a line in the sand. Go after things while they're still small and easier to handle. Go after every infraction!
/r/MensRights21/04/26 06:20 PM
7

This is one battle I'd pick for sure. You need to excise the infection as soon as possible, before it spreads. Don't let it gain a foothold! EDIT:: Correcting an errant spell check.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 06:14 PM
11

Before dismissing it out of hand as not really very much time, we need to compare it to the reverse. How much time are women completely banned, and men are surrounded by men only? My guess is never.
/r/MensRights21/04/26 06:11 PM
1

Wow! Everyone here is a lie! Thanks for making me laugh?
/r/MensRights20/04/26 12:30 AM
2

What are you even talking about? I was trolling OP -- very obviously, I thought -- but I guess you didn't get that. As if she thinks she is doing something new and original, but it's been happening for years. But okay.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 09:19 PM
5

That was said ironically, as if that's a revelation. I guess some need the /s.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 08:20 PM
11

TIL disagreement = hate.
/r/MensRights18/04/26 07:41 PM
3

I'm old. Over my many years I've seen this: Any time anything the least bit uncomfortable happens to a woman, that thing happens only to women. Men get a pass and laugh about it happening to women. If someone talks over you, it's only ever a man and the other men don't care. If you are told you should smile more, it's only because you're a woman. Men are NEVER told the same thing. If you somehow work a more physical job and are told you aren't following safety regulations correctly, you're told …
/r/MensRights17/04/26 03:35 PM
5

You have really poor reading comprehension. Or, you purposely misstate what was said to fit your own purposes. Either way, not a good look for you. Yes, my own life is pretty non-dramatic. But then I paid more attention to events around me. Why was my neighbor arrested when he called 911 when his wife hit him in the head with a frying pan, and again when she stabbed him? Why, when a couple was found guilty of armed robbery, was he given time behind bars while she got probation? The circumstances…
/r/MensRights17/04/26 02:52 AM
3

'That' logic? Not agreeing with something, but trolling those who do while feigning confusion and incomprehension? That's a self serving way of framing it. No, it's not an echo chamber. Some people are saying things you disagree with is all. And that's okay. Framing it as 'generalizing all women when it's really just another point of view that you don't see a lot is what is happening. When did I ever say or imply that 'feminist do it too'? They do, but there's no reason to act likewise. But just…
/r/MensRights16/04/26 06:58 PM
4

So if this sub is in fact an echo chamber, so what?! There are plenty of feminist echo chambers on Reddit. Why not one for men too? You don't have to be here.
/r/MensRights16/04/26 03:53 PM
2

The marriage laws you need to be concerned with are in the state where you live. It doesn't matter where you get married.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 10:21 PM
14

Cool how you make up stats to play the victim, then double down and claim (wrongly) you'll be banned for telling lies.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 10:17 PM
0

And so what if everyone here IS retarded? You're not going to get along with everyone. The world is a big place. Just deal with it and move on with your life.
/r/MensRights12/04/26 10:01 PM
5

No, if they were also working on men and boys there would be no reason to call it 'Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls' or MMIWG. It's right there in the acronym they created.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 07:30 PM
1

Ha! I also got the razor. But I had to get myself to the post office to fill out the form to potentially sign my life away. As did my male friends, while our female friends got to keep doing their hair and nails and everything else girls do while expecting someone else to take responsibility we are required by law to do. But that's reality and most of us deal with that very early on.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 04:03 PM
2

Please think about...what, exactly? How we should just believe things because people say so? That we shouldn't define terms to make sure both sides consider events the same way? Feelings are valid, but if one group sees things differently from the other, how are they fairly compared? One person's psychological violence is another person's normal way of reacting to the events around them. Define terms before comparing 'results'.
/r/MensRights11/04/26 07:35 AM
2

So we're back to Believe All Women™ then. We all know about the Duluth Model and how men are presumed to be the aggressor even with evidence to the contrary and how men have been turned away at police stations for dating to suggest a woman assaulted them. And let's also remember that the terms aren't often defined. The exact same thing can happen to both a man and a woman, but the woman will report it as assault while the man won't. The study will be pointless if we don't define our terms and wh…
/r/MensRights11/04/26 01:11 AM
3

Do women really experience more psychological violence than men? Or do they just report it more, or are believed more? Remember, men who report domestic violence often aren't believed. To a point where many don't bother reporting things when they aren't believed anyway.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 06:50 PM
5

The original post that this is from starts 'Imagine if a woman had to orgasm in order to get pregnant by a man'. Turnabout time! Imagine if a man had to orgasm in order to ejaculate. Many times it takes only a bit of rubbing and/ or tugging to ejaculate. An orgasm can't be assumed simply because some DNA was left behind.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 02:14 AM
2

I had to go to the Post Office and ask for the form. This was in 1980.
/r/MensRights10/04/26 12:55 AM
3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV#cite_note-WHO-PrevHIV-2 Wikipedia says "In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) reiterated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in high-risk countries if carried out by medical professionals under safe conditions. Circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) from an infected female partner through vaginal sex.] The evidence regarding whether ci…
/r/MensRights07/04/26 11:08 PM
6

'Why don't men create their own movement?' Any women's movement benefits from the support of men. When women couldn't vote, how did they get that right? By men supporting them and voting for it to happen. Look at any protest or gathering for women's rights. Is the crowd 100% women? No, there are always supportive men with them. So why do men need to do things on their own? Why can't these women support equality?
/r/MensRights07/04/26 09:10 PM
2

What definitive evidence of benefits does circumcision have?
/r/MensRights07/04/26 07:50 PM
1

Have you ever noticed that the vast majority of police, rescue workers, EMTs, and first responders are men? Strange how the feelings toward the group as a whole don't seem to follow the good acts like they do for bad and as you say are the reason men in general are hated? Or maybe there isn't so much hatred as some would have us believe?
/r/MensRights03/04/26 07:58 PM
14

Historically life has been a battle between the haves and the have nots. Women and girls in well to do and wealthy families fared a lot better than ordinary men and peasants and serfs. You're suffering from apex fallacy. In the past, and still today, men occupy the worst jobs, the physical jobs, the dangerous jobs. Don't act like women are the only ones who fight for better conditions. When women historically needed help In those battles it was men supporting them, or it wouldn't have happened. …
/r/MensRights30/03/26 09:25 PM
17

So women are the eternal victims who are unable to act on the environment around them, who are powerless to do anything? Well no. Women make up more than half the electorate. Women are employed in a variety of jobs and are certainly capable of making changes, but they don't. If you look at it you'll see that male issues are perpetuated significantly by females.
/r/MensRights30/03/26 08:32 PM
2

Do you understand what 'infrastructure' means? Infrastructure refers to the fundamental physical and organizational structures—such as roads, power grids, and water systems—necessary for a society or economy to function. These are the things men built. Women certainly can survive natural disasters, and having the things men built to assist them is a great help. Using the tools provided is a great help! And while many women CAN build things, most don't. It's more physically taxing, so they choose…
/r/MensRights28/03/26 08:59 PM
2

You said '...You'd think you'd be doing something about the group that's committing the most violence...' So I show you something IS being done, you change the argument. Typical. The answer is, you're being protected from those unstable elements we mentioned earlier. Those who aren't unstable built 90% or more of the worldwide infrastructure that gives you all the comforts you have today. So besides protecting you, they're also building everything you have. There's plenty of good going on, but y…
/r/MensRights28/03/26 08:34 PM
1

Yeah, you said 90% of women men are murdered by men, who's disadvantaged now? So where were you going with that? And who does anything about those committing these acts? Mainly other men. Who do you think the majority of police, detectives, jail workers and the like are? Who are the ones more likely to be in the danger zone? Mainly men. You hear shit about this all the time, but you never put two and two together and realize that it's men who are out there protecting the rest of us from these un…
/r/MensRights28/03/26 08:07 PM
2

Are you not processing that just because some members of group A are unstable it doesn't logically follow that all those with the same genitalia are likewise unstable? And that since that same group A mostly victimizes other group A and to a lesser extent group B, this doesn't at all make group B the more victimized? Serious main character syndrome here. Da fuck, indeed!
/r/MensRights28/03/26 07:46 PM
3

Are you saying all men are somehow responsible for those men who murder women? And you know they murder men too, right? Men are 81% of all murder victims. Regardless of who did it, dead is dead. Is it worse for women to be murdered than for men?
/r/MensRights28/03/26 07:03 PM
2

The downvotes are because you seem to be saying you're a 'good feminist'. No, that would be an egalitarian. Feminism teaches rights for women only. It's in the name.
/r/MensRights28/03/26 05:43 PM
1

Yeah, me too. They'll find lots of ways around it, if they really want it.. On the other hand, I don't have a lot of confidence in their ability to start and run a nationwide data base to accomplish this. Or put out the expense. More than likely they'd run a cheap matching profile. It wouldn't need any nuances or deep checking, since paternity will be easy to determine when it's true.
/r/MensRights27/03/26 12:13 AM
15

Wait... You don't think if the government wanted your DNA they wouldn't already have it?
/r/MensRights26/03/26 09:13 PM
6

There are a lot of teenagers on tiktok. They are girls, not yet women. The "females" referred to here include both girls and women making posts about men. So this isn't about 'reducing' women down to their biology, but is about including all the females doing this, not just the adults who have attained womanhood.
/r/MensRights24/03/26 08:42 PM
3

I'd say it's okay to say "you're not entitled to her" only if he actually said he was entitled to her. If he's just sad because she turned him down it's okay for him to feel bad about it. It's okay to say "Sorry man, she wasn't feeling the same" without acting like he was trying to own her. He doesn't deserve to be vilified just for asking.
/r/MensRights24/03/26 07:44 PM
4

None of us are surprised, since this is the norm. Most men resign themselves to this reality very early on in their lives.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 07:39 PM
1

Another man's success? No, he's a paid performer. Whether he likes it or not is irrelevant. The only success he has is in finding paid work.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 05:45 PM
3

The smaller fish still need to be fried, though.
/r/MensRights17/03/26 09:13 PM
1

The equivalent male based insult for 'pussy' isn't 'balls'. It's 'dick'. I for one have never felt insulted when called a dick. They also stretch a lot, have a major blood flow, and survive A LOT of abuse. They don't birth, but isn't that one of the main purposes of a pussy? So it does what it's meant to do? This is major strawmanning. Comparing unlike things as if they are alike and then tearing apart the differences as if it's the find of the century. Don't fall for it.
/r/MensRights17/03/26 06:05 PM
11

The biggest part of this situation is the perception by many women that these truly unfair things happen ONLY to women. The men who talk over you in the workplace also talk over men. They aren't talking over you because you're a woman. They're assholes and are assholes to everyone. The man who dismisses your idea at work then later suggests something very similar if not the same as his own work isn't doing it because you're a woman. He does it to the newer employees or anyone in fact who he thin…
/r/MensRights16/03/26 09:53 PM
1

Many good points here. I'd just like to add that the saying 'Misandry hurts feelings, misogyny kills' isn't from a scientific study or any surveys or polls. It's a shorthand version of 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.' It's a quote from Margaret Atwood, author of 'The Handmaid's Tale' and it's something she made up just because she likes how it sounds, and she enjoys playing the victim. And trashing men
/r/MensRights07/03/26 07:01 PM
16

What an absolute psycho! You dodged a full scale nuclear attack there.
/r/MensRights28/02/26 01:05 AM
1

What an absolute psycho! You dodged a full scale nuclear attack there!
/r/MensRights28/02/26 01:04 AM
6

If we're going to be deeply honest, men are often called far right whenever they disagree that women are victimized at every turn in society. Daring to say that men aren't responsible for every imagined slight gets them called 'silly'. And I can't think of any gay or bi men who believe that feminists are in their corner. They mostly see gay men as a toy to play with, and bi men as deluded. I'm not sure why race is being brought into this. Please stop the womansplaining.
/r/MensRights23/02/26 08:46 PM
1

This isn't hard to understand. If either party is using sexual relations as a reward for doing tasks then the party holding it as such is prostituting themself. Their payment is getting a job done. Of course there are nuances (Gosh, I'm too tired because of all the little tasks I have to do) but withholding sex until something is done is what the original post was about.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 06:08 AM
1

Why do the specific chores matter? If one party is rewarding the other with sexual favors for tasks performed, that's prostitution. If both parties do these things because they help the household run smoothly and ease each other's burdens then that's how marriage should run.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 05:39 AM
1

What? Who said anything like that? Why does your mind go there? I was responding to the comment that says doing chores to 'curry favor' for sex is prostitution. If that's the arrangement some married couples have, that's pretty sad. But the situation described is the woman doling out sex for a job done that she expects done. Sex is her side of the deal. Now using sex as a reward does not make a good marriage and I agree that each should support the other as then can and agree on. But the situati…
/r/MensRights21/02/26 05:10 AM
1

No, he's earning the currency the prostitute accepts as her payment. This is exactly OP's point.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 05:59 PM
9

I think it's not so much they hate men as much as them being indifferent to mens suffering. They think this is mens purpose in life, to do all the heavy lifting and dirty jobs while women sit back in comfort. They've been trained this way their whole lives.
/r/MensRights16/02/26 02:20 AM
202

My 88 year old father can pretty much take care of himself but is unsteady on his feet and so is in an assisted living facility. He does need help in the shower, but early on in his stay there a few other men told him to be careful of what he asks the women aides to help wash, because if you ask for help in a personal area they accuse you of coming on to them, or think you're trying to get your jollies. So he does that area himself as much as possible unless it's one of the few men shower aides,…
/r/MensRights16/02/26 02:14 AM
1

Well thanks for womansplaining I guess. Selective Service only comes into play in case of war. It's only logical that we know where our cannon fodder is, right? While women are protected. Oh, there are 'advocates' who want to change this? What's stopping them? And why advocate for an all volunteer system? Don't we still need to have a pool ready for an emergency situation? Why not Selective Service for all? Not every role has to be hand to hand combat. And you're still asking me for examples whe…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 08:37 PM
2

So, just more deflection. This is your attitude: That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it. Just come out and say that you don't care because it's happening to men. As I already told you, I'm not saying men are 'losing' rights. I originally responded to your response to a post saying what rights men already don't have. But keep moving the goalposts …
/r/MensRights14/02/26 06:32 PM
6

You admit it is not fair but then basically say Too Bad. Let me tell you how this has infringed on my rights. Selective Service became law again in 1980, and I was required to sign up. I did. Fast forward 30 years to 1980. Locally the IRS had a need for Customer Service call takers for the upcoming tax season and had an open session for those interested. I took the test and scored highly enough to go on to the next round. I passed the next round as well, and on and on to the end. There were seve…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 03:32 AM
13

'America hasn't had a military draft since 1973.' But men turning 18 in America have had to register with Selective Service since 1980, with very real consequences for not doing so: From www.sss.gov : | Failing to register for Selective Service when required (males aged 18-25) is a federal felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to . Non-registrants may permanently lose eligibility for federal student aid, federal job training, and federal/state employment, and immigrant…
/r/MensRights13/02/26 09:28 PM
4

Surprise! I'm also atheist, which is why I said God/NATURE, so readers can use whichever aligns with their beliefs. And did I ever say the 50/50 is biologically? There are very real differences, so we need to divide tasks with those differences in mind. For some this may result in the woman doing what are more considered mother/ maid tasks while the man may end up with more protection/ monetary/ driving/ fixing tasks. If you don't like these traditional tasks you both need to agree on what needs…
/r/MensRights12/02/26 04:15 AM
7

'...she fcked up her body and health to give you children...' Really? While I'm sure it isn't fun for most, she's using her body as designed by God/nature to have children you both presumably wanted. This is by no stretch of the imagination an extreme expectation. And do you really think the wife or maid jab is a daily thing any more than the expectations on him are? Relationship can be and often are 50/50 all the time with children included. Just divide the tasks however works best for both of …
/r/MensRights12/02/26 03:23 AM
12

This was a few years ago, so apparently it hasn't influenced other cases of lying about rape or assault to be prosecuted. Or at least not enough to be noticed.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 09:05 PM
1

That's great for you. For some people running out of milk is a big deal. Running out of money is a much bigger deal, so they aren't really comparable. But some people prioritize milk over other groceries or make a special trip for it. And many have a few people in the household and someone else can get the milk. Likewise in the Mens Rights communities, some can spend time on issues that others can't or choose not to. One doesn't take away from the other. As for the first comment being about the …
/r/MensRights09/02/26 07:34 PM
1

Unequal treatment due to gender certainly is a big deal. If something were required of women only there'd be hell to pay And why should we be comparing the issues that men face? You know it's possible to be concerned about more than one issue at a time, tight? And OP got a congressional candidate to agree with the issue and you downplay it. Not cool. Maybe if we chip away at the smaller issues the larger ones will come into view too.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 05:38 PM
1

I responded to your first post here only because your original response to this post about abolishing Selective Service pooh poohed the very idea, saying 'we don't need a draft' and you pooh poohed my response by saying it takes only five minutes. Here you say you're in agreement. It sure doesn't sound that way from those responses. If you are in agreement, maybe try not picking apart such posts with minutia adjacent to the subject being discussed. But it's also good to know you also believe wom…
/r/MensRights09/02/26 05:23 PM
1

'It takes 5 minutes to register'... That's five minutes that women don't have to worry their pretty heads about, right? It's five minutes that may easily be overlooked, but can also have real consequences. https://www.sss.gov/register/benefits-and-penalties/ A man who fails to register may be ineligible for opportunities important to his future. He must register to be eligible for state-funded student financial aid and employment in many states, most federal employment, job training under the Wo…
/r/MensRights09/02/26 04:24 PM
3

The draft may be a 'non issue' as you say, but Selective Service was reinstated in 1980 for men only, with very real consequences for non compliance. This is what needs to be ended.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 05:44 AM
2

What? My feelings are hurt? I'm putting words in your mouth? No, I'm pointing out the logical conclusion where your words and expectations lead. My feelings aren't hurt in the least as I tell you it makes no sense for you to expect to be treated differently than a man would. You're the one who seems to be a bit salty every time they rephrase my responses when they come back. Simply put, understand the expectations of the job and be prepared for them. Sure, there are assholes out there in every p…
/r/MensRights08/02/26 04:49 AM
1

Yes, it happened to you so it's a universal truth, right? No need to dress in a way so that you don't have to undress to piss, right? Male and female anatomy is different, so we all need to be prepared. It's not the job of others to decide how you do that. Never taking responsibility for your own actions and always casting yourself as the victim does little to endear you to your coworkers. This attitude is something often discussed on this subreddit. Expecting equal treatment and different consi…
/r/MensRights08/02/26 04:36 AM
4

You said just one response back 'I'm not making assumptions', then here you say 'You can see how lots of men think it's funny to mess with younger women.' Assume much? And although I have seen men 'mess with' younger workers, it isn't gender specific. They mess with ALL the new workers. It looks like you ignore the things men endure. By the way, I'm not disbelieving you. I'm just countering your assumption that these things happen only to women, and men don't encounter anything like it. Surprise…
/r/MensRights07/02/26 11:09 PM
7

But you are assuming. You assume all women are treated the way you were. I had to ask because that's my experience, that many women expect to be treated with kid gloves while men do all the heavy work. If this happened to you several times, it may be that you are the problem.
/r/MensRights07/02/26 09:50 PM
9

I've worked in situations like that. The women claimed sexual harassment when the men spoke to them the same way they spoke to each other. They literally cried when the same non invasive pranks were played on them as on the new men.There were women who didn't take offense, and were treated as coworkers on lighter duty. The complainers were treated well but kept at a distance. Don't assume. Clearly I do get it.
/r/MensRights07/02/26 09:12 PM
13

So you were treated the same as the men, then.
/r/MensRights07/02/26 08:40 PM
2

Wait...you think this subreddit should have only one focused purpose? To not talk about the myriad other lesser aggressions that go on? That's ridiculous. You know it is possible to bring awareness to multiple topics, right?
/r/MensRights07/02/26 04:56 PM
2

Do you think women deserve more rights than men? Because if we aren't allowed to talk about their actions, that's what's happening.
/r/MensRights07/02/26 04:51 PM
2

Admirable. But when women are emboldened by never being held accountable for anything, sometimes men are forced to take a less admirable stance.
/r/MensRights07/02/26 06:30 AM
3

True. And this is what usually happens. Men don't use all their effort and force, but only enough to stop the women. They are defending themselves from attack. They aren't intending to destroy her, only to stop her. We should all be allowed to defend ourselves.
/r/MensRights07/02/26 05:59 AM
9

Except that men are apparently not allowed to ever defend themselves against women.
/r/MensRights07/02/26 04:16 AM
1

It carries the same meaning as everything you've said to me.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 09:47 PM
1

Tech, Tech, Tech - can I call you Tech? Don't sell yourself short.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 09:45 PM
1

Likewise.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 08:47 PM
1

It was mine last week!
/r/MensRights05/02/26 08:29 PM
1

Aww, bless your heart ❤️
/r/MensRights05/02/26 08:25 PM
2

Because you're funny? Because that's what you want? Otherwise you wouldn't keep carrying on.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 08:14 PM
1

LOL, big words.😆
/r/MensRights05/02/26 08:08 PM
1

Apparently you don't see the disconnect with you telling OP this isn't something to worry about while at the same time worrying about 'karma points'. But you do you. I'm not judging, just stating what seems obvious.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 06:49 PM
2

Huh. I have never worried about such pointlessness, much less kept tabs on what some other random person did. There's no promise that sharing your thoughts won't have negative consequences. That's the chance you take when posting. But since it apparently has meaning to you, sure you can have it back.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 06:36 PM
5

You must live in wildly different circles and circumstances than I do. I have encountered very few men who behave this way. It's mainly women back stabbing and tearing men down. Bros before hoes and all that. I feel bad for you if this is your lived experience.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 06:30 PM
1

Because it's an asinine comment? People are allowed to be angry. Even when I don't agree, usually the feelings of being ignored or sidelined are valid for some.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 06:25 PM
1

You just aren't trying. It takes no effort to be angry in passing at something. If you're going to stew about it that may take more concentration, but if something happens often enough you can be angry whenever you encounter it without thinking twice. Be aware, but don't let it consume you. Ignoring it is allowing it
/r/MensRights05/02/26 06:18 PM
5

Okay. So using THEIIR reasoning, then what I said before.
/r/MensRights04/02/26 12:01 AM
3

Makes sense to me.
/r/MensRights03/02/26 11:38 PM
5

So using your reasoning, male only conscription is misogyny because the law presumes women are incapable of performing the tasks that men are subjected to. Correct?
/r/MensRights03/02/26 08:58 PM
2

Nah. We can be mad at a lot of things at once with no effort. This definitely is one of those things.
/r/MensRights03/02/26 08:45 PM
1

I don't think that bringing awareness that it's out there is making it a hill to die on. Just being aware of all that is out there and the general reaction to it is very helpful.
/r/MensRights02/02/26 08:03 PM
2

Now do 'How Do We Fix Women' and see the merriment there!
/r/MensRights01/02/26 07:30 PM
1

From the story: 'Although parental alienation is a problem, researchers have found that in states that require judges to consider parental alienation claims, the concept is often used as a defense by parents who have been credibly accused of abuse.' So, because the concept is sometimes misused, we should never give rational credence to the (many) times when it isn't a thing? Won't the judge and opposing attorney be able to tell when it's being misused? Won't someone think of the children?
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:13 PM
1

All true, so take your own advice. Why are you still here? I'm sitting by my hospitalized wife's bedside, so I have lots of time. I'm pretty chill right now. Seems like you're the one concerned with what others are doing.
/r/MensRights28/01/26 11:17 PM
1

Bro, I didn't ask for advice, from you or anyone else. I was letting you know that your responses (that it's just annoying) are wrong and unhelpful. That you take it as asking for direction or advice is laughable. Then you try to play it off as a concern. Please stop trying to diagnose those who never asked. I'd guess you're trying to fill an emptiness in your life. Try elsewhere..
/r/MensRights28/01/26 10:56 PM
1

Nothing to figure out. You made statements you can't back up and tried to feign concern when called out on it, while trying to involve others. Hopefully these actions brightened what must otherwise be a sad existence. You should avail yourself of some of those Reddit Cares resources you're pushing. It may help.
/r/MensRights28/01/26 10:24 PM
1

No you aren't. I've been going for it, you're just too concentrated on trolling to see. You're the one attempting to use u/RedditCaresResources as another way to troll. Abusing care resources to get your jollies is pretty low. Get help.
/r/MensRights28/01/26 10:04 PM
1

And I'm literally telling you, you're a stumbling block for people trying to do things. If you're not helping, stay out of the way. For all you know, I AM going for it. But you are obviously actively working against it. Just stop.
/r/MensRights28/01/26 09:58 PM
1

My advice to you is to stop downplaying such issues when others bring them up. Yes, these issues have been around for decades, but dismissing them out of hand isn't helpful. If you aren't concerned that's fine, but actively discouraging others from being concerned is questionable.
/r/MensRights28/01/26 09:46 PM
1

But it's not just 'mildly annoying' or 'trivial'. It's allowing women rights without responsibility as you said yourself. Nay saying issues faced by men just leads to an ever widening divide. Just getting more people to understand this is half the battle. You're not helping with this attitude.
/r/MensRights28/01/26 09:20 PM
2

Yet you're the one who said 'It's just mildly annoying.' Why can't it be mildly annoying for women as well as men? Why not expect some sort of national service for women also?
/r/MensRights28/01/26 08:41 PM
3

There is currently no draft in the US, but men still need to sign up with Selective Service at 18, with consequences if they don't. A couple of the consequences are no student loans and no government jobs. Personally, I had to register for Selective Service in 1980 and did. Thirty years later in 2010 I applied for a government job and they needed proof I had registered. It's all online now but wasn't in 1980 so I had to call them. Because it was 30 years ago those records were warehoused and som…
/r/MensRights28/01/26 07:56 PM
7

You mean the same way the 'groping' of women can often be explained? But we're told that's never the case, it's always nefarious men?
/r/MensRights28/01/26 06:40 PM
3

What have the Romans ever done for us?
/r/MensRights25/01/26 09:26 PM
3

Don't you mean the Judean Peoples Front?
/r/MensRights25/01/26 08:47 PM
173

And yet men reporters aren't allowed in female professional sports locker rooms.
/r/MensRights25/01/26 08:02 PM
1

😶 😶 😶
/r/MensRights25/01/26 02:14 AM
1

You're speechless! Still! That's nice.
/r/MensRights25/01/26 02:12 AM
1

It's okay.If you didn't have double standards you'd have no standards at all. We get it. Just keep on playing the eternal victim. You're really good at it!
/r/MensRights25/01/26 02:05 AM
47

Exactly. It amazes me the number of women who believe that seeing a naked man is a sexual assault on them. It's reminiscent of the 'Eek! A penis!' episode of South Park.
/r/MensRights24/01/26 07:08 PM
1

Two things can be true.
/r/MensRights24/01/26 04:10 PM
1

OP never said men deal with 'substantially more'. He merely mentioned that it happens. The fact that these things happen to men doesn't lessen the double standards that women face. Both are true. But the fact that those who mention it are so vilified is the problem. The fact that you're still pursuing this three days later is a symptom.That's your privilege talking, thinking that someone else has no obstacles. OP's post, and my agreement, are based on our lived experiences. No 'trust me' is need…
/r/MensRights24/01/26 02:30 AM
1

Cut to the chase. OP spoke the truth. You countered. I said both things can be true at the same time. They can. End of story. You don't like that men have to endure double standards, so here we are, three days later. I guess it's true: when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
/r/MensRights24/01/26 01:32 AM
1

AGAIN, this post isn't about Trump. But the linked story does say that 52% of white women voted for Trump as opposed to 47% for Harris. That's part of the more women voting for Trump. And again, you still haven't shown that OP is incorrect. What you said in response may be true, but that doesn't mean what he said isn't also true. Talk about dense! You still can't comprehend that two different things can be true at the same time. So continue to ignore the fact that you're wrong if that's what mak…
/r/MensRights24/01/26 12:33 AM
0

The post has a name in the title so... maybe go from there? Google is your friend.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 10:27 PM
1

https://www.ibtimes.com/shocking-chart-shows-more-women-voted-trump-2024-2020-3749892 Once again, this isn't about Trump, and yet again more than one thing can be true, but here you go since you're obviously unable to research on your own, and unable to believe anything that hurts your feelings.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 04:03 PM
1

It isn't made up, but whatever. This isn't a debate about Trump. I'm sure many people hate him, despite many having voted for him. Two things being true. No, your original argument about Trump being elected doesn't prove that women don't get a pass more than men do, even if that particular man did. The facts that OP mentioned are true more often than not, despite your disagreement. Two things can be true.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 12:16 PM
1

The Internet is your friend, so have at it. But to clarify, more white women voted for Trump than Harris. Two things can be true. Everything isn't all black or all white.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 12:01 PM
1

No, you really don't see. I keep saying two things can be true. That means no 'hard stops'. And do you know who voted for Trump? More women than men. Go figure.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 11:33 AM
1

Who's modifying anything? You challenged OP's post with what you perceived as a counterexample and I said both can be true. Which they can. Where is your misunderstanding coming from? Both statements can be and are true.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 11:23 AM
1

Again, you're the one disagreeing with OP. You're the one saying it's not ALWAYS true. And we're back to my original response to you: two things can be true.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 11:06 AM
1

That's just how life is. Not 100% anything, nothing to be wrapped up in a neat package. Just a series of likelihoods. You seem to be frustrated by reality. Try to accept it as it is: messy.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 10:59 AM
1

What OP said is true. Usually. Finding an example when it isn't true doesn't mean that life doesn't usually play out that way, just that it's not 100% of the time. OP is saying men aren't given the same leeway that women are. This is true. Some other things may be the opposite. Both can be true. One may be more likely than the other. In this example, what OP says is more often correct than not. That's reality.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 10:53 AM
1

Reread my original comment. Two things can be true. Also, why is it 'women usually' but 'men never'? Both are 'usually' which is how both can be true. Stop looking for things to be either all black or all white. Get used to gray.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 10:27 AM
1

Hence your inability to see the truth. OP is correct, notwithstanding your whatsboutism. Two things can be true. That's a huge part of life. Get used to it. Or don't, and continue to go through life confused.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 10:18 AM
1

You literally have zero reading comprehension skills.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 10:13 AM
1

What? Wow, you're really dense. That must be why it takes you so long to comprehend and respond. OP is correct, as a general rule. But most things in life don't remain the same 100% of the time. That's true of anything. Finding a counterexample doesn't disprove the whole. Perhaps you've heard of cherry picking? It all goes back to my original response to you: two things can be true at the same time. And here we are. Both are different but both are true. Don't ignore which is true more often, whi…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 10:10 AM
3

You know what, I agree that coming into this sub with a closed mind was pointless for you. Have you even tried asking what things are said to women that aren't said to men? Why can't we compare actual statements?
/r/MensRights22/01/26 10:13 PM
3

My guy, can you comprehend what I wrote? Just asking women how they feel about it without defining your terms is pointless. I'd wager if the terms were spelled out that both genders would have equal responses. Women are used to being treated more delicately. Thus, simply asking women results only in them verifying that they find a term or statement as harassing whereas men would not find the same term likewise. To sum up: to determine if women gamers are treated differently the questions asked n…
/r/MensRights22/01/26 09:58 PM
3

The 'fact' that women are called 'horrendous' things is based on self reported statistics. The gamers are asked if they are harassed online and women are more likely to say yes. But no one checks to see if men are treated the same. They are, but since boys and men tend to be thicker skinned and more used to it, so they don't report the same exact treatment as harassment. To get a true measure the surveys would need to ask if specific terms were used. Just someone saying that mean things were sai…
/r/MensRights22/01/26 09:35 PM
3

We're still on this the next day? Okay, I guess. The original post is about double standards around accepting negative behavior from women but not men. You responded with 'what about Trump' as if this is proof of something. I pointed out that both can be true at the same time. Because they can, and are. You then said 'You think society does not accept bad behavior from men' which wasn't said. It was that it's less often accepted from men, which is true. In my response I used 'Men are not a monol…
/r/MensRights22/01/26 03:15 AM
1

Dude! Never hate being a man. Yes, hate any actions that are reprehensible, but those actions don't define masculinity. You are in control of your actions, so be the man you want to be, one who doesn't do those things. And as for that politician saying men are the problem: that's just playing the blame game to avoid accountability and responsibility. Don't fall for these tactics. You're better than this. Don't let someone with an agenda tell you otherwise.
/r/MensRights21/01/26 08:42 PM
1

OP is speaking in generalities, the same way we're all used to in the general media. Stop the attempts at gaslighting. And how does your second sentence make any sense? Who said 'all women'? OP provided real life examples. If they don't describe you then it isn't about you, right?
/r/MensRights21/01/26 01:56 AM
2

Don't be obtuse. Bad behavior is indeed accepted from Trump, and even applauded. But there are different rules for different people. Men aren't a monolith. And ordinary men don't enjoy the same advantages as powerful men. As stated originally, two things can be true at the same time.
/r/MensRights21/01/26 12:29 AM
3

Two things can be true at the same time.
/r/MensRights20/01/26 04:18 PM
0

So you equate 'being a man' with 'saving the princess'? No, being a man does not mean servitude to women. Simping is not the road to manhood.
/r/MensRights13/01/26 04:20 PM
4

And just why are men more likely to say yes to walking alone in the middle of the night? Because we have to. We have jobs to go to and duties to attend to. We take these where we can. And because that is the expectation we have been raised with we do so without hesitation. It doesn't seem like we're heading into a bad situation when from birth we have been taught to do so. We have no choice. Women do, and they choose the less scary path. And we willingly make it possible for them to do so.
/r/MensRights09/01/26 10:53 PM
4

Definitely yes, 'no hitting below the belt' is the way to say that in polite company. That's how civilized men live, I was taught.
/r/MensRights06/01/26 02:58 PM
19

I've actually never seen men do this. Honestly, I thought it was part of the 'bro code' to leave each other's nuts alone. It was seen as fighting dirty in my experience, which of course means women do it. I guess your 'lived experiences' are very different from mine.
/r/MensRights06/01/26 12:38 AM
11

Sometimes not even then...😢
/r/MensRights04/01/26 06:29 PM
3

And I'm just saying it seems like they never want to clean up the already existing 'corruption', but rather only to keep men from having the same or similar. Once they successfully keep the mens shelter out they're never heard from again.
/r/MensRights04/01/26 01:22 AM
2

So they only oppose shelters for men, but those for women get a pass? That's quite the rationalization.
/r/MensRights03/01/26 06:42 PM
2

Interesting. I had to register in 1980, before the Internet. I had to make a trip to the Post Office and complete and turn in the form there.
/r/MensRights02/01/26 08:38 PM
10

Why are people against circumcision? Simply because of the potential downsides. Excessive bleeding, mutilation, and even death are possibilities. They aren't likely, especially the last one, but they are definitely possible and do happen, so why put your sons at risk for no gain at all? Doing nothing is the safest move.
/r/MensRights02/01/26 03:15 AM
2

'Females' is correct usage if we're talking about both women and girls, which is the case here. And some women are hoes and some are skanks. Men are called vulgar and disparaging names all the time but there's never a ruckus over that. Why the fuss when women are called out? It almost seems that women are delicate creatures who can't handle it.
/r/MensRights23/12/25 08:41 PM
1

I've known nine men so far who had a vasectomy that I know of, and all nine needed their wives to sign off on it. I realize this is anecdotal, but this is over the last 35 years so it seems like this is a thing, at least in some places.
/r/MensRights23/12/25 07:44 PM
3

I'm sure age can vary slightly by school district in the US, but my experience for myself, children, and grandchildren matches that of u/Mr_Richard_Parker
/r/MensRights20/12/25 09:23 PM
1

So you've run out of arguments and it really is misandry is what I'm reading here. That's cool.
/r/MensRights20/12/25 03:56 AM
1

So your original post, "mate be quiet. its not that deep. its not misandry, its just a silly liddle joke. have a laugh, lighten up pal" doesn't apply? Rules for thee but not for me? Okay.
/r/MensRights20/12/25 03:43 AM
1

So you're agreeing that if it's men injuring women, and not women themselves or other women, that it's then not funny? That's exactly the point. Anyone, man or woman, can hurt a man and it's funny. But men hurting women isn't. And still you think there's not an issue there? That's the definition of misandry.
/r/MensRights20/12/25 03:02 AM
2

Duh!! We know it was a man in the vid. So obviously it was staged for this meme, because in a real competition the man would be wearIng a cup. I was agreeing with you that it's a joke meme, but the point remains that currently you can joke about men getting hurt but the same isn't true for women. Hence the black eye mention, which of course would not be allowed. But keep telling yourself that just as many jokes are made about bodily injuring women as are made about hurting men.
/r/MensRights20/12/25 02:28 AM
2

Of course it's a joke. If a man were doing this for real he'd wear a cup. The point is that it's okay to joke about men getting hurt, but it's not okay to joke about women getting hurt. Try making a meme about a SAHM not making her husband breakfast who now has a black eye and see how far that 'liddle' joke gets. The double standard is the issue here.
/r/MensRights20/12/25 02:03 AM
3

Oh, it's 'funny' misandry. Thanks for 'splaining.
/r/MensRights19/12/25 10:13 PM
7

Naw, it's total misandry. Like someone else said in this same posting, if you want to know who rules you, look at who you're not allowed to criticize. Also add, or make fun of.
/r/MensRights19/12/25 08:45 PM
5

Putting words in your mouth? Aren't you the one who said 'I wouldn't say more oppressive to men, but they do like to ignore that men are just outright killed' and then followed up with 'But it's better than feminist rhetoric that pretends male victimhood doesn't know exist at all'? So not more oppressive... and it's better than... These are the words I'm responding to.
/r/MensRights16/12/25 06:48 PM
13

So half a loaf is better than none? Be happy with what you've got? Just stop correcting the prevailing stereotypes? No, we need to stop taking 'It's not that bad' and 'It's better than it was' as acceptable responses.
/r/MensRights16/12/25 06:37 PM
18

TIL there are more oppressive things than being outright killed.
/r/MensRights16/12/25 05:52 PM
5

The 1/8 is in the article but it's never shown where this number comes from. No one is 'dismissing women's experiences' but rather trying to not magnify concerns out of proportion. The article mentions the murder of Sarah Everhard, but like almost every mention of the incident fails to say the same week she was murdered in London eight men were as well. Why no mention of them? Oh, it doesn't fit their narrative. 90% of murders and 90+% of physical assaults may be by men, but the victims are over…
/r/MensRights14/12/25 08:47 AM
6

Nice try. There isn't a statistic of 1/8 women being raped either. As for being stalked and harassed, I don't know where you're getting this 'statistic' from, but typically these are self reported events, meaning it's just the subject's feeling with no evidence needed. The problem with this is that women and men often have wildly different definitions for these. Women report online harassment for things men don't blink an eye at. Women may feel they are being stalked by someone walking behind th…
/r/MensRights14/12/25 03:27 AM
18

Because only the boys are being singled out. Why not teach both boys and girls to respect each other? Why assume girls don't need to learn this too? Why assume that boys are inherently bad while girls are inherently good?
/r/MensRights13/12/25 07:45 PM
1

AND I ANSWERED. It doesn't matter what you or I believe. The fact that it happens means it needs to be changed. The fact that it can easily be dismissed out of hand even though it's wrong is a problem. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that even one time is too many shows us you AREN'T open to change. Now go waste someone else's time.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 05:24 AM
1

There's no question to answer. You clearly don't believe reality and you clearly don't care about men being forced into fatherhood. Nothing I say will change your mind. Stop pretending otherwise. You've made your thoughts clear.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 05:14 AM
1

Okay. Once more, you didn't give a thought to anything. You parroted back the standard feminist responses. Even when confronted with the fact that men have no reproductive rights, only responsibility, your answer was that it doesn't happen that much. It's a lot like this: That didn’t happen. And if it did, it wasn’t that bad. And if it was, that’s not a big deal. And if it is, that’s not my fault. And if it was, I didn’t mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 05:08 AM
20

There are still consequences for not signing up, though. Failing to register for Selective Service is a federal felony, which can result in fines up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to five years. Additionally, non-registrants may be ineligible for federal jobs, state-funded financial aid, and may face delays in U.S. citizenship proceedings.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 05:05 AM
1

No, you just keep spouting from the 'Women Good, Men Bad' handbook. Nothing is looked at with a critical eye, just accepted as 'That's the way things are'. If you don't look beyond the status quo, you aren't looking. All your responses show that you aren't looking, just parroting back the age old adages. Now I'm done.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 04:56 AM
1

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. The point is that society as a whole believes that ignoring it is fine. Society as a whole has a hard time believing that women are anything but wonderful. You seem to be a part of these beliefs, so I'm not wasting any more time on you.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 04:47 AM
1

But it's not 'neat zero'. That's the problem. And people like you refuse to see it. This is a major reason why men have no reproductive rights. Not enough people care.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 04:27 AM
2

So you agree that your original post, 'Male birth control exists. Wear a condom.' is wrong because it can easily be circumvented. So men have no reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 04:23 AM
1

So you agree that men never have a choice, regardless of circumstances? That men always end up being responsible? Because that's the whole point here.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 04:18 AM
2

You don't see the issue if the woman lies about being on the pill, or tampers with the condom or other birth control? The use of which (or attempted use) shows the man does not consent to paternity and yet her actions force him into that role? So then you believe men exist only to serve and support women. Got it.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 04:13 AM
2

So you approve of forced fatherhood? And yet no one forces women to be mothers. Because that would be wrong.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 03:56 AM
3

And yet it's been known to happen for decades. Just admit that men have zero reproductive rights, only reproductive responsibility.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 03:52 AM
3

Funny that this is the go to response for so many without a shred of evidence.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 03:50 AM
3

No, you try again. It wasn't illegal, regardless of whether it was successful. I see also that you're ignoring the pin holes in the condom, a time honored tradition.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 03:46 AM
4

You know you can look this up yourself, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_fatherhood
/r/MensRights13/12/25 03:40 AM
5

No, I am informed.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 03:25 AM
8

Just be sure to keep it in your possession at all times so that unscrupulous individuals can't surreptitiously put pin holes in it. Also be sure to not put the used condom in a trash receptacle where someone may retrieve it and use the contents to facilitate an 'accidental' pregnancy. These are things that are known to happen, and have been deemed legal.
/r/MensRights13/12/25 03:21 AM
13

Likewise, women protect their families and don't deserve families if they don't. Right?
/r/MensRights11/12/25 07:37 PM
3

You know you don't have to have mixed gender military squads if women are drafted, right? They can do separate gender jobs. And the draft doesn't even have to be military. Draft the women for social welfare activities. Just so long as they're taken and separated from their homes for months, trained in barracks with absolutely no privacy, all individuality erased and their heads shaved. You know, like happens to men without a care at all. Let's share the sacrifices.
/r/MensRights11/12/25 07:36 PM
1

Who is arguing that Girl Scouts let boys in? Everyone knows they don't. Likewise Boy Scouts shouldn't let girls in, but they do The argument is that girls don't have to be admitted to the Boy Scouts in order to partake in these activities. Do it within your own organization or start a new group. And boys can do other activities in the Boy Scouts if they choose or start a new group. Don't put the pressure on only some to open up and be inclusive while allowing others to stay gender specific
/r/MensRights07/12/25 08:09 PM
1

Again, who's stopping them? Letting boys do this and encouraging them can happen in an all boys environment too. No one is saying scouts shouldn't or can't do this.
/r/MensRights07/12/25 06:41 PM
1

Who says it's wrong? Some boys definitely do want to do activities with girls sometimes, but they also want to do things without girls sometimes as well. But groups and organizations that were once boys only are now required to be coed, and the reverse is not true. All girl groups and organizations are not only okay, but are often encouraged.
/r/MensRights07/12/25 05:12 PM
65

Many people read this and ASSume this is the result of a study or surveys or likewise. It isn't. It was made up by the author of The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood, because apparently she just likes the reactions. It was written to be dismissive of men and men's concerns, and has succeeded wildly in that regard. We should ignore people who spout nonsense like this, but if you decide to engage, ask them for their source. It's literally fiction.
/r/MensRights03/12/25 07:30 PM
12

But until that happens the burden should be shared equally.
/r/MensRights02/12/25 06:13 PM
14

'The government countered that the army and civil defense have enough staff... the idea would “place an extra burden on many women, who already shoulder a large part of the unpaid work of raising and caring for children and relatives...' Well yeah, men have to participate in the mandatory national service. Of course this is going to leave the 'unpaid work' more on the women. Also, how is it called unpaid when they have a roof over their heads and food to eat? Someone is paying for that, and some…
/r/MensRights30/11/25 08:47 PM
2

And the 'pay diff' is due to their own choices. Men will take highly paid but dangerous jobs that women generally won't. And women flock more toward cushier jobs that tend to have a lower rate of pay.
/r/MensRights30/11/25 08:26 PM
6

Could it be that the rate of women being incarcerated is rising faster than the rate for men - not actual numbers, but just growth percentages - is because women are slowly being held more accountable than in the past? That they aren't getting a free pass on their crimes and indiscretions any longer? No, that can't be right. Women are innocent delicate creatures, right?
/r/MensRights29/11/25 07:29 PM
5

'... it's never been like that for men...'. Really? No. You're falling for apex fallacy. Those in power stay in power, and use their wealth and power to stay in power. Mostly those people are men, because men are typically physically stronger. But most men, the common man, the worker, the serf, didn't have power and was subservient to those in power, which also included women. There was no voting for common people throughout most of history. It was usually reserved for landowners. It wasn't unti…
/r/MensRights28/11/25 06:20 PM
7

Pay gap: bad Work gap: bad This is what people think. The story is telling us that these work in mens favor. Whether you like it or not, most will see this as evidence that men are advantaged and women are disadvantaged. Most aren't going to look for deeper meaning somewhere else. If it looks like a duck, most will call it a duck. If there's more meaning they need to just say it. Anything else is lost.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 05:23 AM
11

Most reading this don't know what you are on about. It's clearly stating that women are victims of a pay gap, but you're saying that's not what it means. Most read stories to be given information and not to have to delve into research. Sorry, that's the way it is.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 05:07 AM
10

No, that's exactly what it's doing, and you said so yourself, that it 'encourages a pay and work gap'. Most people don't think of work or pay gaps as benign but rather as an attempt to pay women less. Otherwise, why do we need a study to tell us that working less hours results in less pay? It's self evident. But saying there's a pay gap is saying to most that those people are being shortchanged. That's exactly what's being done here. As I stated before, otherwise we're just saying that when one …
/r/MensRights28/11/25 05:01 AM
12

I'm responding to the story, the link there, and what was said. You didn't read the story and went off in search of what you think explains the ideas behind the story. As with any story most of us can judge only on what is written there, and that's usually the idea behind publishing something like this. We shouldn't have to look for hidden meanings.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 04:52 AM
14

No, the study is decrying how women's contributions aren't recognized. It's decrying that men are earning more and calling it a pay gap when it's really a work gap. Work less hours, make less money. Most of us know if one partner works more outside that the other needs to counter that at home. We don't need a study to tell us this, because most are already doing that.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 04:11 AM
17

Hello, the links you've given are straight out called '... unpaid WOMENS work...' , '...see how much your unpaid labor is worth...' and other phrasing to imply that others don't take your contributions fully into account. It's worded to make women appear to be victims. It's saying hey, look how much women are taken for granted.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 04:06 AM
17

Hello, I'll counter that you are the one misunderstanding. It's saying that while men are making more money then women are relegated to the unpaid tasks. Men get recognition and cash while women are left to pick up the slack without the glory. It's a negative look at the situation, as well as an unfair description.
/r/MensRights28/11/25 03:55 AM
103

Well gosh, who would think working more hours and accomplishing more leads to higher wages? /s Also from the article: While men work longer hours, women are shouldering the bulk of unpaid domestic labour and care in the home. Follow the link to see how of course they consider only 'traditional' domestic labor, and totally ignore home upkeep and repair and any work traditionally done by men, like maintenance of family vehicles.
/r/MensRights27/11/25 09:35 PM
3

What do you think this sub is about? Change sometimes happens slowly but we're working on it. Those very entrenched ideas take longer to change. And at the same time, crying about things isn't always effective, other than getting it out of your system. Men and women tend to get things out of their system differently. As I said before, crying about it isn't always literally crying, and men can do different things to change things, while still learning other options open.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 03:38 AM
3

I didn't say it's right. I said that this is how it is. And why does it continue? Because the pushback is powerful.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 02:51 AM
3

That's not a gendered comment, it's reality. Men don't cry about such things because THEY WERE RAISED TO NOT DO IT. It's hard to move past what you've been trained to do your whole life. Also, here crying about it means throwing a tantrum and announcing it to the immediate world. Because if they did, first it's pointless, and second no one will take them seriously anyway. Because they're men.
/r/MensRights26/11/25 02:37 AM
2

Women seem to assume a lot about what men do and encourage in mens groups. Maybe because it's things that they do? But no, they don't encourage or congratulate cheating. They will definitely tell other men to stop putting up with this nonsense but most won't be in favor of this. Apologies for misunderstanding the comment about women, but yes, she does have a responsibility to not sneak around. Or at least shouldn't be surprised when she's called out on it. Taking accountability is so rare these …
/r/MensRights26/11/25 02:07 AM
5

Men are vilified for cheating all the time. It's not true that they're encouraged by other men. That's a fallacy spread by women. And women don't have a responsibility to the family? There's a big problem with that thinking, for sure. Of course they do!
/r/MensRights26/11/25 01:20 AM
6

No, women are encouraged by other women. You go, girl! Slay, sister! Don't let any man tell you what to do! Women aren't judged on what they're wearing. A series of questions are asked to set the stage and determine what went on. Likewise when men are attacked they're asked where they were, why they were there, what transpired, and so on. It's the same for everyone. Men are also asked if they were intoxicated, and why they didn't choose better. Same questions, but men don't usually cry about it.…
/r/MensRights26/11/25 01:16 AM
6

No, just no. When a woman cheats, or does anything negative for that matter, like slaps him, people say, 'What did he do to make her do that' while when a man cheats he's torn apart by everyone else, both men and women.
/r/MensRights25/11/25 11:52 PM
0

I literally told you in the post you are responding to. Read it again, and compare to the linked article.
/r/MensRights23/11/25 02:30 AM
1

Oh, I agree if the genders were reversed almost no one would bat an eye. But either way it's wrong, and we don't want to give the misandrists any ammunition. We have to take the high road.
/r/MensRights23/11/25 02:26 AM
2

From the article: '...he said he'd punch me at the moment if he could, and then gave a hard punch at the door.' That sure sounds to me like he punched her. Am I wrong?
/r/MensRights21/11/25 09:53 PM
3

To be fair, no one should punch anyone else out of anger. Deal with your issues like civilized beings!
/r/MensRights21/11/25 08:04 PM
6

You showed your nature through your comment, and nothing since has been any different. So again, thanks for sharing.
/r/MensRights21/11/25 05:26 PM
4

Oh, okay, your opinion overrides everyone else's. You don't bring up your own experience, but it's perfectly fine for you to minimize and deny someone else's lived experience. Got it. Thanks for informing the rest of us.
/r/MensRights21/11/25 05:19 PM
6

So what are you doing here? Trying to diminish someone else's experience. I'd normally say that different opinions are fine, but you came here to say the opposite. Shouldn't you likewise be reading the room?
/r/MensRights21/11/25 05:12 PM
6

Read the room is right. If someone brings up their experience it usually opens the door for others to talk about similar experiences. That IS what we're talking about. Policing the conversation so certain others can't share their lived experience will lead to an echo chamber. Which is okay if that's what we want, I guess.
/r/MensRights21/11/25 05:05 PM
7

If something is posted on an internet forum, isn't that inviting reactions and opinions to be posted?
/r/MensRights21/11/25 04:34 PM
2

'Most moustaches are ugly...' No, they aren't. They are decidedly masculine and certain styles aren't for everyone, but we can't view them through a feminine style mindset. They wouldn't look good on most women but they give a masculine aura to most men. Our differences should be celebrated.
/r/MensRights20/11/25 07:45 PM
13

Apparently it's too triggering to recognize it as International Mens Day.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 09:10 PM
58

And likewise, men should leave girlfriends who embarrass them. It's not a difficult concept.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 07:55 PM
4

That's true for living beings. His school is an inanimate object, so I think it's fine to hate it.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 07:44 PM
22

Likewise, although it's coming up on 37 years of marriage for me. My wife also knows the score these days, and has told me if she dies first I'd be crazy to ever consider marriage again.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 10:09 PM
1

You still don't get it. The same people who don't understand that the phrasing is incorrect will also think when you say men aren't systemically violent you mean men aren't violent. But okay. Don't get your point across. Which is, ironically, ironic.
/r/MensRights16/11/25 06:14 PM
1

The entirety of your responses in this sub downplay any subject mentioned. I never said you said men aren't impacted by systemic violence. I asked if you know it happens, since you disagree with every subject on here. Most on here read the mood of the messages and don't try to educate others about phrasing while ignoring what the message was. That's what you do.
/r/MensRights16/11/25 04:30 PM
1

No, I never meant you believe OP. No mental gymnastics just that your answer gives people that idea because you are so totally stuck on the phrasing. Right or not, most people don't understand when you say it's wrong because it's not stated correctly, thinking you believe something you don't. If you say it doesn't exist, people think you mean there isn't literal violence also. Understand finally? Also, you realize there is systemic violence toward men too, right? That the system is set up to hur…
/r/MensRights16/11/25 04:04 PM
1

Online chats often call men 'systemically violent'. From context it appears they mean inherently violent. Most will respond to the intent, but you'd rather play language police. That has its place, but here you've agreed that men aren't systemically violent, so to those not versed in the difference between inherently and systemically you appear to be agreeing that men aren't inherently violent. That happens to be true, and if you're good with that, everything is good. But also it's good to under…
/r/MensRights16/11/25 02:55 AM
1

Correcting the misuse of a word or term is great, if it goes to those who are consistently using it that way. Here, the OP is asking why this misused term is being applied to men all the time. Try to keep up. It is. Disagreeing in and of itself isn't bad, but when someone disagrees just to disagree it doesn't add anything. Nu uh, nu uh, nu uh constantly for spurious reasons doesn't provide an alternative view point. It just shows that you can't admit that some points on here are entirely valid. …
/r/MensRights16/11/25 01:50 AM
1

OP is literally asking why men are referred to in this manner. Incorrect or not, this is how it's termed. This is what we see 😺 n the real world. Arguing that it's incorrect doesn't change how others use it. And yes, it may be a week since you replied, but when you do it's only ever to disagree or to negatively add to the discussion. And yes, I spelled out that what you're saying is in agreement with OP after you said the usage is incorrect a few times. I clarified that he's saying it that way b…
/r/MensRights16/11/25 12:57 AM
1

OP is saying the way we hear it used all the time is in this manner, and was saying that usage is incorrect. You are agreeing it is incorrect usage. He doesn't like men being talked about like this, and you're saying that they shouldn't be talked about this way. Sounds like the same idea. Honestly, we only ever see you on here disagreeing with everything, but if you think it through you'll see that you sometimes agree as you do here. Even if you're loath to admit it.
/r/MensRights16/11/25 12:40 AM
3

We're talking about current times. The post here asks how men are systemically violent, which we hear a lot. You seem to be agreeing with OP, that it's not just men, no matter how much we hear it. Because it IS repeated, a lot. It's okay to admit that some groups have an agenda that's not supported by reality.
/r/MensRights16/11/25 12:05 AM
3

Did you really, though? It seemed rather vague. But okay, now give an example where it's applied solely to women, as we do frequently see it applied to men.
/r/MensRights15/11/25 11:51 PM
2

I understood your reasoning, just not how it sounds like you're admonishing him. But since you're not, it's all good.
/r/MensRights15/11/25 11:18 PM
2

It reads to me as you had overanalyzed and were victim blaming. I'm just saying don't police someone else's reactions, when that is what happens all the time on this subject. But apologies if that was not your intent.
/r/MensRights15/11/25 11:01 PM
7

That's correct. So why is it used only to describe men, when women are violent too?
/r/MensRights15/11/25 10:40 PM
6

And yet the term is applied only to men. Weird, huh?
/r/MensRights15/11/25 10:38 PM
3

It reads to me like a simple recitation of the facts, so OP is in fact taking it easy and not at all consumed. Framing it as such normalizes the act, which is what the proponents want. Men are allowed to talk about it without being told they're overstating the situation. They aren't.
/r/MensRights15/11/25 10:21 PM
1

It's not 'a fight' at all. The men are attempting to end the attack by showing the woman she is not going to win. They are literally pulling their punches. Often the woman will then double down because she is angry, and knows she'll have the sympathy of those unaware of what transpired first. And yes, this is not at all fair -- to the man.
/r/MensRights11/11/25 07:46 PM
13

And this is fine for you and like-minded individuals. But you always have the choice of using the stall, and that choice is taken away. Plus I'm assuming a majority of the users will still stand up to pee, possibly creating other issues. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights09/11/25 08:33 PM
40

"You can go out at night unlike women" Well no, often it's because we don't have the luxury of NOT going out. In my younger days, living on my own in a shady part of town, I had a job in a not so nice neighborhood at night and had to walk through an even shadier neighborhood to get there. I couldn't not go because I needed the money, So I just didn't dwell on the potential dangers. I had no safety net, and no one was going to save me. I alone was responsible for what I had to do and what happene…
/r/MensRights04/11/25 02:55 AM
4

Men are called sluts too. We just don't cry about it.
/r/MensRights01/11/25 07:30 PM
1

Nude scene? Where? According to the story it's because she was topless at one point. Topless isn't nude. We keep hearing that women should be allowed to be topless at the beach and at pools as men are, and that's fine. But it's not nudity. We need to make up our minds about what's acceptable and what isn't.
/r/MensRights31/10/25 06:30 PM
9

There was no 'presumption' of lying, just the mention that it's a possibility. And why is that? Because it happens so often here. It's sometimes hard to tell who is sincere and who's just brigading.
/r/MensRights30/10/25 06:23 PM
4

There's a lot to unravel here. The one that jumped out at me the most is: "Locker room talk is an excuse for men to spew comments about women that are most commonly sexual." And also "... this behavior is normalized." Where do those saying this get their information from? As a man for many decades most locker room talk I've heard is pretty mundane and pretty much just normal small talk.
/r/MensRights28/10/25 06:15 PM
1

The title of the linked story should be: 'Frivolous Things To Do While Someone Else Is Supporting Your Lazy Ass'.
/r/MensRights25/10/25 05:25 PM
26

Nothing to worry about... Yeah, it just means you're expendable to society, unlike your female contemporaries, who apparently must be protected. By you.
/r/MensRights20/10/25 10:57 PM
1

Ummm... your question was answered. Most questions here are specific, the type you probably mean when you say 'about mens rights'. Posts like this one are to bring awareness to how men are treated differently than women with different harsher expectations than women have. Men might express their feelings more if it weren't constantly weaponized against them. Women may say this is what they want but the reality is much different. Good for you for being sober now, and most of us don't have a porn …
/r/MensRights19/10/25 02:31 AM
7

Can't we do both? We should do both. Actually it seems to me we are doing both.
/r/MensRights18/10/25 05:21 PM
1

Huh. I'm old, and have never known any man who focuses on his penis size. It is what it is, and men just live their lives. And most other people don't care either. We all have our differences
/r/MensRights10/10/25 06:27 PM
2

Two things can be true at the same time. While you did list some shows with male protagonists, OP is saying that more and more shows are either just remakes of older shows with a gender switch, or using formulaic plots again with a gender switch. This is very true and evident. As to Edit 2, not every event that affects men is earth shattering, but constantly portraying men in a negative manner is a real concern. Talking about it shouldn't evoke such anger and vitriol. Relax.
/r/MensRights03/10/25 05:53 PM
1

In gay porn the men are treated likewise, or worse. It's the submissive or bottom getting worked over, so to speak. And there is dominatrix porn as well where again, the submissive gets the brunt. This is to say this isn't a sexism thing as you seem to imply. It's a role playing thing instead. Many prefer to dominate.
/r/MensRights25/09/25 07:35 PM
3

I disagree with the idea that more minor things shouldn't be mentioned here. There's room for many different stories and experiences. And why shouldn't a woman dumping a drink on a man be mentioned? Ignoring such behavior just tends to normalize it and allows it to continue unchecked. Of course it should be done in a civil manner, but just flat out ignoring some things isn't a solution.
/r/MensRights19/09/25 05:43 PM
1

Two days later? Okay. Yes, I know you didn't specifically use those words. What I meant is that men are judged the same way, but it's never an issue when they are. You don't even notice it. You notice it with women because it's just expected that they'll be treated better than men and not judged the same way as men.
/r/MensRights18/09/25 09:13 PM
9

Well yeah. That's their livelihood. That's how they support their family. Of course they're going to make sure everything is running as smoothly as possible. And men have a habit of ignoring their own interests when concerned about their family and their actions affecting their family. Also most men truly don't have the time to run to the doctor or hospital every time they have the sniffles and so they don't. This behavior becomes normalized for them. But rather than understanding the underlying…
/r/MensRights18/09/25 05:34 PM
1

Well yeah. Taking care of their livestock is their livelihood and how
/r/MensRights18/09/25 05:07 PM
1

Not angry at all. Just letting you know that when a university or whoever publishes a paper, it's to publish their conclusions or opinions. I'm not sure why you're trying to deflect responsibility from them when they clearly said something and thus the public will know this is what they believe.
/r/MensRights17/09/25 03:16 AM
1

No, I'm not contacting them to ask if what they themselves published is their 'official' position, and neither is anyone else. If they published it then there is a reasonable belief that it's their position. And what would be the point of publishing an opinion if you aren't endorsing it? That's not how it works.
/r/MensRights17/09/25 02:49 AM
1

If this isn't the opinion of JHM, then they shouldn't have said 'Scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of male circumcision — surgical removal of the foreskin from the penis — dates back hundreds of years to observations made by physicians of their circumcised patients.' Or the other things they published in this article, without qualifying it as one doctor's opinion. It sure was written as if they concur with that one doctor's opinion.
/r/MensRights17/09/25 02:36 AM
3

So he's obsessed with the appearance of dicks. Interesting.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 09:12 PM
3

Yes, there are conditions where it's necessary. And sometimes there are other solutions other than circumcision but we seem to jump directly there. But that's another topic. But 99.99999% of the time there's absolutely no condition where it could logically be considered. It's done just because it's been done for ages. That's not a reason.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 06:40 PM
4

Oh sure, they might. But when a prestigious and world known organization espouses pseudo science like this, they get a lot of publicity. People who never thought about the subject matter be swayed by them. We definitely need to call out those who think this is okay and should be the norm.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 06:32 PM
2

I was trying to say that justification is totally off base in a gentle manner. No, there's no way that's what they were trying to do here.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 06:01 PM
4

Like plastic surgery for your penis. Yay! /s (obviously)
/r/MensRights16/09/25 05:58 PM
5

The article is talking about trends in general, not a particular hospital. Here's a clip from it: Scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of male circumcision — surgical removal of the foreskin from the penis — dates back hundreds of years to observations made by physicians of their circumcised patients. Sure sounds like they're advocating for circumcision for all baby boys.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 05:54 PM
36

This article is decrying these results. They think the dropping rate is a bad thing and attribute much of it to mistrust of the medical profession. This is what we're up against. Highly respected medical sources supporting bodily mutilation under the guise of superior health benefits.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 03:02 PM
-1

My experience is that it's generally better to not try to police the romantic activities of other grown adults.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 02:52 PM
13

It's a two way street. Men are judged the same way all the time. The difference is that men generally don't cry about it to the whole world. Often they embrace it as a coping mechanism. No one is rushing to their defense worrying about their feelings. Stop expecting women to be coddled.
/r/MensRights16/09/25 02:41 PM
1

I know that the majority of society doesn't think that someone calling their child attractive is creepy. A sincere compliment isn't wrong. That you choose to take comments in the worst possible way is a you problem. Don't assume that everyone is like you.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 08:24 PM
1

Fortunately, your twisted view of reality isn't shared by most.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 08:07 PM
1

I guess we live in different worlds. People do say things like this, and no one takes offense. Except those who live on Reddit, apparently.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 08:05 PM
1

People comment on children's appearance all the time. 'Oh, your daughter is pretty in that dress!' or 'Your grandson is looking so cute in that jacket!' My point (that you stubbornly refuse to see) is that just thinking something or someone is attractive can be a perfectly harmless observation. And just for fun, would you think the same thing if it was a woman saying the 13 year old was attractive?
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:54 PM
1

Sidestepping the point isn't an answer. Someone commenting positively on your family's appearance isn't a bad or scary thing.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:44 PM
1

You don't have an actual point. Reasonable people aren't offended if you tell them they have an attractive family. They're usually pleased.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:38 PM
1

So a friend who tells you that you have an attractive family is a pedophile? Throwing the term around so carelessly is reckless.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:31 PM
1

You honestly think men can hate other men and be misandrists? You honestly think calling any man you disagree with a pedophile is normal? And of course it's true that you can think something/ someone is attractive without being attracted to them. I can recognize that a famous Hollywood actor is conventionally attractive without being attracted to him. LOL, apparently.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:24 PM
1

Attractive and Attracted To are worlds apart. People often say, 'What an attractive family you have!' And if men go to the nearest playground it's viewed suspiciously by many. Check your privilege.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:20 PM
1

You think if you say something enough times others will believe it? I keep telling you there's a major difference between thinking something is attractive and being attracted to it, but you keep feigning righteous indignation. You apparently think it's fine to spread harmful rumors about a stranger's beliefs and keep repeating the same untruth. That makes you a man hating misandrist who tells lies to try to win imaginary Internet points. How sad that you can't have an honest conversation.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:14 PM
1

So you've never thought 'What a beautiful baby!' or, the other way, 'What an ugly baby!'? If so, that's just a you thing. People are usually polite, while still noticing. And noticing isn't a bad thing.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:08 PM
1

You really don't understand the English language. Thinking something is attractive just means you recognize it has certain characteristics that aren't ugly. 'Attracted to' is a completely different meaning. That you immediately think 'pedo' tells us you're already trying to find reasons to call it that. You know it's possible to disagree with the post's subject without thinking the worst about someone, right? But apparently it's what works for you.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 07:03 PM
2

I also found it odd that a 13 year old would be employed as such, but that wasn't the point. The point was, and now has been spelled out by you, is that you immediately think someone is a pedo for simply using the word 'attractive'. Do you know how the English language works? That you think recognizing someone is conventionally attractive is somehow an unnatural thing says a lot about you and your mindset. Always thinking the worst with minimal information at best shows a not very nice agenda. T…
/r/MensRights15/09/25 06:31 PM
2

So all children are a bland uniformity to you? Is English maybe not your native tongue? People often say other people are attractive, meaning not ugly, without any ulterior or underlying meaning or motive. Try to not project your unsavory interpretations on others.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 06:22 PM
2

He said that, yes. He said they hire attractive people. That's what customer facing businesses do. Nothing new or earth shaking. Then YOU had to add the idea that noticing someone is attractive must mean they are attracted to them. That's a pure projection from you, and there's no other way to spin that. You're the only one who thought that Again, seek help.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 05:26 PM
-1

Making up dialogue that no one else ever said to claim moral superiority is fucking gross dude. Again, thinking any person is looking attractive is not at all being attracted to them. "My, that's a pretty dress' or 'Looking great in those duds, young man' and such are fairly common observations. Twisting them around into something wrong and sexual comes from a sick mind. That's not a spin. That's reality. It's your projections of your sick conclusions on others that's disturbing. Please seek imm…
/r/MensRights15/09/25 04:54 PM
4

You're just looking for a reason to be offended, aren't you? People notice the appearance of others all the time. Women especially will say things like, Oh, that outfit looks pretty on her! Or, Ugh, what was she thinking with that makeup? And, in the context of what's being talked about here, stores like having customers see a conventionally attractive person working there when they enter the establishment. The fact that your mind went to a bad place when reading innocuous comments says more abo…
/r/MensRights15/09/25 03:42 PM
2

There's a major difference between noticing someone is attractive and being attracted to them.
/r/MensRights15/09/25 03:14 PM
5

We all know that any 'gender inequality' is due to cherry picking and spinning the results as necessary to support the findings. But the one I find most egregious is the one about politics. In most, if not all Western nations women are a plurality in the electorate. To get more women in power is simple. More women need to run for office -- no one is stopping them -- and that plurality of women voters needs to vote for them. Even though there are men out there (and women too) who won't vote for w…
/r/MensRights14/09/25 09:59 PM
7

I'm not OP, but I remember this. The link appears to be bad, so here's another: https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/sep/30/vancouver-police-officer-violated-department-policy-for-pulling-down-suspects-pants-threatening-to-taser-him/ TLDR: A man and a woman were fleeing after shoplifting at a local Walmart. A pair of cops, a man and a woman, pursued and caught up to them. The woman cop pulled down the male shoplifter's pants and threatened to taze his genitals. He surrendered and both were arrest…
/r/MensRights14/09/25 09:32 PM
3

When women experience hard times they have all kinds of safety nets. They have charities and social services geared toward women. Men are more likely to be left to their own devices and told to man up and to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Society feels sorry for women experiencing hard times but vilifies men in same and similar circumstances. Men are expected to do things for themselves on their own, and so more often turn to extra legal activities. Men are very more likely to see crime…
/r/MensRights14/09/25 08:26 PM
1

Whereas this has a distinct purpose. No studying effects, no other motives. Now I'm not saying to blindly trust. That's madness. It just seems that in this situation, where the newborns are tested for myriad other things, adding this would seem simple and rather routine.
/r/MensRights10/09/25 08:12 PM
1

In my experience, the government is particularly inept at keeping secrets. (My experience is with the US government.) If there were records being kept it would be fairly well known. Of course there are secret agencies but they probably already have a lot of stuff anyway. I've had my fingerprints taken several times over the years, as well as photos, for drivers licenses and the like. This seems to be just more of the same, and the good would outweigh any potential bad. The bad being paternity fr…
/r/MensRights10/09/25 07:31 PM
3

Who said anything about 'archiving'?
/r/MensRights10/09/25 06:29 PM
2

Another thing about those 'statistics' is that the incidents are self reported and the terms aren't pre-set. This means if users are asked if they have been harassed online, men and women have different standards and definitions about what constitutes harassment. Women tend to be much more thin skinned about what harassing them is. When a woman is called a bitch you'll see 'OMG! You don't talk about women like that! It's so disrespectful!' At the same time you can call me bastards and any other …
/r/MensRights10/09/25 03:27 AM
12

Someone disagreeing with you forces you to hate men? You're easily triggered. I disagree with you, but I still love most women. Now I understand why some people are called snowflakes.
/r/MensRights08/09/25 08:25 PM
2

Thanks for the good advice. But I'm old and my wife is currently in the hospital so I have a lot of time on my hands, both while visiting her and when I'm home alone. So sometimes I enjoy feeding the troll, even when they invent points to argue against, then double and triple down when called out. This one was fun at times but lackluster overall. Still, a day well spent for me. Cheers!
/r/MensRights07/09/25 09:22 AM
1

No one ever disagreed with men standing against domestic violence. That's something that you made up. No one said that except you. There's no reason to think anyone thinks otherwise. You admit there was no reason given to disagree with the group, so YOU MADE UP REASONS. And you continue to argue against something no one said but you . You're the one who isn't even trying to have a discussion, since you keep making up points to argue. Yes, domestic violence and rape are predatory. Who said otherw…
/r/MensRights07/09/25 04:46 AM
1

Now we're at whataboutisms? Just because you mention something worse (murder) doesn't mean the ridiculous thing you said was right. No one ever argued against "Men need to stand against domestic violence'. You're making up things to argue against. You initially replied to a post dissing A Call To Men. You made up reasons why they may disagree. You thought of worst case scenarios. But that was all you. No one said that. You need to ask yourself why your first thought when you responded was to ima…
/r/MensRights07/09/25 03:48 AM
1

Oh, now we're at whataboutisms? Just because something else heinous wasn't mentioned doesn't mean you're right or what you said is okay. Then you try to rationalize it by saying 'they said Men need to stand against domestic violence'. The only problem is that NO ONE EVER DISAGREED WITH THAT STATEMENT. The statement you disagreed with showed displeasure with A Call To Men. They didn't say anything specific. You said, as I've repeated many times now, 'What's your issue with that? Is it that that t…
/r/MensRights07/09/25 03:33 AM
2

Now who's reading what they wanted the other to have said? I never said that you said 'all Men'. Your very phrasing ,'Is it that they agree that women shouldn't be seen as objects? Or that they are against harassment, domestic violence, and rape?' reads as if these are the prevailing opinions. Of course you didn't say all men and no one said that. But with that wording you're assuming guilt from the get go, and it seems pretty deliberate. Otherwise you wouldn't ask the person who you were respon…
/r/MensRights07/09/25 02:25 AM
2

It was literally you who mentioned those behaviors. It's you who are saying men need to be trained to not do those things. Why do you feel it's okay to say men need to be trained to not be this way? Why are you denying your own words? Are you saying women need to be taught to take accountability?
/r/MensRights07/09/25 12:16 AM
3

Who mentioned predators? Oh, it was you. You said, 'What's your issue with that? Is it that they agree that women shouldn't be seen as objects? Or that they are against harassment, domestic violence, and rape?' The very phrasing reads as if this is the current state of things. As if that's the way things are, and you're confused why anyone would be against those things. It's like asking when someone stopped beating his wife. The question itself assumes other facts are already in play.
/r/MensRights06/09/25 09:47 PM
2

So you're saying men are naturally like that and need to be trained to not be? That they think women are objects, and are for harassment, domestic violence, and rape? The issue is the assumption that either men are naturally bad or have been socialized to be so, and thus need good people - presumably women and their male converts - to lead them to the proper path. Apparently men are just too slow to do this on their own. That's the issue. That men are seen as pets in need of training.
/r/MensRights06/09/25 09:15 PM
1

I'm 65 and can forgive if someone genuinely apologizes and learns from it. The same standard I hold myself to.
/r/MensRights04/09/25 03:07 AM
1

I used your exact words. Choose your words carefully. And I didn't say that's how women think. I said those were YOUR words. Notice how I'm blaming only you for your words. Not at all like saying 'boys' will get the wrong idea about women.
/r/MensRights04/09/25 01:57 AM
1

I twisted nothing. I used your exact words. I completely understand that in your mind, boys and men are intellectually stunted and need you and others like you to see things clearly. Open your mind to believing that thoughts you may not agree with can also have merit.
/r/MensRights04/09/25 01:20 AM
1

You said '... I would never send my son to a prostitute. It gives them the wrong idea about women...: I asked how that gives boys the wrong idea about women and you went off on other tangents about many other things. True things or not, you never answered how they would get 'the wrong idea about women.' They all already know what prostitutes are, so why would they judge all women based on skanks and loose women? Yes, it would be stupid to send your son to a prostitute, but thinking he'd get the …
/r/MensRights04/09/25 12:09 AM
2

Doubling and now tripling down on the belief that boys will get the wrong idea about women from prostitutes? And now they think there's nothing wrong with human trafficking? Who told you that? We can agree that children frequenting prostitutes is wrong, but boys do not form their opinions on women based on encounters with prostitutes. It's demeaning to think of them this way. Of course all children need guidance but let's not gender it.
/r/MensRights03/09/25 09:29 PM
2

I'm older too. I also want to help. No bitterness here. I have nothing to be bitter about. But you're hindering, not helping, when you blanketly declare that boys will get the wrong idea about women from a prostitute. Like they can't see the differences for themselves. Like they don't already know prostitutes exist and will somehow, from this one encounter, think all women are the same, and like this. And you've only talked this way about boys, more than once. Maybe examine your beliefs about ho…
/r/MensRights03/09/25 08:21 PM
3

I'm old, and I have never known of anyone sending boys to a prostitute. I'm sure it has happened but my experience is that it isn't widespread. And we're in agreement that no one should be sending anyone else to a prostitute, least of all an underage boy, or even a barely of age boy. No, my only quarrel with you was your statement that it will give boys the wrong idea about women. Then you doubled down on it when questioned. Regardless of what we think of the action, boys aren't suddenly going t…
/r/MensRights03/09/25 06:50 PM
2

They think all women are objects to please them? What? Of course they don't, if they've had a proper upbringing so far. They DO need to be taught this AT AN EARLY AGE before sex is even a thought, but so do girls. All your statements are vilifying boys as if they are naturally some demon seed. No child, boy or girl, will just randomly think women (or men) are objects to please them. Stop acting as if boys are wild animals in need of taming.
/r/MensRights03/09/25 06:30 PM
6

How does that give boys the wrong idea about women? The reality is that some women are prostitutes. Do you think boys are too stupid to make a distinction between 'working girls' and the majority who aren't in the business?
/r/MensRights03/09/25 05:57 PM
4

Wait -- you can be naked with women, but actual sex is against your religion? That seems like cherry picking the gospel, but you know better I suppose. In any event, kudos to you for staying true to your convictions.
/r/MensRights03/09/25 05:53 PM
0

Just letting people know what's out there on TikTok and YouTube.
/r/MensRights01/09/25 06:45 PM
2

Who said anything about gloating, or was being vulgar? Just facing reality is all. Being aware of things doesn't have to be a bad thing.
/r/MensRights01/09/25 06:43 PM
3

Now let's get down to business...
/r/MensRights29/08/25 06:32 PM
19

I found this interesting: Women make up a significant portion of living donors, but only about 27.6% of deceased donors.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 10:39 PM
12

Women in trades are notoriously treated bad? No, they're treated the same way the men are. No one bats an eye at the treatment of men, but don't you dare treat women the same way!
/r/MensRights28/08/25 08:28 PM
5

And yet you came here to chastise. Most on here are well aware of what you're speaking of. No one was blaming women, but just pointing out that any time a valid mens issue is mentioned it has to be turned around and focused on women. Then you did exactly that. Keep doing what you're doing in your conversations. Just don't come into a forum like this and suggest that the question at hand is due to men not doing enough.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 08:13 PM
6

Funny how people here are trying to do something, but your response is to blame the messenger. Open your eyes and see that men can't do it alone, and any mention by them is countered with 'But women have it worse' or 'Men started it'. I'm not at all fighting about who is right or wrong. I'm saying it's not productive to reply to any mention of a mens issue with how it affects women.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 07:52 PM
6

It sounds like you're sharing that it's perfectly reasonable for women to act this way because men are clueless. Maybe it's a two way street? Maybe you could have productive conversations by sharing that men are ignored when they speak up about very real issues? When only one side is allowed to speak freely about a situation then it isn't a conversation at all. It's a lecture.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 07:44 PM
13

So the post is about how mentioning the plight of men is ignored and seen as downplaying the challenges of women and you respond by naysaying it and making it about women. There certainly should be downvotes.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 07:33 PM
0

So likewise it's cheaper to continue raising those already in existence rather than starting all over again when the going gets tough, right? Putting women through pregnancy after pregnancy isn't really as efficient as taking care of what you've already got. It's more cost effective to take care of those who you've already expended time and resources on.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 04:30 PM
1

So civilization is supremacism? Your current cushy life is based on it, but sure
/r/MensRights28/08/25 04:03 PM
2

That's so funny! You've never raised a child, have you? Someone has to raise them after birthing them, and it's no short term gig.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 04:00 PM
-1

Aren't you cute! Of course humans are animals. It's just a colloquial way of saying we aren't wild and uncivilized. Does that say it better for you?
/r/MensRights28/08/25 03:58 PM
8

For the cats, you need more than one male to avoid in-breeding. The same is true for people.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 02:51 AM
10

I believe you, but you used an answer seemingly tailored for a century ago, and it probably wasn't very accurate then. I think implicit in OP's question was the thought 'in this day and age'. Or maybe that's just me reading it that way.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 08:57 PM
3

What you say here is true, but we can still overcome some things while working toward others. Addiction, gambling, and others may take longer, but we shouldn't naysay others that we can handle.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 08:10 PM
7

Of course that's true, but has that ever been reality for the masses? No. An emperor or nobleman maybe could get away with that but it was never a common thing.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 08:01 PM
27

No, men tend to take care of infrastructure and maintenance of objects more. Women are not more valuable than men.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 07:21 PM
3

Does it have to be one extreme or the other? We can work towards that, right?
/r/MensRights27/08/25 07:02 PM
33

Yes. If we want to get the best bang for our buck, we'll go for those more likely to live longer afterwards. They potentially have more time to contribute to society.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 07:00 PM
23

So right after a disaster the men have to go around impregnating as many women as possible, right? No? It's almost as if times have changed. Many years ago, in fact.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 06:53 PM
-3

Because typically they need added assistance in many different things. Plus, we're not animals.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 06:50 PM
2

I have to question the type of establishments you've been frequenting. I'm an older man and have never heard jokes about domestic abuse. Not saying it doesn't happen, but if it happened to you twice within a week you need to seriously look at the circumstances you put yourself in.
/r/MensRights26/08/25 01:15 AM
28

Yeah, Natalie is a liar.
/r/MensRights24/08/25 07:30 PM
83

Natalie is obviously a liar.
/r/MensRights24/08/25 06:36 PM
8

Male and female biology is different but parallel in a lot of ways. Both are unethical but we vilify one and embrace the other. A doctor recommending male circumcision is engaging in a serious breach of a major part of the Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm. About 100 baby boys a year die or have serious damage from a botched circumcision, something not at sl necessary to begin with. EDIT: Corrected 'due' to 'die'
/r/MensRights23/08/25 05:54 PM
8

Grow up and realize that in the US male circumcision is routinely encouraged in hospitals. You'll be told that not only is it not bad, but it's good, and 'safer'. Nothing approaching this is encouraged for girls. So yes people should unify against this, but that isn't at all what the reality is today. To deny it is dangerous.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 04:22 PM
2

What are you asking me for? I'm just here because I said a particular poster (not me) never said that women have it easy.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 04:17 PM
9

WTF dude. It already IS an issue of gender in the US.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 04:01 PM
3

Yes, unmarried women could do a lot of things, but once married her property was in name her husband's. Usually. In cases of royalty if the woman was higher status going in she often remained higher status. Think Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 03:58 PM
4

I must have missed the part where he said women had it easy. He's saying that there generally weren't laws prohibiting women from doing these things but in practice they were sometimes denied. So, there was no law against women owning property but it wasn't a common thing. Being easy is an entirely different thing.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 03:01 PM
1

I had one topic throughout, that you sadly never understood. That feminists aren't trying to help men. And no, I'm not angry. Is that your goal if you can't be right about feminists? They may have stated that in the past but there's been no action by them on that front in at least 45 years.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 07:25 AM
1

I first responded to you (negatively) when you said feminists have opposed the draft since it existed. I said what have they done since 1980 to oppose it. Then you go off on other tangents because they don't care if men are drafted. That's my original point, telling you that they don't do anything to help men. So stop acting like they do. And no, not aggrieved. I can disagree with someone without getting angry or bent out of shape. Like a normal person.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 06:28 AM
1

Whatever dude. I'm not aggrieved. Feminists aren't trying to help men. We all know it. The topic never changed for me. Sad that you don't understand, but no one is losing sleep over it. Have fun in the world you live in.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 06:05 AM
12

One doesn't have to be autistic to not be interested in social status or fake hierarchy climbing. Just saying.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 02:52 AM
1

It was a continuation of the conversation at hand. You kept replying with things that happened in the past. Rehashing the past is pointless in this context so I mentioned the current situation. That starts with Selective Service being reinstated in 1980. How hard is that to follow? We're still living with the results of that. As to your last line, you keep repeating how feminists are against the draft for anyone. I keep telling you that in the 45 years since sign up was reinstated they haven't s…
/r/MensRights23/08/25 01:27 AM
2

I'm not the original poster, just a random responder.
/r/MensRights22/08/25 09:26 PM
1

I really need to question your reading comprehension. Taking away the right to vote is a heinous act, and I can't think of anyone who really wants to (although they're probably out there, I just don't know them). But how does my statement '...does anyone really think or want to...' kinda sound like I wouldn't mind? I'm saying the opposite, but you think you know my unspoken motives? Whatever.
/r/MensRights22/08/25 09:22 PM
3

OP said ' ...I believe that women shouldn't be in combat, especially by force...' To which you replied 'Feminists would agree with you, and go further by adding that no one should be in combat by force. Feminists have opposed the draft since it doesn't existed (before they were allowed the right to vote on it).' It was in response to that that I mentioned Selective Service being reinstated in 1980. NOT changing the subject, but to say your argument rings false because in the 45 years since then …
/r/MensRights22/08/25 09:07 PM
5

No goalposts were moved. No one ever blamed women for the draft. Stop creating positions to argue. The past is past. We're talking about now. What's happening now? It's easy to SAY feminists have opposed the draft all along. Words are cheap. And again, the past is past. The arguments today involve what is happening today. Stop telling us what happened in the past and concentrate on what is being done today. I don't see any feminists out there now concerned at all with the draft or Selective Serv…
/r/MensRights22/08/25 08:50 PM
4

So you agree that it's class warfare and sexist at the same time. That was my point, that both can be true. And the issue being discussed is the unbridled sexism. Does anyone really think or want to take the right to vote away from anyone? Probably only a very small minority. That take is mainly to show that much more has been expected of men in society than women. Are men actually suffering from having to sign up for Selective Service? Just through the consequences of possible fines and no fede…
/r/MensRights22/08/25 08:44 PM
4

Consequences also include being ineligible for federal jobs. Women SHOULD face those consequences in the name of equality. Making the issue more real and visible would definitely help in eliminating it. Some things are seen as a problem only if and when women are likewise inconvenienced.
/r/MensRights22/08/25 08:31 PM
7

Who said anything about 'a bunch of women deciding to send men off to war'? My fairly obvious point is that there has been plenty of time to either gender equalize or end the practice and there's been no real attempt at either. From this history it doesn't seem that feminists have always been opposed to the draft.
/r/MensRights22/08/25 08:26 PM
10

Signing up for Selective Service was reinstituted in 1980. In those 45 years, where have feminists been opposing it?
/r/MensRights22/08/25 07:39 PM
28

I guess there are no non-combat roles in the military, then? And men are forced, so why do women get a pass?
/r/MensRights22/08/25 07:35 PM
4

Common misconception or not, there are very real consequences for men who don't sign up. Why shouldn't women face the same consequences?
/r/MensRights22/08/25 07:32 PM
7

But it does exist. The benefit of making more sign up is that it ends the sexism. I'm not sure how it's 'class warfare' if it affects only men. Maybe it's a gendered class warfare?
/r/MensRights22/08/25 07:30 PM
3

So ALL the women who go off to war are going to die? ALL of the men don't, not even close. Even if you're saying women make less effective warriors, it still seems unlikely that they'd all die. Either way, it seems you're okay with men being cannon fodder. After age 25 men would still be allowed to vote because they've already paid their dues. They've already done what's been asked of them, even though the same is not asked or expected of women. Your last point, about everyone serving their coun…
/r/MensRights22/08/25 07:27 PM
11

Thanks for the womansplaining. Sure, tell everyone what men (and other women) teach their families. Normal families don't teach blanket hate to their children and the fact that you think this is normal is just sad. Misandric and untruthful is no way to go through life.
/r/MensRights21/08/25 02:22 AM
12

From Merriam Webster: metaphor /mĕt′ə-fôr″, -fər/ noun A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” Aren't you making an implicit comparison between men and ticks, sharks, and snakes? Where am I wrong in saying this? And I feel sorry for you if the men in your life (men only, apparently women have no input here) taught you to never trust any man. In any household I've …
/r/MensRights21/08/25 02:04 AM
17

If you can't see the obvious differences between men and ticks, sharks, and snakes then you are beyond hope. Whatever happened to common sense and critical thinking?
/r/MensRights21/08/25 01:01 AM
1

Regarding Gabby Petito, here's what happened at that last stop: Before Gabby Petito’s disappearance, she and her boyfriend, Brian Laundrie, were traveling across the country in a van. A 911 caller reported seeing a man slapping a woman outside of a store in Utah, which led to police stopping them. When police arrived at the scene and reviewed the situation, here’s what happened: Gabby appeared distressed, crying and apologizing to officers. Brian had minor injuries, including scratches. Gabby ad…
/r/MensRights21/08/25 12:50 AM
14

You're not supposed to say this out loud!
/r/MensRights20/08/25 06:09 PM
3

So you're saying men being killed by men isn't as bad as women being killed by men? That men somehow deserve it because all men are responsible for what less than 2% of men do?
/r/MensRights20/08/25 06:01 PM
4

No. Just disagreeing isn't fear. Not being able to disagree is the problem. Just doing so leads to more and more lies being told. Ask yourself, why do I believe that men shouldn't be allowed to disagree with women? Why can't men call out untruths when they see them?
/r/MensRights20/08/25 04:18 PM
3

What are you even talking about? The untrue part here is that men fear being made fun of. We don't like it, but there are a lot of things people don't like. No man had ever said, 'Oh, gosh, I'm so afraid of being made fun of'? It happens a lot when trying to meet women so men are used to it, far from fearing it. The dishonest part here, the lie, is comparing an insignificant made up fear of men to actual life and death situations. It diminishes men by saying men fear only trivialities while wome…
/r/MensRights20/08/25 04:09 PM
9

Whether or not that is true, that statement and similar others are framed as if the biggest fear men have is being made fun of by women, or that misandry merely annoys. Misandry is often deadly and men being made fun of by women is so commonplace that men expect it and accept it. It's seen as a normal part of dating. With such statements women attribute feelings to men that aren't at all true and at the same time treat men as a monolith by framing the actions of less than 2% of men on all men. S…
/r/MensRights20/08/25 03:07 PM
85

Please stop repeating the line 'Men are afraid women will make fun of them while women are afraid men will kill them.' It isn't true. It has no basis in fact. It trivializes men. It's just a line Margaret Atwood made up because she likes how it sounds. She likes making men appear to be brutes and women eternal victims. Stop perpetuating that untruth.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 05:21 AM
23

Please stop repeating the line 'Men are afraid women will make fun of them while women are afraid men will kill them.' It isn't true. It has no basis in fact. It trivializes men. It's just a line Margaret Atwood made up because she likes how it sounds. She likes making men appear to be brutes and women eternal victims. Stop perpetuating that untruth.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 05:21 AM
4

So you agree with dating for money then. Which is the very definition of golddigging.
/r/MensRights17/08/25 08:29 PM
2

Well I guess you're the gatekeeper of what's relevant here. The problem there is that not everyone agrees with what's relevant here and what's a men's rights issue. Take modern dating. It has everything to do with men's rights since many issues stem from the way men are treated as ATMs or dates as a foodie call. Most posts here are related to mens opinions being ignored or steamrolled over. They are very relevant here because of the underlying issues. And everyone's issues aren't the same.
/r/MensRights17/08/25 08:18 PM
2

Wow, you apparently feel the focus of the sub should be very narrowly focused. I and many others disagree. While some things posted here don't seem to belong, most do but to different degrees. And that's okay. As to your list, the first one and this one seem out of place to me as well, but then I just don't pay as much attention to them as to others. It doesn't hurt anything for them to be here. The others? Men and women are different, and often reading the perspective of another man is helpful.…
/r/MensRights17/08/25 07:53 PM
2

Which people? Those posting here aren't a monolith.
/r/MensRights17/08/25 06:51 PM
3

Real life? The Internet in general? There was nothing linking any of the ideas to any one specific place. Maybe your own biases led you to think only of this sub? I thought of the Internet but not one specific place.
/r/MensRights15/08/25 08:22 PM
4

This place? Did he mention this place? It seems that he's here relating what has happened to him in real life.
/r/MensRights15/08/25 08:08 PM
3

Wait, you were the one who asked 'who set the system up' in your first response to this person, so why are you now asking 'firstly why did you ask that question in the first place?' It was you who said that. Then you go on to explain why women don't get drafted. None of this is news to anyone. The original mention was to show that even if you believe it was a man's world in the first place (and not a wealthy or powerful person's place) that isn't the fact today. Whatever the reasons, they aren't…
/r/MensRights15/08/25 07:38 PM
1

Where does it say or imply having a significant other is a right? My take is that OP believes this is how men are treated in relationships. Or it's rage bait. But agree or disagree, it's not saying anyone has a right to a relationship.
/r/MensRights14/08/25 11:30 PM
11

Who said it was? Wanting and having are two distinctly different things. Wanting something does not mean you think you have a right to it.
/r/MensRights14/08/25 04:47 AM
1

I don't know why you're talking about believing the government 100%. No one said or implied anything like that. I merely pointed out some things you said that are wrong, and told you that you need to correct those things if you expect people to believe your other statements. If your foundation is flawed then who knows what else is. But you're free to do as you please, like everyone else. At the same time you shouldn't wonder why many don't take you seriously. Good luck!
/r/MensRights10/08/25 07:47 PM
1

THEN SAY THAT! There's no reason to spread untruths about it if you have plenty of things to say that are true. What you're not understanding, what I already said to you, a lot of people are going to disbelieve a lot of what you say if you lead with an untruth. If you really didn't know then what else is wrong? And if you did know, why lie? I'm not one to believe everything, and I especially don't believe random Internet strangers. You lost credibility saying the Federal Reserve was founded as a…
/r/MensRights10/08/25 07:30 PM
0

Okay, I get it, you hate the Federal Reserve. My original point in responding to you was you saying it was set up as a private business. That's demonstrably wrong. And it wasn't founded until 1913, so it seems like your distrust (hate?) of banking isn't focused solely on the Federal Reserve. Regardless, saying it was a private business leads others to think if you get this basic fact wrong, what else do you get wrong?
/r/MensRights10/08/25 05:06 PM
-1

How does this change what you said? It wasn't set up as a private business. Yes, it was set up to not be beholden to any branch of government. How is that a bad thing? The chair and members are nominated by the president and approved by Congress, but the terms are multi year and staggered so the current president or party in power doesn't also control monetary policy. What's wrong with that? If you don't like the Federal Reserve's current policies that's fine and you should lobby for change. But…
/r/MensRights10/08/25 04:40 PM
-3

I asked Google if the Federal Reserve began as a private business. This is the response: No, the Federal Reserve System was not initially established as a private business. While it does have some characteristics resembling a private corporation, like the issuance of stock to member banks, it's fundamentally a public institution created by Congress to serve the nation's economic interests. The Federal Reserve operates under the oversight of the federal government and is accountable to Congress, …
/r/MensRights10/08/25 04:12 PM
7

You're just purposely being stupid and obtuse, aren't you?! I've seen you do it a lot on here. You're very good at it. NO ONE SAID IT'S ABOUT WOMEN FINDING ANYONE ATTRACTIVE. It's about how that opinion is put out there. They wouldn't treat other women this way so yes, that treatment is a human rights issue. Opining on the internet that all men deserve to be talked about negatively is something all men should be aware of. And that's all that's happening here: making everyone aware that people li…
/r/MensRights09/08/25 11:23 PM
10

It's the right to be treated like everyone else. Every instance on here doesn't have to be about a legality. There are also human rights, and double standards are a human rights violation. It's about treating others the way you want to be treated.
/r/MensRights09/08/25 10:01 PM
7

I don't see this as 'tearing women down'. It's just bringing to the attention of a mostly male audience the way certain women act. There's nothing wrong with being aware that people like this are out there. And these are all things that these women themselves posted, so apparently they're proud of this behavior.
/r/MensRights09/08/25 09:33 PM
9

You shouldn't have mixed feelings. Of course having preferences is normal. It's the man trashing that's the issue. The double standard is why it's a Mens Rights issue. This needs to be called out.
/r/MensRights09/08/25 09:27 PM
15

It is because of the entitlement and how they casually trash men, and how it's viewed as okay and even normal.
/r/MensRights09/08/25 09:21 PM
1

It's not too many. It's not even a lot. It's maybe a few at most, which you should call out if it happens. Saying too many - this just part of the feminist agenda. Wake up! Even now you still can't comprehend that I didn't make a single thing up. Words have meaning. When you make broad open-ended statements like men thinking women are awful, this is what people understand you to be saying. Good luck with the gaslighting. Most on here see you for what you truly are: a feminist apologist.
/r/MensRights08/08/25 05:21 PM
1

Wow. Just understand what you are doing. You gave a vague opinion on here that men here are hating on women. I have one sentence fragment to let you know exactly how it sounds: you said this is a sub for hating women. That's how it reads. That's all that was going on. Since then you're writing volumes to 'explain' yourself. NO ONE CARES. Just don't say things like so many on here are hating on women, or that many think women are awful. Don't cast aspersions on the whole sub, as your original pos…
/r/MensRights08/08/25 03:13 PM
5

To recap, you're the one who stated 'too many people on here are looking for any justification to hate on women'. When told that disagreement isn't hate, because that's exactly what you're saying with that statement, you come back with 'if you think all women are awful...' You repeatedly take umbrage with simple disagreements and conflate them with men thinking the worst about women. You exactly are taking issue with men speaking up against double standards, otherwise you wouldn't make accusatio…
/r/MensRights08/08/25 03:48 AM
6

No matter what was going on here, you stated that too many are looking for any justification to hate. That's just not true. Most things on here are calling out double standards and you're saying that speaking out against these things is hate. That sure sounds like you're equating disagreement with hate. If you see any hate speech, report it. Call it out. Don't give us non-specifics, like 'too many' are 'hating on women'. Specific examples when it happens will allow others to understand what you …
/r/MensRights08/08/25 03:29 AM
5

You said 'hate on women' and I said disagreement doesn't equal hate. That doesn't seem at all vague to me, and at least a few others. But whatever. Then here you say not all here are women haters but also say 'if you think that all women are awful...' What? Again, no, speaking up about these things doesn't mean you think all women are awful. It just means that some things some women do are unfair to men and they need attention. No one is saying ALL women are awful.
/r/MensRights08/08/25 02:11 AM
8

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. You said: 'Amen, too many people on here just looking for any justification to hate on women.' I'm saying no, what you're seeing on here is disagreement, not hate. Just because someone disagrees with an opinion you have isn't hate. A lot of things posted on this sub are disagreements with the goings on in the world, but these opinions aren't due to hate.
/r/MensRights08/08/25 01:17 AM
11

Disagreement =/= hate.
/r/MensRights07/08/25 09:30 PM
11

I'll just say again: This 'quote' is bandied about like it's the result of a study or something. It's not. It was written by Margaret Atwood, the author of 'The Handmaid's Tale' because those are her feelings. No actual facts involved, just something she felt like writing one day.
/r/MensRights07/08/25 03:27 PM
1

Regardless of what this is, the man should always be prepared to give back whatever he gets. In a polite manner, of course.
/r/MensRights06/08/25 05:36 PM
1

The guy has to be prepared to turn it back on her. "You're not gay?" "No. Why? Are you? So sorry!"
/r/MensRights06/08/25 05:07 PM
1

Yeah, I get all that. I'm just saying, don't needlessly antagonize your audience in the first paragraph. But, you do you.
/r/MensRights02/08/25 05:17 PM
1

The downvotes are because your argument is off topic, regardless of whether it's true or not. You said 'It would be better to shut down the gender specific ads rather than create more of them.' Many if not most agree. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT REALITY. Things like this have been happening for so long that many feel that giving them a taste of their own medicine is worth a shot now. Here you say we can't argue against a female only app and then in favor of a male only app. Think of it more as sa…
/r/MensRights02/08/25 03:42 PM
1

The interesting thing about 'slut shaming' is that it's always been mainly women doing it.
/r/MensRights31/07/25 06:26 PM
2

There's no data to support this assertion. It was made up by Margaret Atwood, author of 'The Handmaid's Tale' because she liked how it sounds. Now it's quoted left and right as if there are studies that came to this conclusion, but that never happened. We should be asking where the data is to support this claim.
/r/MensRights30/07/25 08:14 PM
1

Comprehend this. Babies die. They aren't already sick. My viewpoint is completely informed while yours is pathetic rationalization. Why is a totally cosmetic not at all medically necessary procedure so important to you? There's no real reason to viciously hack off the ends of penises. Call it what it is. Barbaric and unforgivable.
/r/MensRights26/07/25 10:27 PM
2

To someone in favor of inflicting unnecessary pain and potential death on infants? That's a plus for me!
/r/MensRights26/07/25 10:00 PM
2

There is NO discussion. Circumcision is pointless and potentially needlessly harmful. It's sometimes deadly. If you think this is acceptable then there is no reasoning with you. That you're okay with the death of a few infants tells us all we need to know. You've apparently fucked off as far as one can fuck off with that attitude.
/r/MensRights26/07/25 09:50 PM
1

It all comes down to this: circumcision is unnecessary and just shouldn't be done. No discussion needed. If you never do it there will never be tragic results. And of course other things are more dangerous. So we take precautions. But we don't need to do circumcisions on newborns at all, so let's not. Enough nonsensical rationalizing. Don't do it, period.
/r/MensRights26/07/25 09:35 PM
2

Considering this isn't at all true (most of them aren't in such a situation already,) why would anyone subject an already sick infant to a totally unnecessary medical procedure? Considering that the procedure itself is rarely a medical necessity, why submit ALL boy babies to it? Why not do it only when and if it becomes necessary? It's akin to playing Russian roulette with thousands of empty chambers. Most of the time you win but when you don't it can get pretty bad. I am one who was circumcized…
/r/MensRights26/07/25 03:14 PM
1

You do have good points. There are more serious issues. But your conclusion is where You're Wrong. We can protest more than the most egregious actions. In fact we should. It's that simple. We don't have to explain this to feminists or anyone else. We don't need any gatekeepers. Very importantly, on this sub any man should be able to raise any issue just so other men are aware. Letting others know how pervasive the micro aggressions are is important. We shouldn't be afraid to mention things becau…
/r/MensRights26/07/25 02:28 PM
1

You're reiterating that you think this doesn't belong to this sub because it's not serious enough for Mens Rights, that this somehow detracts from more serious issues. You're wrong. We don't need to razor focus on only the important or more serious issues. Mens Rights should be all encompassing and speak for any situation that affects men negatively. And this issue isn't as minor as you seem to think. The idea behind the 'men so broke' videos is that these men can't buy them things. Mens' only r…
/r/MensRights26/07/25 04:03 AM
1

Are you purposely misunderstanding? Yes, 'not all Men' is a valid criticism but men are constantly told it isn't. Men are raked over the coals for saying it and are told 'if it doesn't apply to you then don't worry about it'. So if someone says 'not all women' then it seems that the 'rules' are one sided. At the same time, I don't think anyone on here thought or thinks that the statement applies to 100% of men and 0% of women. Your original response comes across as if that 93% of men is just fin…
/r/MensRights25/07/25 09:56 PM
1

So, 'Not All Men'? I thought that it's a given that over-arching statements such as this obviously don't apply to everyone and if it doesn't apply to you then you shouldn't worry about it. At least this is what men are told when statements or sayings act like they're a monolith and they respond negatively.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 09:39 PM
3

Hating? Or merely disagreeing?
/r/MensRights25/07/25 07:22 PM
2

But 93% of the time it's the men paying.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 07:16 PM
2

All true things. Good points. But while women can complain about anything and everything, men are somehow supposed to concentrate only on the serious and most egregious things. Going online and relentlessly trolling on something not so serious and mostly not true (they're calling men broke because men aren't lavishing them with gifts, or spending $100 or more on a first date) is something men should ignore because there are more serious things to protest? No. Men should be able to freely protest…
/r/MensRights25/07/25 03:46 PM
2

I imagine OP thought the two lines were pretty self explanatory so more wasn't needed. Whatever. What I said is true, regardless of how much effort was put into this by anyone. I was trying to respond to what I foolishly thought was a true question. Really you don't care, so neither do I.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 10:37 PM
1

Doesn't most everyone already know this?
/r/MensRights24/07/25 10:32 PM
2

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. We all, men and women have a right to be treated with respect. It's not just dating prospects. If people are free to shit on the opposite gender they'll do it at every opportunity. And on Reddit, women are a protected class while men aren't. In real life this leads to very true things like men receiving longer and harsher sentences for the same crimes than women do. If we don't push back against women acting morally superior on social media it spills over into re…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 10:22 PM
2

Did you read what I wrote? Trashing men online and normalizing it and making it seem as a joke and funny is demeaning to the subject. We don't see this being done to women so it's a mens rights issue. It's not hard to understand.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 10:06 PM
7

I just read that 1.3% of baby boy deaths in the US are circumcision related. So, a low number, but it could be zero if this non necessity surgery would stop being routinely informed.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 07:39 PM
5

My guess is it's here because of all the tik toks and YouTubes out there calling men broke and brokies, and saying to not date them.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 07:07 PM
14

There're a few reasons for this, a couple being: Men don't report the same things that women do. Men are taught from a young age to suck it up and man up and the like. Stoicism and stiff upper lip and all that. Plus they tend to not be believed and dismissed out of hand more. A big one is that men tend to not take offense at a lot of things that women do. Words that men deem inconsequential may be seen as offensive by women at the same time. This is probably heavily influenced by the point above…
/r/MensRights23/07/25 09:15 PM
3

Any place I've ever worked HR was very concerned about personal relationships between employees.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 04:59 PM
1

She's head of HR. So the appropriate analogy would be if Karen Lynch of CVS was caught in a similar situation with her attractive male head of HR.
/r/MensRights20/07/25 09:22 PM
3

The woman is not a secretary. She is (was?) head of HR.
/r/MensRights20/07/25 09:16 PM
1

No.Nothing Mens Rights does is for hatred or results in deaths. Claims such as this have no basis in fact, and the spread of such lies is itself an act of hate.
/r/MensRights20/07/25 04:17 AM
-1

It's unfortunate that a difference of opinion is seen as hating women. It could be that others merely think that there are better ways to resolve the issue at hand. Having a different take on things doesn't necessarily involve hate.
/r/MensRights19/07/25 07:21 PM
8

You have a really skewed view of what bros do. I'm old and have never seen this in real life. That's just my experience, but I don't think what you describe happens in real life.
/r/MensRights19/07/25 06:09 PM
1

It's shitty to talk about reality? How is it self serving? Self serving is when you take an opposite position from what you previously had and claim both are right. Self serving and shitty is when you blame culture and beauty standards for your own poor decisions. Always having to be right, up to including contradicting yourself, is shallow. Thanks for the show
/r/MensRights18/07/25 02:52 AM
2

You can feel both, but both aren't true. The writers you're talking about wrote about people coming to a turning point in their lives when they realize that what they thought they knew before wasn't really that valid after all. Realizing that they thought they knew it all when they were younger, but now realize that nope, a lot of the opposite is true. This doesn't mean both are true, just that they believed differently at different points in their lives.
/r/MensRights18/07/25 02:04 AM
1

I'm really confused by you saying 'Cause u genuinely don't understand what you are saying', since I know what I'm saying, so I'll try one more time ... No, you can't simultaneously feel demeaned and valued. You're lying to yourself and others when you try to claim this. And maybe now you actually feel somewhere in the middle but you need to be truthful and admit that you weren't really demeaned and just don't want to admit now that it wasn't as horrible as you made it out to be. Or maybe your de…
/r/MensRights18/07/25 01:04 AM
6

Wow. You see she's not accepting accountability and you're romanticizing it. She flat out says she misses what she vehemently spoke against just one short year earlier but that's okay, it's not her fault. It's culture, after all. And even though she says she understands what is going on she is apparently unable to act otherwise. Maybe social validation is hard to fight against. Like that all powerful Ring was to Gollum? I don't think so. This is where accountability comes in. If you can understa…
/r/MensRights17/07/25 09:21 PM
6

Yes, the meme is lazy, but so is the logic in her statements. She's avoiding accountability for her own actions and blames 'culture'. It's very clear that's what she's doing, and the lack of accountability is what is being shown here, crudely as it may be.
/r/MensRights17/07/25 08:35 PM
7

I did in fact read the linked article. She talks all around it and still ends up blaming 'culture'. She feels this way, but it's not her fault. What did you read differently?
/r/MensRights17/07/25 08:07 PM
5

'I hate that our culture makes me miss it.' Is this the point you think we're all missing? That women aren't responsible for their own feelings? That 'culture' (read: men) is to blame? Mens Rights= Pushing back against being blamed for any feeling or action that is viewed negatively.
/r/MensRights17/07/25 07:08 PM
6

Wait .. Your wife decides some manual labor needs to be done around the house, and then whines and pouts until you do it? This sounds more like a master/ slave dynamic, but I guess if it works for you, okay. Maybe you can decide together what needs to be done, which of you is better at doing it, then schedule a timeframe that works for both of you. You know,, both of you being realistic. But you know what works best in your relationship. Good luck!
/r/MensRights15/07/25 12:33 AM
3

The fact that you posted this in r/MensRights leads many to assume you mean this is done to the detriment of men. Otherwise you'd post somewhere non gendered. I do see some discussion going on.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 08:09 PM
3

To be fair, the stats don't make any suggestions or assumptions on where the money is coming from. The reader is left to draw their own conclusions. I wouldn't think it's likely that they're all putting themselves in debt but probably some do.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 08:06 PM
8

I believe the implication is that they're spending their husband/ boyfriend/ significant other's money and that men are thus toiling to keep her supplied in everything she needs, even to his own disadvantage.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 07:12 PM
8

...instead everyone plays oppression olympics saying "we have it worse", "you are more privileged" ... I was responding to this. Perhaps you meant that others say this. Regardless, I haven't actually seen anyone on here saying these things. In any event, it's important to remember what the goals are here and work together to achieve them. No in- fighting. That just weakens us.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 05:33 PM
15

A lot of people throw this saying around like it's a result of a study or a scientifically proven fact. It's just something that Margaret Atwood, author of 'The Handmaid's Tale' made up because she liked how it sounded. It's just her feelings.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 04:35 PM
23

I don't think that the point of this sub is that 'men have it worse'. It's to point out that no, men do not live a life of unbridled privilege. Yes, men also have issues, and at the same time women do have a lot of advantages. It's not a contest and it's okay to talk about the unfair differences. Just putting the brakes on any talk about this at all is where the privilege enters the equation.
/r/MensRights12/07/25 04:29 PM
3

I don't recall a 'housewife that brings nothing to the table.' The husband was always wise and in charge, but the wife was always the heart of the family and the moral foundation who could make everything all right with simple acts of kindness, and cooking. The is probably why the 'Women Are Wonderful' trope has such deep roots these days.
/r/MensRights11/07/25 07:38 PM
2

I'm saying yeah, we do, and you're wrong. I was trying to be polite but that didn't work. The nihilistic worldview grows tiresome. Try thinking for yourself instead of relying solely on instinct. But I do wish you well whichever path you choose.
/r/MensRights10/07/25 10:35 PM
1

Okay, again I was using 'evolve' euphemistically. You know, how people say things to get an idea across, and not to be thought of as a textbook definition. Most people get that. I'm not offended. It's just that most of us don't need a lesson on how or why instinct exists. Most of us realize we can in fact act outside of instinct and try to do so when we can. I also get what you're saying. But it's generally not so simple.
/r/MensRights10/07/25 09:41 PM
-1

I was using 'evolve' euphemistically, actually just meaning human growth. But if you want to be pedantic and talk gloom and doom, sure, do that. Some of us strive to do better. The choice is yours.
/r/MensRights10/07/25 08:48 PM
2

That's a very pessimistic view. Our brains are more evolved. It won't take 50,000 years and we won't be a new animal. Even now we can see it happening. Just keep working toward it. Goals!
/r/MensRights10/07/25 08:38 PM
1

That's a very pessimistic view. Our brains are more evolved. It won't take 50,000 years and we won't be a new animal. Even now we can see it happening. Just keep working toward it. Goals!
/r/MensRights10/07/25 08:37 PM
6

That's an animalistic instinct. One would think (hope?) we would be able to evolve beyond that.
/r/MensRights10/07/25 08:25 PM
1

If you think disagreement = hate then this is more than a word choice difference. But, you do you.
/r/MensRights10/07/25 08:18 PM
4

I'm seeing disagreement, not hate. It seems that whenever there's disagreement with feminism it somehow is framed as hate.
/r/MensRights09/07/25 10:24 PM
11

Both Democratic and Republican women were livid. Especially the old money divorced Republican women living on very generous alimony payments for the last 20, 30, and more years.
/r/MensRights06/07/25 07:04 PM
-1

I agree that this is true. But is there ever a time when it's okay to charge men less for something than women are charged just because men are historically less likely to attend than women are? It seems that answer is no, and so society is okay with discrimination against men in cases like this, but discrimination against women is never okay. Not saying I disagree, just an observation.
/r/MensRights06/07/25 09:46 AM
7

Most of the answers here correctly state that this has to be done to keep the audience demographic from skewing heavily male. That's true, but would society be okay with any event that is enjoyed more by women charging less to men to encourage male participation? Or to charge men less for a product generally purchased more by women? Those situations are viewed negatively, but this one is given a pass. It seems that incentivizing women to do something, no matter what, is okay but incentivizing me…
/r/MensRights06/07/25 09:06 AM
1

A female victim will always elicit more sympathy than a male victim even when circumstances are the same. Even more so if the antagonist is male. So the same situation with genders flipped will give you very different responses.
/r/MensRights06/07/25 08:41 AM
16

Now flip the genders and post on a feminist sub and compare the responses.
/r/MensRights05/07/25 08:09 PM
2

I think that's a lot like white knight syndrome 😃
/r/MensRights05/07/25 07:59 PM
3

Yes, thanks for that. I myself do a small amount on my car and men I know do varying degrees of car work. And when it comes to home repair, I do all of that, as do all of the men I know. I know there are women that do these things too, but I don't know any. Here I was telling the person trying to hide any contribution men make to upkeep of the home property that even when it's a situation where a vehicle is taken elsewhere for maintenance and repairs, the majority of the time it's the man doing …
/r/MensRights05/07/25 04:26 PM
23

Oh, I wasn't talking about the men actually fixing the cars. It's usually like you said, taking it to the shop, talking about prices, what needs to be done now and what can be put off, stuff like that. So I guess taking the car to the shop is a lot like doing laundry, where the machines do most of the actual labor. And if you include simple tasks like filling the gas tank, many husbands still do that for their wives, even though it's very simple. Home repair? I agree it shouldn't be an either or…
/r/MensRights04/07/25 04:20 PM
57

That should include yardwork and home and auto maintenance too then, right? Apparently we aren't seeing any equalization there, or they'd be talking about it.
/r/MensRights04/07/25 03:42 PM
6

Yes, sometimes the subjects on here can be petty. So what? Everything doesn't need to be of earth shattering importance. And where else should men go with the petty stuff? Why can't they say it? Not everything on here is going to appeal to everyone. Just skip over the stuff you deem as petty.
/r/MensRights04/07/25 05:51 AM
2

The remark says the first female KIA for Denmark was in 2010 and didn't mention any since. I suppose there could have been prior deaths from non KIA actions -- maybe dysentery? But none were mentioned, so it's probably safe to assume there weren't any. All that aside, I'm sure the reason for the post is to show that while countless men have died for their country very few women have, so it's not exactly going to balance the scales. That was the gist I got from it.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 10:20 PM
2

That the female number finally isn't zero anymore?
/r/MensRights02/07/25 07:27 PM
1

Hot take, but I didn't mean behind their backs. Of course you should talk things over with your significant other, but sometimes you need to discuss things with someone else and sometimes you need another male perspective. Kind of like therapy, but for free. As you said, we often hear of women talking about their husbands to their friends and it apparently works for them or they wouldn't do it so much. And since they do it, they often assume that you already do likewise. Again, talking things ov…
/r/MensRights02/07/25 01:49 PM
1

Okay, this is all about me and the whole world agrees with you. What I'm comfortable with should be the basis for what the whole world is allowed to see. That's what you're saying, right? I don't care about your deranged opinions. I tried talking logically to you but that obviously was a mistake. So go on living in your breasts are equivalent to penises world and keep wondering why you get online harassment as you stated earlier. Toodles.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:57 AM
1

I won't answer your off topic question because that isn't at all the subject here. No one is talking about me. The subject is male nudity on film. You have bizarre definitions of nudity that no one else agrees with. So all you can do is sidetrack and try to deflect. Why won't you stay with the subject at hand? Because you know you don't have any sensible arguments there. Take the loss and go on your bizarre little way.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:38 AM
0

What I do is don't expect others to follow convoluted logic. Walking around at home is different than what is done in movies. Nudists and people raised in other cultures may do things differently than I do. Than doesn't mean I judge them and expect them to stop. In short, this isn't about me. I can do one thing at home and also not lose my mind seeing others doing differently on film or at beaches and pools. You, on the other hand are trying to bend everything else to your insane standards. Stop…
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:29 AM
-2

Again you're making things up to argue against. Yes, topless women should be allowed at a pool or a beach. No, bottomless men should not be allowed. Trying to make them equivalent is insane. You also need to stop making assumptions about anonymous reddit strangers. I'm old and have adult children, both sons and daughters. I have teenage and preteen grandchildren, both boys and girls. Everyone is fine. You, on the other hand, shouldn't reproduce with such conflicting moral positions.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:19 AM
-2

Why are you arguing things no one ever said? Yes, men an women are different. No, most people do not want to act like we are. If you think bottomless men are acceptable but topless women aren't that's some real cognitive dissonance. Topless women are not nude. Topless women are not nude. Topless women are not nude. Topless women are not nude. It's really that simple.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:05 AM
6

Wow, who said 'Big round titties'? That's really bizarre and that's all you. No one is trying to foist a preference on you. You can choose not to view anything that has scenes you disagree with, yet you want to ban things in movies that others aren't bothered by. Your last point is really unhinged. It's okay to show a woman's bare ass because the ass is all you'll see, but we shouldn't see mens because we might also see something else? What type of mental gymnastics did you go through to come up…
/r/MensRights02/07/25 01:50 AM
6

Breasts are not equivalent to penises. We've been hearing for years how women should be able to be topless at beaches and pools just like men because breasts aren't sexual. And starting in the 60s into the 70s and on we were bombarded with complaints complaining about how female nudity was prevalent in movies while men were never nude. This wasn't true because the women were topless. So we started seeing more penises, while with women the most we usually got was a glimpse of bush. So yes, it is …
/r/MensRights02/07/25 01:27 AM
1

Early newsletters that led to newspapers were actually started to counter the propaganda of the government. You are correct that it took a while for impartiality to become an ideal, but the point here is that this WAS the norm but apparently no longer is, while people still believe it is.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 08:28 PM
2

No, not everyone is American, but I'm pretty sure most societies have different definitions for news and entertainment. I'm sure what you're saying is true, that this is how it has devolved, but my point is that we shouldn't just let it go and say 'Well that's how it is now'. My point, and I believe OP's as well, is that we need to call these things out and not just go with the flow. The flow to the bottom.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 07:40 PM
1

No, the job of media and news outlets has never been to push an agenda. The reason freedom of the press is enshrined in the US Constitution is because the true purpose is to present all the facts. Exactly opposite of influencing and dividing. Not to get ahead. It is true though that many entertainment organizations are disguised as news groups. I guess we need to start stressing the difference.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 07:28 PM
3

No, it's not the media's job. It's an agenda that so called entertainment organizations use, but the post here is about The Guardian, who presents themself as a news organization. So I suppose the answer then is that they are an entertainment outlet, and not a news organization, and people shouldn't expect balanced reporting like from true news types.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 07:14 PM
9

What you say is true, but it doesn't answer the question posed. Why do the media in general show us such a one sided picture of society?
/r/MensRights01/07/25 06:34 PM
-1

Neither party in any type of relationship should ask the other to make changes to their personal appearance. At the same time, if you're just looking to smash and dash, it's just hair and it will grow back.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 06:24 PM
1

Yes, it's a two way street.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 06:22 PM
5

Huh, I'm not being at all defensive here. I asked the question because that's what it sounds like. The 'all they did is bitch' really does sound like you're negatively judging them. Like you're disappointed that they do that. I don't see at all how asking an innocent friendly question is seen as being defensive.
/r/MensRights30/06/25 07:01 PM
2

Yay! Half a page!
/r/MensRights30/06/25 06:52 PM
4

If your question sounds judgmental it will be downvoted. Sometimes it's just phrasing. Nuance is often lost online. Also, do you really care about downvotes? You shouldn't.
/r/MensRights30/06/25 06:51 PM
9

What's wrong with guys bitching about their wives to other guys? Sometimes the wives deserve it, and within the group may be the only place the men can speak freely, even if it's sometimes with needed exaggeration.
/r/MensRights30/06/25 06:43 PM
1

Ha ha. I thought it was a troll -- a 15;year old account with no activity until this month. But people do a lot of strange things. Like, what was the point of this? But thanks for the heads up!
/r/MensRights28/06/25 10:56 PM
-1

It has nothing to do with the subject. And you DID directly address me. If you want to know how OP feels about treatment of persons who were called enemy combatants, you should start a new comment of your own rather than replying to a response.
/r/MensRights28/06/25 02:04 AM
3

That was the subject of the part I referenced in my response. And the Star Trek part wasn't about the treatment of so called prisoners of war either. No one was talking about anything like that.
/r/MensRights28/06/25 01:44 AM
3

The subject here is how countries measure their own teenage boys suitability for conception. How the country treats who they may correctly or wrongly deem enemy combatants is another subject and not the topic here.
/r/MensRights28/06/25 01:16 AM
1

Yeah, it happens. And I get what your intent was. Thanks for the response.
/r/MensRights27/06/25 11:31 PM
2

Wow, so quick to take offense! I never said or implied it didn't happen, only that I never experienced it. I even said, maybe I need to get out more. And to be fair, OP didn't really say he experienced it either, just ,'imagine if' snd admonished to not do it. I'm sorry if you experienced groups of taller men making fun of shorter men. I myself am 5'7" and know what it's like to be a shorter man. I also know someone else's lived experiences can' be very different and was honestly thinking 'Well …
/r/MensRights27/06/25 11:25 PM
-1

Maybe I'm just lucky but I've never heard of or encountered men making fun of other men over their height in public. Sure, men will roast each other in friend groups but not when others are around. Your 'imagine' scenario reads as unrealistic to me. But maybe I just haven't been around enough.
/r/MensRights27/06/25 09:40 PM
1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Steinem
/r/MensRights27/06/25 09:33 PM
2

I love root beer 🍺!
/r/MensRights27/06/25 08:21 PM
18

The parts here about conscription mentions Russia and Germany and maybe another, but I remember seeing pictures from draft board inspections in the US for World War 2. It was always a boardroom like table where five or six men sat. Every once in a while included was a woman in her Sunday best, often with her Sunday hat. The table was in an office or sometimes on a stage in an auditorium. In the next room was a group of naked teenage boys who would be called in one by one, where they were inspect…
/r/MensRights27/06/25 08:14 PM
11

They can be both.
/r/MensRights27/06/25 07:33 PM
1

Fuck me, disagreement isn't hate. No one here has an issue with hospitals dedicated to certain fields. VA/ military hospitals are fine. They treat both men and women. Cancer hospitals are fine. They treat both men and women. A maternity hospital would be fine because that specialty includes only women. But this story read as if they'd let your granny in but would exclude your gramps. What specialty would that be? Since the original post someone has clarified that this isn't a whole new standalon…
/r/MensRights27/06/25 02:10 AM
2

Thanks for the clarification. As long as men are indeed also treated in another part of the facility then all is good.
/r/MensRights27/06/25 12:16 AM
4

Duh. But men at times need hospitalization too, so it seems shortsighted to build a new facility that excludes a whole gender.
/r/MensRights27/06/25 12:13 AM
5

Lots of places have Children's Hospitals. That's great. And the hospitals that specialize in birthday and baby delivery also have facilities and programs for pregnant women. What possible reason is there to have an entire facility that excludes men?
/r/MensRights26/06/25 09:48 PM
2

Yep, I live in the real world. How nice for you to live in a world where women never hide pregnancies from men they weren't that into in the first place. How nice for you that you live in a world where women don't baby trap men by lying about being on birth control, poking holes in condoms, and even retrieving used condoms from the trash and using the semen to self impregnate. Or a combination thereof, or more. There's a lot going on in this big world, and one size does not fit all. Sometimes ru…
/r/MensRights26/06/25 07:24 PM
4

Gosh, how many times is the father 'unknown'? She doesn't want the hassle so she doesn't name the father. Or maybe she has a couple or more possibilities so she doesn't wait to test. Poof! She can do whatever she wants. This DOES happen, and a lot of times the father is completely unaware. But that's okay then, right? And just where did the ideas of servitude and human trafficking come from? Projection on your part? An insane attempt at distraction? Presenting bizarre off topic arguments sure is…
/r/MensRights26/06/25 03:48 PM
4

I have a better idea. Go on for a vasectomy and see what happens. Since it's what you want it shouldn't matter either way. I was just trying to give you a heads up that there's a lot of misinformation out there, but if you prefer to be an asshole about it, that's your right.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 10:48 PM
4

Okay, sure, don't check with an actual doctor. Just take for fact what feminism says online. It's just your fertility at stake. Do as you please and maybe it will work out for you.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 10:19 PM
5

Any respectable doctor will tell you a vasectomy should be considered permanent. A successful reversal has a lot of variables to consider that include age and time since the procedure. Anyone who tells you a vasectomy is reversible is gaslighting you.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 09:28 PM
2

Rules for thee, but not for me
/r/MensRights25/06/25 08:26 PM
4

Wow, what a wild assumption. There are plenty of times that an unmarried woman has a baby and without telling the father she gives it up for adoption. I've heard of men who would have kept the baby but aren't allowed to. That's criminal. So yes, have the baby and turn it over to Dad, no strings attached. Just like Dad should be able to cut the strings with Mom. It should be a two way street. It's been one way for too long.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 07:51 PM
5

Think of paper abortion as the Dad giving up his child for adoption, while Mom doesn't. Adoption is accepted in society, right?
/r/MensRights25/06/25 07:13 PM
3

Oh, I understand that. But trying to pattern your life off of porn is just setting yourself up for disappointment. Gain your confidence off something that's not porn. That's possible and yields more and better results.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 05:10 PM
9

What a confusing post. You know porn is fantasy, right?
/r/MensRights25/06/25 04:14 PM
1

OMG, are you still here? Get a life already. As I tried to explain so, so many tines, but you're just too stubborn and dense to understand, THE RULES HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHANGED!!! Feminism changed the rules for the better for women but left men in their traditional roles. Now, feminists do more and more to advance women at the expense of men. Why do you think this sub exists? Exactly as you said, to change the rules for men, but only to keep up with women. Even you can see that the rules have cha…
/r/MensRights25/06/25 04:12 PM
2

You can check it out for yourself. And most of the comments you consider disgusting on here are just things you disagree with and not at all disgusting. Disagreement isn't hate and neither is it disgusting.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 06:27 AM
2

Again, no jumping. They all explain the topic you can't explain. But go back to your woman or whoever you have to console you on yet another day of useless bantering.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 03:43 AM
2

Just stop your simping. It's not going to help you here. Going to two x or one of the many other feminist subs and maybe they'll embrace you there. Disagreement isn't hate. No ranting is going on, or any topic shifting. Just admit that you can't understand how everything is related and one thing leads to another. That's really sad, and it's sadder that you double and triple and quadruple down and more on the idiocy. But continue doing what you're good at, I guess. Me, I'll just continue on with …
/r/MensRights25/06/25 03:34 AM
4

My now 34 year old son applied at a local fast food place as a teen, so this was a while ago. His hair was shoulder length. He successfully got through the interviewing and was told he could have a job but would need to cut his hair. The woman telling him this had longer hair than him. He asked what was up with that and she said, duh, it's different because she's a girl. We checked their employee handbook, and sure enough, they straight out said male employees have to have shorter hair than do f…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 08:42 PM
3

The 'problems' they have are simple disagreement. Disagreement is not allowed. And you don't even have to disagree. If you ever posted on one their banned subs, you're gone. There is nothing reasonable about their process.
/r/MensRights24/06/25 07:59 PM
2

I'm showing how ridiculous your claim of me hating women is. I live the things I'm talking about. How is this close to not liking women. You, all we see is you calling me a woman hater for disagreeing with you. What makes you such an expert The topic has always been whether men should be allowed to not have responsibility for biological children THE SAME WAY WOMEN ALREADY DO AND ALWAYS HAVE. Again, they can abort, opt for adoption, or decide to carry but then legally abandon. Paper abortion is s…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 07:37 PM
2

I am answering, you're not getting it. I've been with my wife over four decades. We have four adult children, two and two. They were all raised the same and all work today. I have five grandchildren and another on the way, both boys and girls. We want the same treatment for all of them. Please share your credentials. This IS the topic. How women expect to be treated the same as men, but then also be able to use men. To expect men to capitulate to all their wants, even if they aren't his. This IS…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 07:12 PM
1

How does neither get a choice? They can agree to having a baby, or the woman who wants one and gets her way. Or, paper abortion and both get their way, kind of. What's a 'neither' scenario?
/r/MensRights24/06/25 07:04 PM
2

Sure, when someone disagrees with you, accuse them of hating women. I love women. Most on here love women. We just don't agree with a la carte feminism: equal only when it works to their advantage. None of this 'rules for thee but not for me'. That's what this sub is about, not allowing women to use their 'independence' to roll over mens rights. On this sub you're allowed to disagree, but don't resort to claims of women hating because you disagree with someone. Listen, and maybe learn something.
/r/MensRights24/06/25 06:48 PM
1

Because that's not reality and there's no way for that to be reality. What's hard to grasp about that?
/r/MensRights24/06/25 06:28 PM
2

I've been true to the topic right along. All the other things I mentioned show the changes going on, mentioned in this sub, are showing women changing but men expected to remain the same. If you can't keep up, that's on you. You're expecting men to follow the rules of the past, and be an ATM for poor defenseless women. If you don't understand now you never will. Women are independent except when they need men to finance their lifestyle. Men may be more likely to embrace fatherhood if it didn't d…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 05:34 PM
2

Abandoned the topic? Keep up! That is the topic. Women changed the rules. They don't live by the same rules. That's why paper abortion should be a thing. Try to keep up! I'm replying to the wrong person? Aren't you arguing that men have to take responsibility for a child that a woman decided to carry to term all on her own? Isn't that what you're saying? That's how the law works? Back to bitching women. They changed the rules where it suits them. Why not make this fairer? Absolving him from resp…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 04:26 PM
2

It's a fact that the structure of society has been changed, mainly by women, over the past few decades. Maybe you haven't noticed, but things are different. Women go to work. They don't need no man! Until it comes to child support! You never said when a woman has a baby a man had to be there? That's literally all you're saying right along. You don't want him to abandon the baby, he had an obligation. What is that other than being there? Even if he has no contact you still expect him to pay, righ…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 03:14 PM
3

Why do you keep repeating the same stupid things over and over? Why do you think it's an obligation for men? Because a woman said so? Both parties should agree if a family is to be started. That's how everything works. You're the one who keeps saying if a woman decides to keep a baby the man has to be there also. Because she can't be expected to follow through by herself on that decision she made by herself? That would be taking ownership, if she didn't expect that her decision be bankrolled by …
/r/MensRights24/06/25 06:11 AM
24

No, DON'T fuck'em (Lol)
/r/MensRights24/06/25 12:46 AM
1

Okay, I'll bite. What am I not getting? What's going over my head?
/r/MensRights24/06/25 12:28 AM
2

I don't know where you live, but anywhere I've lived in the US, when an unmarried couple has a baby and don't plan on being a couple, the man is forced to support the child for 18 years, just because the woman decided to have the baby. It takes two to tango, but only one to decide if both will be parents. If she decides yes, he has no way out. Pretending otherwise just creating an agency that an unmarried father does not have. The reason the man is not a deadbeat dad is because he never agreed t…
/r/MensRights24/06/25 12:26 AM
1

Huh, I don't see this as a personal attack. More noticing something in passing. But if you think it sounds that way, I will defer to your sensibilities and standards. Thanks!
/r/MensRights23/06/25 11:14 PM
5

Supremacy? You get that from not being forced into fatherhood? If she wants to 'step up', why does she get to decide someone else has to as well? I bet it's a lot easier for her to decide to step up if she knows she doesn't have to carry the burden alone. That says that her need for his money outweighs his bodily autonomy. If she keeps it because he wants to but she doesn't (you know that never happens outside of marriage) then she can put it up for adoption. Or if he's past the abortion time fr…
/r/MensRights23/06/25 09:40 PM
7

Who's dodging anything? I'm clearly saying, since women have ALWAYS been able to avoid all responsibilities if they choose, shouldn't men be offered the same choices? If you call it that for men, aren't abortion and adoption just a means for women to dodge parental responsibility?
/r/MensRights23/06/25 09:08 PM
6

That's something the woman should think about when she decides to carry. Maybe I'll have to do this on my own. Right now it's make the man pay, or go on public assistance and make society pay. The woman never has to do anything she doesn't want to, and always has safety nets to fall back on. Men get 'Get a job and pay up.' If the woman wants to proceed and make a 'broken home' where there was never a home in the first place, well, that's her choice, isn't it? Freedom of choice is what everyone w…
/r/MensRights23/06/25 08:55 PM
9

Yeah, I get that. But that's the choice women always have, isn't it? And if it's an accident and she doesn't want to terminate, then she's decided for him too, hasn't she. Some would say, 'Oh well, pay up dick, for 18 years.' That's the society we're in already. Don't stick your dick in it? That's right up there with 'don't spread your legs if you aren't ready for the consequences.' Those adages go both ways.
/r/MensRights23/06/25 08:34 PM
1

No, she has choices after conception that he doesn't have. She can decide abortion or no, adoption or no, decide to keep but later legally abandon, or keep it and decide he's going to be a father. She NEVER is told she has to be a mother. True, this is mainly due to biology, but paper abortion would level the playing field' a bit
/r/MensRights23/06/25 08:11 PM
9

What? Where did that idea come from? No, men obviously have no say about what the woman does. But now, when she decides to have the baby and he's forced into fatherhood even if that isn't his choice, she has taken away his free will and body autonomy. Free will if he didn't want to be a father, and body autonomy because he needs to get a job right now to start on the hat 18 years or more of child support, when he may have been planning on going to college or trade school. The way around this is …
/r/MensRights23/06/25 08:07 PM
2

Apologies for misunderstanding your intent. But neither or both isn't making sense to me. How do 'neither' decide? The ONLY choice should be both.
/r/MensRights23/06/25 08:00 PM
5

No, right now, whatever she decides goes. What happens when she says yes and he says no? She wins. Just like today. There is no both. It's all her choices. Paper abortion allows both to get what they want, or don't want.
/r/MensRights23/06/25 07:39 PM
16

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Right now, only one parent decides if both parties will be responsible, financially or otherwise, for a child. Or if there will be no child to support. With financial abortion men aren't forced into a fatherhood they never agreed to. And no, it doesn't make them a deadbeat dad. It is a simple fact that only women should decide what happens in her pregnancy, but that shouldn't also mean she also decides the trajectory of his life for the next c…
/r/MensRights23/06/25 07:32 PM
8

But if she wants the baby but he doesn't, too bad for him. That's the problem. A paper abortion would let men opt out of fatherhood and responsibilities, even if the mother keeps the baby (her choice).
/r/MensRights23/06/25 06:56 PM
18

No, both parents don't have the same choices. The woman obviously has the choice to carry or not, but if she does she is then making the man responsible for child support payments. What OP is suggesting is financial abortion. The man then has no rights on the child and doesn't pay support. Currently even if the woman says he can just walk away then if she applies for any social services then the state goes after the man for support. And there's nothing to stop her from changing her mind later an…
/r/MensRights23/06/25 06:54 PM
6

Disagreement does not equal hate. So much content here is simply pointing out double standards and it's seen as hating women. It's not. As for the deleted post: I see plenty of disagreement with it, while other responses treat it as just a higher level sex toy, and not all that realistically. You know that right now women have literally thousands of sex toys available to them and that's celebrated, right? While men are mocked and ridiculed for those they have. A bit of unrealistic venting was al…
/r/MensRights23/06/25 03:01 PM
23

Wait. This bitch has women going before 'older children'? Oh no honey, ALL the children are going before you. In fact, I think all families should go together. No splitting up the families. Older folks like my wife and I will be glad to go last. How entitled of her
/r/MensRights22/06/25 10:48 PM
4

Focusing just on important things would be ridiculous. The not as important things need attention too.
/r/MensRights22/06/25 07:00 PM
4

So the solution is to do nothing? To shit on things others are doing that we consider worthless? As we both said, Goodbye.
/r/MensRights22/06/25 06:56 PM
7

I'm glad we have posts showing female teachers sleeping with their students. It shows that women are just as capable of these things as men are, but it's been hidden from us right along. I can't understand why anyone would want the truth to be hidden behind a 'women are wonderful' wall. Goodbye.
/r/MensRights22/06/25 06:40 PM
4

Of course no one is blaming the wife here. It's the other women making comparisons to getting a new dog, or saying he's replacing an appliance. And it's perfectly normalized in society for women to talk about men this way, that men just use women as a convenience. That was my takeaway, that even if this man made choices that many of us wouldn't it still all boiled down to men using women as domestic slaves. Just no. As for your final point, I see no reason we can't do both and fight for 50/50 cu…
/r/MensRights22/06/25 05:18 AM
5

The specific situation mentioned here is not something I would do or think others should do, but there isn't enough information here for us to judge. Even if this man is wrong, trying to use him as a poster boy for bad male behavior is also wrong. And if we're going to say his poor romantic choices are child abuse then there are plenty of others out there, mainly women, who are also guilty of this. In short, don't hold men to more stringent standards than women are held to.
/r/MensRights22/06/25 04:09 AM
6

Huh, I've never seen a post on here where men are 'checking out on their children' or arguing that they have to spend too much time with their children. It's usually the opposite, that they don't have enough time with their children (usually due to divorce). Perhaps you can enlighten us as to where you are seeing things like this.
/r/MensRights22/06/25 02:04 AM
6

I'd like to see that 5'3" soldier behind a desk in ground support or on KP duty so those men are free for the more physical tasks. Women definitely should be used, just as men are. EDIT: meant to tag u/MaleEducation1 as well
/r/MensRights21/06/25 09:51 PM
2

Yeah some comments here are trash. But most aren't. And there are tons of anti man trash comments in many other subs, but they are allowed to exist and flourish. Explain why that's allowed. So call out the trash comments here when you see them. Support the good ones. This is pretty much all we have. And yes, most men here love women. That's why they speak up. To balance the lies with truth so all can see
/r/MensRights21/06/25 09:47 PM
5

Free bus rides for women? Such entitlement!
/r/MensRights21/06/25 09:20 PM
2

Most men here also love women. They just don't like being blamed for everything bad and seen as a monolith of evil. Pointing out double standards is not trash.
/r/MensRights21/06/25 09:07 PM
2

So you threw a bunch of unrelated names out there with different circumstances, some of whom didn't even go to trial, for what? I get that women often side with other women regardless of circumstances or without knowing the truth but you didn't say that at all here.
/r/MensRights19/06/25 10:01 PM
1

I think the underlying point here is that when things that women consider distasteful happen to them they let the world know and want those things to change, but when the same things happen to men they don't see a problem. Simply, double standards.
/r/MensRights19/06/25 07:41 PM
1

Thanks. Replied to you in error, sorry. I've edited my response to show this.
/r/MensRights19/06/25 07:29 PM
3

Richard Jewell does not belong on this list. He found a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics and was at first praised until people somehow decided he planted it. He was hounded and ridiculed for months. He was cleared after 88 days. He was never on trial. The actual bomber confessed nine years later and was convicted, but Richard's life was ruined. EDIT: Sorry, meant to reply to u/current-depth8223
/r/MensRights19/06/25 07:20 PM
2

Exactly.
/r/MensRights18/06/25 05:47 AM
2

Why do women pursue college degrees for lower paying jobs? Because they're channelled there? Don't they have free will? And who is channeling them? The vast majority of teachers and counselors are women. Is this their fault? The NBA did start with lower salaries due to less popularity. They had to work up to the extravagant salaries of today. The WNBA will need to earn it as well. . I never said employers reward hard work. Most look for ways to pay less whenever possible so they certainly aren't…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 03:51 AM
2

Please tell me you aren't this blind. Women take lower paying jobs than men. Women work less hours than men. Women take more time off than men. This is all their own doing. It's like the NBA versus the WNBA. Women play less games than men. Women play shorter games than men. Women's games don't have as many ticket sales. Men buy more tickets to the WNBA by far than do women. Yet women somehow expect the same paycheck? There are a lot of variables to account for the differences in pay, and the low…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 03:20 AM
2

Oh get out of here with 'unequal pay'. It's illegal to pay women less, and if it wasn't then employers would hire all women to save on expenses. That you think men conspire to exclude women is completely unhinged. Most people realize that one gender only in any profession, including nursing and other female dominated jobs, is bad for the profession. Who interrupts and talks over others? Assholes of both genders. Calling them out is highly recommended. I feel like you're writing from the 50s, wit…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 02:56 AM
2

You don't know what a right is , do you? It's not legal to exclude women from anything you mentioned. And we're talking about today, not the past. If you make the men of the present pay for the sins of the past there will be no future. The problems of the present aren't solved by assigning blame, whether you're right or wrong. And I will run along. I went home for a bit to give my wife and myself a break. So I'm in the kitchen making her a sandwich to take back to her, since the hospital food is…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 02:41 AM
2

OMG, you're determined to continue derailing the original subject aren't you? Anything to argue. Wah! Powerful women in the past weren't bad! Bad men made them do stuff. Bad men today tell lies! No, women are also capable of atrocities. You want everyone to believe that women can do what men do, until it's distasteful. Nope. Women can be, and have been, just as bad as men, if not worse. It's very sexist to believe otherwise. And again, it's those in power starting wars. So thousands of men were …
/r/MensRights18/06/25 02:21 AM
2

Now it's accusations of patronizing? You know all the buzzwords, don't you? No one is trying to explain womanhood to you. Don't try to explain manhood to me. Kings, governments, religious leaders, all are people who were in power. Those in power make the rules. Most men weren't and aren't in power. Ordinary men aren't oppressing you. It's a historical fact that women in power like queens started more bloody wars than men. It's the power that corrupts. Start there. If you think we were debating y…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 01:35 AM
2

Once again you're making up dialogue. Where did I call you hysterical? Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder - probably both shoulders - and are looking hard to find offense. And you keep telling me what I want. Saying things about men like me. You don't have a clue as to what anyone you're arguing with is like, because you keep making up dialogue for them. And those dark days for women? They were also dark for men not in power. Men have always been disposable and still are today. Cannon f…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 01:14 AM
2

Wow, you're really off the deep end now. Men aren't allowed to decide what a men's space is? Was it a coal mine? An army barracks? A hunting party? Those are all fun. And here we're talking about today. I asked what space men have that women don't and you apparently can't answer that. And I'm still not clear how we got here from the original post. When you don't have an answer you change the terms of the discussion. What spaces are you sexualized in? Are you being treated differently than the me…
/r/MensRights18/06/25 12:41 AM
2

Oh, so we're moving the goalposts now? This is no longer about what you first commented on (do you even remember what that was?) and now it's about what some men once did to others, both men and women? Because men are a monolith apparently and men today must pay? Who said women can't have an opinion. Just back it up with facts. And who's invading someone else's space? Why, it's you. Women have had their own spaces for millennia. Where are men's spaces? They all have women in them. Name one space…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 11:48 PM
2

It's really sad how you look for ulterior motives in every thing that is said to you. Most people don't operate that way. Too bad that this is your mindset. No, I wasn't using my wife. We support each other, like normal couples do. You should try it. You are exactly saying men can't be victims when you go on a mens sub and try to undermine everything being said. It's exhausting that even here you accuse men of trying to silence women's stories. This is a mens space. You don't get to be offended …
/r/MensRights17/06/25 10:44 PM
3

Wow. I mentioned my wife to let you know I have all kinds of free time today. How sad that you have to twist it into something performative and in search of imaginary internet points. That says everything we need to know about you. And you keep insisting that I'm mad. It takes very little energy to rebut your unhinged rambling. Men here aren't framing themselves as helpless victims. They're telling things that really happened but that for some reason are ignored. What's deflecting and disgusting…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 09:20 PM
14

It's all there in the second paragraph. People have more empathy for women. And if you ask about it they'll say the men deserve it.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 08:05 PM
3

This. I'm sitting here by my sick wife's hospital bedside while we're both having a laugh at how you have convinced yourself that I'm raging or angry. Please. We're amused at how clueless you are. Where was I challenged? You said something stupid and I told you it's stupid. Nothing you've said has countermanded that. I'm not hung up on 'fragile ego'. Just letting you know it's a nonsensical phase that angry people use to end a disagreement when they have no facts to use. I've been browsing this …
/r/MensRights17/06/25 07:57 PM
5

Where did I say 'I'm not mad, just disappointed'? Making up facts to disagree with? Classic! I called out your lies, so yeah, I'm a bit angry that you feel free to post them, but I'm not at all disappointed. Maybe a bit tired of it. 'Fragile ego' just means someone disagreed with you and you have no logical rebuttal. How dare someone disagree with the truth I just made up! Yeah, just saying 'This sub hates on women!' without facts is performative nonsense. If you had any specific examples then w…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 07:05 PM
5

Ah, yes. The classic 'I can spew hate but no one better call me out on it '. Classic calling out 'fragile egos'. That one just means that someone dared to disagree with you. That's the fragile ego, the one that can't stand to be disagreed with. Pattern recognition? Please! If you spent any time here you'd see a variety of opinions, with egregious nonsense being called out. You'd see that it isn't a hive mind mentality, and it allows stupid baseless nonsense like yours, without banning the poster…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 06:13 PM
3

'...most posts here aren't exactly known for self awareness...' Thanks for the gatekeeping. We sure are lucky that a random person like you has graced us with their presence and superior knowledge. You know how dense men can be. /// Sarcasm, if I need to say it
/r/MensRights17/06/25 05:38 PM
5

Disagreement does not equal hate. It's okay to dislike what extreme feminists are doing. You yourself are describing them as extreme. Perhaps they should back away from that extremity.
/r/MensRights16/06/25 03:40 PM
2

Yeah, that's what I meant. They don't know how men are normally treated and respond, and they interpret that as fear. No, that's normal, and there's nothing wrong with it.
/r/MensRights14/06/25 12:28 AM
5

From the linked story: 'Despite the attention that Feliciano Johnson’s case generated, women in the US are more likely to endure severe violence at the hands of an intimate partner.' Sure, downplay the video evidence of her attempting murder.
/r/MensRights14/06/25 12:19 AM
8

The author of the piece attached says 'All strangers, no matter their gender, keep their guard up around me.' As a man from birth, this has never been true for me. Sometimes - not always - I get that vibe when encountering women I don't know. That largely depends on the circumstances. But men, never. I'm not a large physically imposing man so maybe that makes a difference. But I can't think any FTM person would be physically imposing either. Since the author was raised female, maybe they don't k…
/r/MensRights13/06/25 08:13 PM
12

Ha ha. Married 38 years to the same woman, two sons and two daughters (adults) five grandchildren from teens down to 4 with a sixth on the way. All raised with equality. Get out of here with your gender blaming. Go back to those Men Bad Women Good subs. Keep hiding from reality. You seem to have a lot of practice.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 06:16 PM
10

Not sure what you're trying to say. That women get a pass on identical behavior? Because yes, women can exhibit the same behavior as men and yet get a pass.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 05:38 PM
12

Haha. I was thinking the same about you. You just can't comprehend that women do the same things you accuse men of doing.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 05:32 PM
17

It's still statutory rape in the US. Even if he wasn't underage in their municipality, as a teacher she was in a position of power over him.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 05:30 PM
15

So, Men Bad, Women Good. Right?
/r/MensRights11/06/25 05:27 PM
1

I see the titles but no narrative to either of your posts there. Am I just missing it?
/r/MensRights09/06/25 07:57 PM
2

Just saying 'You know there are plenty of men just like me out there, right,?' and leaving it at that could be the way to go.
/r/MensRights09/06/25 07:31 PM
3

The author of the article needs to understand that men aren't broken women in need of fixing.
/r/MensRights09/06/25 03:19 AM
4

I feel that most men don't need loud accolades or balloons and parades. Quiet and dignified, like most men, is the way to go.
/r/MensRights08/06/25 09:07 PM
7

Honestly, people need to learn the difference between disagreeing with something and being 'scared' of it. Maybe understand where the disagreement lies before declaring something scares someone.
/r/MensRights08/06/25 09:00 PM
9

Both things can be true.
/r/MensRights07/06/25 09:00 PM
17

So it's societal norms, not him in particular. And why should this mean she now gets more money? Why not continue the status quo?
/r/MensRights07/06/25 04:26 PM
1

So she was innocent until she fell under the influence of a bad man, and now she's a victim? How many times can we hear the 'all women are victims' excuse?
/r/MensRights03/06/25 07:50 PM
3

Amber Heard got the hate she deserved for being a liar and a false accuser. She doubled down on playing the victim, and a lot of people fell for it and still do.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 07:25 PM
9

I think you need to quit cherry picking examples.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 07:09 PM
1

I think you need to quit cherry picking examples.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 07:04 PM
1

I think you need to quit cherry picking examples.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 07:04 PM
1

I think you need to quit cherry picking examples.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 07:04 PM
1

No, women could open a bank account, if they had a regular source of income, like a job. Just let men. And women have owned property for centuries. Most women didn't, but neither did most men.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 06:48 PM
–

No, women could open a bank account, if they had a regular source of income, like a job. Just let men. And women have owned property for centuries. Most women didn't, but neither did most men.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 06:48 PM
10

No, women could open a bank account, if they had a regular source of income, like a job. Just let men. And women have owned property for centuries. Most women didn't, but neither did most men.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 06:48 PM
12

No, women could open a bank account, if they had a regular source of income, like a job. Just let men. And women have owned property for centuries. Most women didn't, but neither did most men.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 06:48 PM
5

The world is a big place with many different types of people. I don't agree with a lot on here, and I may speak up about some, but generally let the nonsense slide, because it ultimately isn't that important. My unsolicited advice is to save your indignation for the truly egregious things that sometimes appear.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 01:23 AM
4

Incel was originally gendered, but it's now used only as an insult to men. I think it's silly to be upset over being called one, whether it's true or not. And how does the name caller even know? Their intent is to be hurtful, but no one else should be going along with that lunacy. The same is true about hating whores. It's a stupid thing to say, but it's also very stupid to invent reasons to be angry about it. Ignore those who say it, just like you want people to ignore the use of the word incel…
/r/MensRights03/06/25 01:15 AM
4

But I just showed you it isn't derogatory toward any group of people. That's just who you attribute it to in your head. If anything, it's targeted at prostitutes. While I don't hate prostitutes, I understand some people disagree with sex work. And while we should dissuade feelings of hate, deciding unilaterally that it's aimed at all women is bizarre. People can hate prostitutes without it at all being about all women or all any other group other than the one mentioned by name.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 01:06 AM
5

So it's derogatory toward... sex workers? Maybe some people have a good reason to hate sex workers? And misogynistic? The definition i provided says 'sex worker', not specifically women. And even if someone is aiming it solely at women, the hate is because they're sex workers, not because they're women. This really seems like a stretch. I don't think most people would apply a hate of whores to all women, or whatever it is that you're thinking.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 12:56 AM
5

Why do you not like when people say "I hate whores"? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whore Which defines it as such: a person who engages in sex acts and especially sexual intercourse in exchange for pay : sex worker I don't see 'I hate whores' as being targeted to any group in particular, but apparently you're assuming something along those lines. I myself don't hate whores, but if someone else does, I don't see that affecting the world in general.
/r/MensRights02/06/25 11:37 PM
4

Absolutely no one expects feminists to fight FOR men. The opposition you see is disagreement to the statements that feminism is about equality and it helps men too. No it isn't and it doesn't. It's right there in the name. It's for women. And that's fine, as long as we stop trying to get everyone to believe it's about equality. It's not a zero sum game, but feminists play it this way. Standing up for men is not about tearing down women.
/r/MensRights02/06/25 09:14 PM
5

Blocking those you disagree with. Mature.
/r/MensRights02/06/25 09:07 PM
1

This isn't even remotely true.
/r/MensRights31/05/25 09:07 PM
15

Most of them aren't INcels at all, but more likely VOLcels. Voluntarily celibate. As in they've gone through enough bullshit and are done with it, at least for the time being.
/r/MensRights31/05/25 08:09 PM
2

It's not innate. It's learned. It's taught to us from birth.
/r/MensRights31/05/25 04:56 PM
4

And even then, it was still way more common for women to call men names than for men to call women names. And they did so without people caring at all. So even if people cared less about men calling women names, they cared even less than that about women calling men names. That part hasn't changed.
/r/MensRights31/05/25 06:11 AM
42

I'm old. For as long as I remember I've heard men called a seemingly endless list of unsavory names, like bastard, son of a bitch, asshole, ass licker, and more. Usually the man shrugs it off, especially if it's from a woman. If it's another man he may fire back in the same vein. But if a woman is called a name, like bitch, there's a stunned silence and mouths drop open in disbelief. 'You never call a woman THAT' you'll hear. 'Don't disrespect women!' As if all women are fragile little creatures…
/r/MensRights31/05/25 03:51 AM
1

As I stated, the women I know do speak up. I can't answer for others.
/r/MensRights24/05/25 05:21 AM
1

My link proves that it's a reproductive issue. And you're still having issues with the English language apparently. You keep falsely claiming I'm changing my position, but you're refusing to admit what my position is. How else would responsibility be enforced, you ask. Why are you so determined to force paternity on an unwilling party? That's the whole point. Men should be able to opt out, the same way women do. You're still concentrating on making men pay solely on the choice of the woman. Let …
/r/MensRights23/05/25 09:40 PM
1

AI Overview Reproductive rights encompass the legal and human rights related to reproductive health and the ability to make choices about one's own body, family planning, and access to reproductive healthcare services. These rights include access to contraception, abortion, and fertility treatment, as well as the right to information about reproduction. They also encompass the right to have control over one's own body, free from coercion, discrimination, and violence, according to Amnesty Intern…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 08:32 PM
1

He's being reproduced. A true statement. He's being made a father. He doesn't want to be a father. Is English not your first language? Men do NOT tell women to not have sex. lmfao * I never said men shouldn't be responsible for their children." I'm saying men should have a way out if they so choose, just like women do You know all this, yet you keep making up quotes for me. Obviously you're a troll. You have to make up things to argue against. And I keep answering, thinking maybe some truths her…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:43 PM
1

It IS a reproductive right because he's being reproduced against his wishes. We never tell women to avoid having sex. And even when I said this is my one issue you still need to blather on. You pointlessly disagree that it's a reproductive issue. Fine for you. No twisting in knots. It's often a reproductive nature. I've explained it numerous times. And then to say 'Man up' as if disagreement is unmanly. You sure have those feminist talking points down, don't you.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:26 PM
3

All the women I know in real life want to help and do when confronted with such situations. But a lot of things on here are especially egregious and the world in general seems to think men are overreacting when they react at all. I myself am on here only to hear about such situations that often aren't covered in mainstream media.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:19 PM
1

You say a lot of true things and attribute a ideas to me that I never said. We'll try this one last time. In the event of an :oops' situation, or whatever you want to call an unplanned pregnancy, the woman ALWAYS has multiple options to get around it or out of it. The man NEVER has an out. Paper abortion would be the only solution, but somehow that's an idea you can't wrap your head around. Don't bring up anything else. That's the one thing that would make things more level.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 06:44 PM
1

Keeping the baby and making someone else responsible against their will is the point. Deciding for everyone. I never brought up adoption, but the 'unknown' was to show how both parties don't need to agree on it. The woman still has the power, but adoption isn't in the scenarios here. Child support? I think you get the point. It can be abusive. But hey, it's only men, so who cares, right? But just keep up treating women like children, who have no responsibility.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 05:13 PM
1

I'll start at the end: no, I was saying keeping the baby, that takes only one person, the mother. And no, both don't have to agtee to adoption. The woman can just say the father is unknown, because she doesn't want him messing this up RISK getting pregnant? Most of these women never give that a thought, because they have plenty of ways out if it does happen. Accidental deadbeat? When he's ordered to pay a high amount of child support, and his financial situation changes. Maybe he loses his job,.…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 04:46 PM
2

No, I agree we should all control our reproductive functions. You ignore the fact that birth control doesn't always work. You ignore the fact that some women lie about it. You ignore the fact that some women take extreme measures to lie about it. But that's okay right? Women are never responsible for the results. And I was never mad. Just trying to point out that not every 'deadbeat' sets out to be one, and that there is no way to opt out of fatherhood once the woman is pregnant, yet she has a p…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 04:16 PM
2

Because only the man is in charge of pregnancy, right? The woman is just the poor little victim with absolutely no agency responsibility. Bad bad men!
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:17 PM
3

And what about the times the woman becomes pregnant anyway? If only life were as simple as you pretend it is!
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:14 PM
4

So you choose to ignore the point that the man has no power as to whether the pregnancy proceeds past the first step. A fact we all know, but ignoring it plays into the mindset that all women are victims and men are users. Yes, that's pretty typical. Thanks for the very common opinion.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:13 PM
29

And yet, I seldom see hate or toxicity here. Telling true things that happen isn't hate. Pointing out bad behavior from women isn't hate. Most men here love women. Asking for equal consideration is a reasonable request. We don't need lectures.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 05:32 AM
5

Just like a woman has a variety of birth control options before an unwanted pregnancy occurs. But once the 'oops' happens the woman can still get out of it, but the man can't. He's dependent on her choice.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 02:09 AM
5

No, I'm saying men should be able to have a financial abortion. Women can be rid of responsibility in a variety of ways that men can't. Men should be able to sign away all rights and responsibilities and never have anything to do with the child if they choose. Just like the Mom could choose to have it or not.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 02:05 AM
3

You're purposely missing the point. Those children are their children only because someone else decided to carry them. Most men will take care of them and won't be deadbeat dads, but being a dad was never their choice. And women always have a choice. That's the difference.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:50 AM
8

No, they really didn't. I agree that both men and women protested the war, but women's hearts weren't in it like mens. And once the war was over, they were fine with men still needing to register with Selective Service. It's lip service, and only when it's convenient to them.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:47 AM
7

No, no. I'm not interested in talking. I've had my fill of people coming on here and blaming men for not wanting to be blamed for all of society's woes. Men are allowed to disagree without being dog piled out. You started the post by claiming men are shaming women and other men. You started by attacking men, not trying to understand anything. I'm done talking.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:43 AM
5

Better yet, why don't you give me examples of where women can't do things men do. What rights do men have that women don't?
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:25 AM
6

Why do you insist that any disagreement is thinking it's a zero sum game? Why do you think talking against it is pitting struggles against each other? Why do you term feminism as 'questioning systems' but men as blaming women? What I see is men and women doing the same things, but men being attacked for it and women being celebrated for it. You should ask yourself why men aren't allowed to question things the way women do, without being asked, 'Why do you hate women?' The street isn't two way bu…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:16 AM
4

Again, yes it is reproductive rights. The woman can always opt out of being a parent. The man always needs the permission of another. He can be forced to reproduce against his will. And yes, more than once a woman has retrieved a used condom from the trash and used it to impregnate herself. The man was deemed responsible for the child. I remember one judge reasoning, if he threw it in the garbage, well then it was free game for anyone to retrieve.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:04 AM
3

Context is oh so important. When you agree with women saying 'men need therapy' that's nonsense. Random women can't speak for all men, and them thinking they can and you agreeing with it is absurd On the other hand, if one really needs therapy and seeks it, that's good. So yes, continue on telling us how it's okay for women to say that about people they've never met.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 12:34 AM
3

No, if the woman decides to have the baby the man is stuck. He's forced to reproduce, even if she lied about being on birth control, put pinholes in the condom, stole the sperm from the condom and impregnated herself later, or even if she commits paternity fraud. These are all things that happen that can trap a man into fatherhood. Women can avoid it many different ways. Men can't. That's a fact.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 12:30 AM
6

Well, my guy, voluntary termination had to be approved by the court. It's not allowed when they think one is just trying to avoid child support. it's rarely granted in such cases. They decide 'what is best for the child' and if the mother is keeping the child it's in the child's best interest for the father to pay child support for 18 years. That's what I meant by 'they're not allowed to'. If the woman decides to have the baby, the man is on the hook for 18 years. It takes two to tango, but only…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 12:25 AM
3

Who said it's justified? Why are you making up things to disagree with? The point is that this isn't an action that men are performing on women. It's a stupid senseless action that both men and women oppose. But both men and women let it happen. You started this thread by talking about women's rights, as if men are responsible. No, my point is that some humans let this happen and other humans are opposed to it.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 10:51 PM
5

Who said therapy is in bad faith? Why are you making up things to argue against? The disagreement is about women deciding they know what's best for all and making foolish statements like all men needing therapy. Just because someone has different viewpoints doesn't mean those viewpoints are wrong and therapy worthy.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 10:44 PM
6

Wow, that's just not true. Women keep children from fathers all the time in the real world, and they're allowed to. Men do not legally opt out of fatherhood. There are deadbeat dads but they're criminals. There's no legal way to opt out of fatherhood if the mother decides she's keeping the baby.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 10:39 PM
7

You seem sincere, but also like you willingly drink the Kool aid. You believe that feminism is benevolent. It's right in the name, it's for women. Do women deserve better than they had in the past? Yes, but now we're to the point of a la carte feminism. Only pushing for the non labor intensive and less deadly options. Yes, there were sexist expectations for all, but those on women have fallen away at much higher rates than those for men. As for the draft, just questioning an injustice doesn't he…
/r/MensRights22/05/25 10:33 PM
23

No. Wanting to avoid the draft for women and ignoring the plight of men is exactly unserious. And who exactly is questioning why conscription was necessary to have a voice? Certainly not those who don't go through it. Emotional labor is something both men and women experience, but somehow only certain emotions are counted. Childcare being a task for women makes sense when they're the ones staying home with the child, while men unflinchingly work long hours and often more than one job. It's not a…
/r/MensRights22/05/25 09:55 PM
25

So, a la carte feminism then. I agree it was supposed to be about sharing burdens, but what it is is picking and choosing the easier and more beneficial to them tasks. Dismissing the continuing inequities as gatekeeping is gaslighting.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 09:33 PM
4

Are you confused? The 'her' I was referring to is the brain dead woman in Georgia. There are plenty of women who agree with keeping her alive as an incubator.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 09:28 PM
11

Wow, that's so simplistic, and not at all the way the world works. Men NEVER get off the hook by saying they were trapped. They're only told they shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want a baby. Same holds true for women but no one tells them that. And they have other choices afterward. Feminism is NOT the antithesis of conservatism. It puts women first in all aspects of society. And it certainly doesn't call for women being conscripted like men do. And when to women call for the end to the dr…
/r/MensRights22/05/25 09:22 PM
6

Disagreement does not equal hate. Men just disagreeing isn't misogyny. Downvoting those who espouse those views is a way of showing disagreement.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 09:11 PM
9

Here's a fact for you: men have never had reproductive rights. Biology plays the biggest role here, but men can never opt out of fatherhood once the child is born. The woman can give it up for adoption or even abandon it at a firehouse without repercussion in many places, but the man is always stuck. The voting one, which I agree is stupid, would require them to prove the name change. It doesn't prevent most married women from voting. And it's not retroactive to women already voting. I agree it'…
/r/MensRights22/05/25 09:09 PM
4

Or maybe, not everyone is going to agree with you. Disagreement can come from a good and valid place. Then when you say things about needing therapy it leads one to believe that you aren't here in good faith.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 08:58 PM
2

Nonjudgmentally. A lot of women try to Frankenstein the man they think they want. They like some of his qualities but then try to change him to do things they liked from men of their past.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 08:53 PM
28

Early feminists didn't want ALL the responsibilities. They have never been in favor of being drafted which was one of the trade offs in common men getting the vote.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 08:46 PM
11

Men are ALWAYS responsible for child support. There is no way to forfeit your parental rights. Women can use protection just like men can, and women can lie and/ or sabotage birth control. Men can and often are forced to be a parent. There is no opt out. And there are just as many conservative women as there are conservative men who are only too happy to draft men and send them off to war. Don't act like all women are kind and benevolent.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 08:39 PM
7

So you think feminism is the only thing that could save her? It's religious fundamentalists, both male and female, who made this the prevailing mindset there. There are both men and women who oppose this action. You don't have to be a feminist to see how completely insane this is.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 08:26 PM
12

Things like this will keep happening until the doers are held accountable. We need to stop being afraid of making waves and speak up whenever and wherever we see them happening.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 07:54 PM
3

Exactly. But they count it all the same. That's how the 'rates' are so high.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 07:29 PM
3

In this story https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/21/587671849/a-new-survey-finds-eighty-percent-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment I found this: That includes verbal forms of sexual harassment, like being catcalled or whistled at or getting unwanted comments of a sexual nature. It also includes physical harassment, cyber harassment and sexual assaults.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 06:41 PM
5

According to the linked story the man is no longer employed by Goodyear. It doesn't say why. Was he fired because his wife is dead? Because he was allegedly unfaithful? So I goggled and another story says this: “We decline to comment further,” the company told the Journal, adding Delaney didn’t receive a severance package after being terminated. Apparently (alleged) infidelity has at least two different prices.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 06:32 PM
2

Scars too, probably. 😉
/r/MensRights21/05/25 06:16 PM
17

It's women 'owning' the men. You go girl! Slay, Queen! /s
/r/MensRights21/05/25 06:15 PM
2

I'm not the one saying nursing isn't science. I, like many, am questioning why it isn't considered a part of STEM, because it isn't.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 04:48 PM
3

So boys only go into STEM fields because Dad and Grandpa did? And girls are just pushed aside in schools? Do you know how schools work? How the EDUCATION field is female dominated? Girls have been encouraged for decades. Encouragement is great. Single gender programs and scholarships are not so great. Nice how because of the fact that nursing has always been female dominated it is illogically excluded from STEM. Cooking the numbers to get the desired results is just dishonest. I could partly get…
/r/MensRights21/05/25 02:44 PM
4

Why would the government encourage women into STEM fields (which for some reason doesn't include nursing), there's literally nothing stopping them except their own fear of joining a male dominated field. Managers love female STEM workers... See how that works both ways? And way to miss the point that we have to exclude nursing from being a Science field only in order to say women are underrepresented and need special help. If we're going to do something like this, why do we need to misrepresent …
/r/MensRights21/05/25 02:26 PM
3

STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. There aren't enough women in STEM fields. Are doctors part of STEM? Of course, medicine is Science. What about nursing? Isn't nursing super female dominated? Oh, not nursing. Shouldn't we be encouraging men into nursing? Shouldn't we have lots of nursing scholarships for men? WE SAID, NO, NOT THAT ONE! It all depends on your definitions.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 02:11 PM
7

We can argue all day over what constitutes 'rare', but if an action happens AT ALL, it SHOULD BE talked about, not swept under the rugs. If the position and the point is such that any talk about any deviation is forbidden, then something is being hidden. What could possibly be the reason?
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:02 PM
6

I didn't read the response as saying women are 'accountable' for male loneliness. I read it as women don't feel empathy toward men the same way they do with women. The last part can remain unsaid because we're forever hearing about how women support each other and girl power and all that. At least that's how it's always portrayed in social media.
/r/MensRights20/05/25 07:31 PM
0

You brought in the ridiculousness when you compared a spoken heads up to a hands on heads up. Maybe some of your other arguments make sense, but by comparing speaking to touching it seems that you lost track of where you were attempting to lead the conversation. Stay on point if you expect others to follow your attempts at reasoning.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 03:07 AM
0

If you won't admit that saying a thing and doing a thing are completely different then you are hopelessly lost. Good luck with using logic in the future.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 03:02 AM
1

That may or may not be, but helping with ties and collars and pats on the shoulder differ from verbally speaking of a situation. The two aren't the same argument at all.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 02:55 AM
6

Your statement '...men's voting power has never been questioned...' is sadly misinformed. Universal voting rights for men weren't a thing until fairly recent history. Prior to this only landowners and the wealthy could vote, and this sometimes included women. Men as a whole weren't granted the right to vote until global warfare became a thing, with the understanding that men would then be conscripted to serve as cannon fodder in said wars. Strangely, the same tradeoff was not expected of women.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 02:03 AM
1

And I genuinely responded to you, because you're conflating two different issues. Wrong or right, one can logically believe men are hands off while still informing someone that their fly is down. Both are hands off interactions. Both can be true at the same time.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 01:35 AM
1

But YOUR response mentioned only unzipped pants, and this was what I responded to. I'm not commenting on any other nuances here. This particular response piqued my interest.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 01:21 AM
1

I see. I also see that there weren't so many that knew of it. So I guess it stands to reason neither I nor my children or grandchildren know of this. Thanks for this bit of trivia.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 01:18 AM
0

Still, telling someone they're unzipped doesn't include any touching. So your response confused me, and still does.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 01:12 AM
0

I think OP means he and his friends don't use a hands on approach. So they wouldn't zip him up, but will certainly tell him about it
/r/MensRights19/05/25 01:10 AM
2

As a man, I will always try to unobtrusively let another man know his fly is down, whether I know him or not. And all the men I know do likewise. Just an FYI.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 01:04 AM
2

By yourself, without help from others?
/r/MensRights19/05/25 12:57 AM
1

What's this OPEN CHEST? I'm in my 60s, in the US, and have no idea what you're talking about. Neither do my adult children, nor my teenage to adult grandchildren.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 12:56 AM
34

But... but... but... they can't tell just by looking, right? So they HAVE to assume every man they see is guilty, right? Right? God forbid they do any logical reasoning. The way men have to do just to get through a normal day.
/r/MensRights19/05/25 12:49 AM
12

You can skip the article. In a park, separately, are a six year old girl, a six year old boy, a dog and a cat. The animals are leashed. To no one's surprise, the girl is 'rescued' rather quickly. Next is the dog, then the cat. No one checks on the boy, and the experiment is called off after 45 minutes. It's sad that this isn't surprising to most of us here.
/r/MensRights18/05/25 07:11 PM
5

Not in the least. I married the woman I wanted to marry, and she married the man she wanted to marry. Neither of us wanted to change the other. It's worked out great for us.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 06:45 PM
1

No one here is singling her out. She singled herself out when she publicly posted this misandrist drivel.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 02:23 AM
2

Like everything else in life, many women feel that they are entitled to a great sex life without any effort on their part. Plop down on the bed like a starfish and wait for the fireworks to happen. Please me, it's your job, and I expect to be wowed. No, this should be a joint effort. For maximum benefit both partners need to be actively and actually participating. Every once in a while you'll see an accusatory post or story about a woman who hasn't had an orgasm in years. First, just because a m…
/r/MensRights16/05/25 03:54 PM
45

'WTF is going on with female teachers'? This is nothing new. It's been happening for decades, but they were easily able to hide it. The 'Women Are Wonderful' effect, pussy pass, being portrayed as the holy madonna, the list goes on. Also in the past we didn't have the internet or cell phones which make having incontrovertible evidence so much easier now. No, their true nature is just now becoming apparent.
/r/MensRights15/05/25 05:34 PM
2

Exactly. That's why the entire concept is farcical.
/r/MensRights14/05/25 07:53 PM
5

At first I assumed your asking what mental loads men have was rhetorical. If it wasn't: Planning on gassing up your family vehicles and regular maintenance on them is a mental load. Planning to mow the lawn and regular yard maintenance is a mental load. Planning on shoveling snow and winter tasks - if that's a thing where you live - is a mental load. How you pay the bills and keep a roof over your family's heads is a mental load. And many more. This is all according to the mental load rules enac…
/r/MensRights14/05/25 07:30 PM
15

In their minds, the cooking isn't a mental load. The planning the cooking, planning the meals, the planning to go to the grocery store are the mental load. The task itself is the responsibility.
/r/MensRights14/05/25 06:53 PM
2

To me, responsibilities (adulting) are a completely different thing. Hence, mental load isn't a real thing.
/r/MensRights14/05/25 06:44 PM
87

'Mental load' isn't real. It's a feminist construction. The tasks being mentioned are just normal events. It's called adulting.
/r/MensRights14/05/25 05:46 PM
5

And that's exactly what we're going for. This isn't meant to be a hate fest on women, but only to point out what we see as inequities. Those subs like you mentioned can be hateful and sometimes cheer physical harm. Just why?
/r/MensRights14/05/25 03:25 PM
8

There's a lot to go through sometimes, because there aren't a lot of places for men to vent without being excoriated . So you may see a lot of things you consider minor, but they are important to someone and those someones deserve to be heard. I myself skip a few things here now and then because they don't interest me, but I don't get upset or think badly of those who posted. Things that are hateful or just anti-woman are usually downvoted - we love women, but can also not like some things they …
/r/MensRights14/05/25 03:14 PM
9

If everyone agrees that the sky is blue, is that then an echo chamber? When true facts are stated there tends to be a lot of agreement.
/r/MensRights14/05/25 02:54 PM
1

And whatever you choose to do is fine! It's what's right for you the counts! Whatever your emotions tell you! Yes, you are correct! Great job!
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:51 PM
1

No one said you have to do anything. How do you ever know anything about anyone? If you don't want to find out, that's fine. You are free to emotionally invent endless scenarios to avoid dating him. It's fine. It's a perfectly emotional response. You're allowed to be emotional. It's very strange how you can't admit that your emotions rule your dating patterns. That's pretty normal.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 05:06 AM
1

No fact checking, just feelings. Huh, sounds EMOTIONAL. The news article being spoken of stated that the man turned out to having not been anywhere near the woman but he was arrested without any fact checking. I guess that would have been too difficult. But please, persist in playing the victim in situations where there is no victim and to ignore inconvenient facts where your emotions tell you otherwise. And again, no one is telling you it's wrong to act on your emotions. Because that's what thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 07:17 PM
165

Where were the teachers while this was going on? You know they ignored a lot of this
/r/MensRights13/05/25 06:19 PM
1

Wow, you really are dense. You keep making up statements to argue against even though no one said it implied any such thing. I think you have a lot of experience doing this, so you can play the victim. As for the newspaper, that's something I mentioned in passing. But you know that newspapers print a lot of filler and non serious content, right? Like, relegated to the back pages is the true story of a woman who falsely accused a stranger of assault simply because she thought he was creepy. Yes, …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 05:46 PM
1

And again (and again and again and again) no one said you are obligated to do anything. But as you yourself just stated, without knowing any facts you decide against it. This is an emotional response. Even if it were as simple as reading a newspaper story you know you wouldn't be convinced so you don't do it. That's emotional, and no one said it's wrong. Even though checking the facts could be quick and easy and not serious and risky at all, you can choose not to do that, and that's fine. It's a…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 04:59 PM
1

Exactly. You could check it out, and more than likely find there was nothing to it. You decide to not do that, because no matter what you find out, you're still not going to do it. You know that even if the woman was the worst person on earth, you're still going to have doubts, so you walk away. That's an emotional response. You don't know him yet and you don't want to based on no proven facts. That's an emotional response. Honestly, most dating in general is based on emotional responses. Dating…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 03:00 PM
1

It's totally emotional. But that's fine if that's the way you are. We get it.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:05 PM
1

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? It IS an emotional (not logical) response to not want to date the guy, because he hasn't committed any crime. And that's fine for you. But your totally emotional reaction doesn't make it logical. You don't want to because of a lie someone else told. Fine for you. No one thinks you should do it. It's still clearly emotional.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 05:48 AM
1

AND I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED THAT YOU SHOULD PUT YOUR SAFETY AT RISK. You should not go out with him if that is your feeling, but it's neither logical nor rational. It's based on a fear that some liar created. Do everyone a favor and stay away. But don't pretend it's logical. And hey, you don't have to be logical, but you shouldn't pretend that this is what you are doing when clearly you aren't.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 05:23 AM
1

OMG, why do you keep me what I'm saying when I'm clearly not saying that? No, I'm not saying you should date him. I'm saying your reasoning to not date him is based on feelings, not facts. It's okay to act on your feelings, just own up to that. You're not going to date him because you can't believe that someone else would lie about something like that. You'd rather act on your feelings. Why not just say that?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 01:09 AM
30

The title applied to this by the network is 'I want men to stop killing women'. Well, I want to stop killing of anyone, including men. But if I say that on any other forum (or sometimes here as well) it's seen as 'derailing the conversation' as if men aren't part of the conversation, or worse, as somehow being anti-women. Honestly, some days it's hard to believe it's all worth fighting for.
/r/MensRights13/05/25 12:47 AM
1

NO ONE SAYS IT'S YOUR JOB TO DO ANYTHING. Stop saying that like anyone is telling you that Fact: some women lie Fact: there is no downside to false accusations. The accuser has nothing to lose and a lot to win. Fact: if someone is proven not guilty but you choose to disbelieve it, again (and again and again) that's your choice, but it doesn't mean it's logical or sensible. Fact: his life isn't risky if he isn't guilty. Fact: your so-called facts are all based on your feelings (that he's a liar a…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 12:39 AM
1

Yeah, no one ever said you have an obligation. No one thinks that. You lose a lot of opportunities listening to someone else's biases, but again, that's up to you. But your assertion that because guilty people often claim to be not guilty that then we should not believe anyone is still convoluted logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 12:19 AM
1

Wow, that's some convoluted logic! Guilty men will deny being guilty, so don't believe any man. No one is asking you to play detective. Often there are facts, like the man wasn't even there, but the procedure is to arrest first and ask questions later. Sometimes much later. You're allowed to have your own beliefs, even if they are based on lies, but to dismiss someone else's lived experience based off that is pretty smug of you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/05/25 11:17 PM
3

This sub already is higher than those toxic feminist subs. Talking about inequities isn't a bad thing or a toxic thing.
/r/MensRights12/05/25 07:29 PM
0

Not every problem is super serious. There aren't separate subreddits for serious and not so serious. This is all we have. Newcomers need to know this.
/r/MensRights12/05/25 07:12 PM
0

Men have - or should have - the right to vent about what they perceive as inequities. That has everything to do with this subreddit. There's no where else out there to post. There isn't one place to post serious issues and another for not as serious. THIS IS ALL THERE IS. Why are you so opposed to it?
/r/MensRights12/05/25 07:10 PM
17

So being proactive and equitable isn't allowed? These are all specious arguments that misandrists have been using for years. Don't fall for them.
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:54 PM
19

'Doesn't happen that often' still results in deaths, and still only for men. And it's far from unanimously unpopular. Most are concerned only when it directly affects them, which it seldom does for women.
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:34 PM
20

Oh, the honeymoon is long over. Justifying the continued misandrist behavior isn't helpful. That's why it's called out here.
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:31 PM
23

It's not 'shunned by everyone.' Most people don't think about it and when they do, it's a short term memory thing if it doesn't directly affect them.
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:28 PM
27

But it hasn't been true for decades, yet here we still are. Women don't have a real incentive to work toward any change.
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:25 PM
33

And women are just damsels in distress and can't affect any changes in society, right? /s
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:23 PM
34

It's not cherrypicking when it's the norm. And most people agree that conscription is bad only when they think women may also be conscripted. Before that -- crickets.
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:10 PM
17

Where is he scapegoating women? He's asking why the indifference toward men while the world is aghast when the same thing happens to women. It's almost as if women are valued more highly.
/r/MensRights11/05/25 10:06 PM
7

No, EVERYONE in this sub does not hate feminists. We hate the things they do, and try to keep those things from being swept under the rug as they so often are. I'm sorry that something happened to you, but men talking about their issues does not equal hate.
/r/MensRights10/05/25 10:15 PM
2

Who said anything about anyone having it easy? Regardless of dowries, it was more likely for women to marry up than men. Even if it was only a tiny step, it's more than a man could accomplish via marriage.
/r/MensRights10/05/25 05:51 AM
1

You're downplaying what men go through. You pretend you don't know where men are drafted but women aren't. You asked for a list you can quickly and easily find yourself. You then act surprised when called out. You're not arguing in good faith and we're done here.
/r/MensRights09/05/25 10:34 PM
2

I agree. Men are Nepo babies. During good times like the middle ages when men were peasants and serfs so were their sons. That was the limit for most of them. Their daughters, however, could and did marry up and change their station in life. Even beyond and before the middle ages, sons were usually stuck in the same position as Dad. Daughters however could finagle their way to a higher status. Not too shabby for women, right?
/r/MensRights09/05/25 10:29 PM
1

Well you've already made up your mind rather than opening your mind, so why are you even asking? You can easily find the results yourself. But, the countries that currently draft and only draft men are Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Sweden, and Switzerland. This link tells you which countries will potentially have a draft (most of them) and that only Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands include women. That's pretty damning and it's also widely known and not a surprise to anyone, including gas…
/r/MensRights09/05/25 10:15 PM
1

You mentioned you're in a Muslim country. Not those. All the so-called Western nations. Any country where women have equality. I think this was pretty obvious from the thread It's very disingenuous to state this isn't feminist hypocrisy. That is exactly what it is. No woman alive in these countries was raised to be told she is not meant for these positions. We're constantly hearing how women can do anything men can. We're told to believe all women. It's pretty aggressive. Saying this is due to t…
/r/MensRights09/05/25 09:28 PM
1

28 days later? Okay, I guess. No, those aren't the countries I was talking about. We're talking about countries that espouse equality for all, but it's somehow different when hard work and danger is involved. The countries where we pick and choose from the equality menu. This doesn't include countries like yours
/r/MensRights09/05/25 08:00 PM
13

Well you shouldn't go to work when you're physically ill and/or potentially contagious. And you don't need to stay home every time you have the sniffles or just feel vaguely out of sorts. You need to maintain a happy medium. I do agree with your premise here. After literally decades in the workforce my experience is that women call out in much larger numbers than men do. Of course there are exceptions in both genders, but men seem to call in much less frequently. And I hope you called your Mom o…
/r/MensRights08/05/25 07:37 PM
1

Yeah, but you do you. Whatever works for you.
/r/MensRights08/05/25 03:41 PM
3

They're SAYING feminists are treating it this way. They aren't responding the same way. Just talking about it isn't the same as doing it. And what's the alternative - doing nothing? No, most men aren't engaging in the same tactics that women use. This sub is making others aware of all the things going on out there that you won't normally see in mainstream media. Women did start it. Men making it known isn't hating on women.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 09:15 PM
3

Yeah, it's saying FEMINISTS treat it as a zero sum game. Men are AGAINST treating it as a zero sum game. You appear to be saying men are doing this too, and they're not. That's what's totally wrong, okay?
/r/MensRights07/05/25 08:59 PM
3

I check this sub daily. If you see hateful comments on here you need to call them out as they happen. Also, downvotes show disagreement. But you'll be okay.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 07:56 PM
3

No, I'm saying these comments aren't hateful, they're just not singing the praises of how wonderful women are. Any negative mention of women is often seen as hateful when they're just stating inconvenient facts.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 07:52 PM
3

No, this sub isn't anti woman. Being pro man is not equivalent to anti woman. Mentioning mens issues is not being hateful of women.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 07:43 PM
3

No, you're totally wrong. Most posts and responses here don't see it as a zero sum game, instead they're just mentioning something they consider to be an issue. What they get in response is 'But women have it worse!' Any issue mentioned by a man is sidelined and deemed as not as severe as what women endure EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES! This should be a no judgement zone, because men aren't going to get one anywhere else.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 07:24 PM
3

And your original response to me proves that you didn't understand at all, but were merely interested in tearing down anything positive about men. All I said was that 'quote' is made up and a total lie. You said you agree. Everything after that was posturing and the explanations why women have things worse. The fact that you couldn't let this statement of fact pass without attempting to school the world how it's actually okay speaks volumes. You had to get those supposed counterpoints in there.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 05:01 PM
3

My original reply was to let everyone know the idea that somehow men have nothing to worry about is whether they'll get laughed at, while women worry for their very lives, is a total lie. You admitted the statement has no basis in fact, but tried to give 'reasons'. Nice mental gymnastics, per usual. I won't go through all the reasons it's wrong for the UN to exclude food from starving humans simply because of their gender because if you don't get it, I guess that's another part of your privilege…
/r/MensRights07/05/25 03:16 PM
3

Wow, what utter misandrist reasoning! You admit that Atwood made up this supposed quote, but it's okay BECAUSE WOMEN RELATE TO IT. So it's okay to play the eternal victim and rally around a lie because women can relate to that lie? No, Atwood's whole point is 'Women good, men bad'. This creates a common enemy, and that sure creates bonding! You then bizarrely move on to 'disproportinate' killing. What does this even mean? When is killing proportionate? And, those men who are killers kill other m…
/r/MensRights07/05/25 06:33 AM
3

The point I was making is that Atwood made this up. It's often bandied about as if it is the result of a study or surveys, but it isn't. Atwood just decided to say it without any facts to back it up. Who knows why. Projection maybe? Because women would fear being made fun of if it happened to them from their pre-dating years into adulthood? And even as adults they were avoided and called creepy for no reason other than existing? But men are used to being laughed at and don't fear it, regardless …
/r/MensRights07/05/25 01:40 AM
9

But true at the same time.
/r/MensRights06/05/25 06:03 PM
3

Oh, I can't watch that show. The way many women act like it's a documentary, rather than a dystopian tale of a really twisted reality, and then treat real life men like we're the bad guys, it's just better to avoid that segment of society. In my opinion.
/r/MensRights04/05/25 09:32 PM
5

That 'quote' you mention was MADE UP by Margaret Atwood, author of 'The Handmaid's Tale'. She's a good writer. Some would say great. But the 'quote' has no basis in fact. There were never any studies that conclude that men are afraid of having their feelings hurt. And honestly, do any of us know anyone like this? Doesn't practically every man have a lot of experience being shot down by women when asking them out? Often not very nicely? No, for most men getting their feelings hurt is simply the c…
/r/MensRights04/05/25 09:06 PM
1

I had a similar family member, except her response was "Well it's true". My response always was, "It's not necessary to articulate every idea you believe to be true".
/r/MensRights02/05/25 12:31 AM
1

Oh, I agree with you. It's just that when I saw the story I at first thought there may be new hope on the horizon. It's disappointing that there's nothing new
/r/MensRights29/04/25 10:49 PM
2

This story just celebrated its 4th birthday. It's dated April 20, 2021.
/r/MensRights29/04/25 07:31 PM
1

Where did he say he felt emasculated sitting in the passenger seat? His post is about her reaction to what he said to her.
/r/MensRights29/04/25 06:46 PM
97

They don't want the true level of infidelity in France to be common knowledge. Spoiler: it's really high
/r/MensRights28/04/25 07:15 PM
1

Just stop. You have no idea what you're talking about. Sure, the wealthy don't always get wealthier, but the existing infrastructure is designed to facilitate those ends. Those in power enjoy the status quo and are supported by mindless idiots. Have fun with that. And go troll elsewhere for a while.
/r/MensRights28/04/25 03:47 PM
1

And the rich shouldn't have advantages that the poor or not so rich have. Like different tax rates for investments. That's just a way for the wealthy to get wealthier. And many are barely eking out s living but you think they should 'invest their time and money'. SMH.
/r/MensRights28/04/25 03:10 PM
1

Way to miss the point. The poor should just work more, right?
/r/MensRights28/04/25 02:36 PM
7

Where is this evident? Maybe in your make believe land, but not in reality. Go back to your world of delusion and denial and maybe someone there will buy what you're selling. It's not happening here.
/r/MensRights28/04/25 07:02 AM
1

So anyone who has an opinion contrary to yours is 'intentionally obtuse'? I think that statement is obtuse, but then I already lost this internet argument, so what do I know. I guess if I did know anything I might suggest not dismissing out of hand any ideas different from your own. Maybe learn new things. But, you do you.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 09:49 PM
3

Not all whores are sex workers. Why would you think that? And I have no interest in 'winning' Internet arguments. I do enjoy learning new and different things from discussions which is what I was trying to do here. You apparently think otherwise. Okay, you win, I lose. Happy now?
/r/MensRights27/04/25 09:27 PM
3

They are derogatory... in your mind. If the women in my life were actually those things it'd be a title they'd proudly claim. There's no shame in acknowledging what you are. On the other hand, that's your bias and your beliefs. If you choose to believe the terms are inherently bad, sure, go for it. Just be aware that not everyone sees the world in absolutist terms like this.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 09:11 PM
26

The title is stating a fact. A man would definitely suffer harsher consequences. Denying this is not at all helping men and women to work together. But telling the truth will. It's not a competition or battle. Stop acting like it is.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 08:16 PM
4

How is saying 'I hate sluts' misogynistic? Did he say all women are sluts? No, he just hates those who are sluts. He's allowed to have preferences. Further, you apparently think the words whore and slut are derogatory. They are merely descriptors. Some acknowledge being one or the other without apology because they aren't bad things to be.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 08:09 PM
34

Did that happen here? No. Not at all. It's a retelling of events that really happened. Why be opposed to facts? How are women's experiences hurt by acknowledging mens experiences? Answer: they aren't.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 07:49 PM
29

No one here wants to be the victim. How do you conclude this from a mere recitation of facts? Are you saying the truth should remain hidden if it doesn't align with the popular agenda?
/r/MensRights27/04/25 07:35 PM
1

No, they won't invest less. They like getting money for no work. The point remains paying a very small percentage of your true income pales in comparison to paying one quarter of your minimum wage job, since you don't have deductions. Again, the widow's mite.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 06:54 PM
1

Taxes on dividends, remember those? But somehow people may not invest if they have to pay the going rate there? Please. And aren't losses tax deductible? They pay the majority of taxes because they have the.majority of money, even though they have ways of hiding it. Yay, a small percentage of the money they pay taxes on is a lot to most of us!
/r/MensRights27/04/25 05:58 PM
0

So you think the tax advantages for the wealthy only are okay. Cool, wouldn't want them having the same tax rate as those who don't have the money to invest, would we? Nice for them.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 05:21 PM
0

Oh, okay, you're a wealth apologist. Okay. Sure, keep defending laws that keep the wealthy, wealthy. And maybe one day you can be one of them.
/r/MensRights26/04/25 10:31 PM
1

Jeff Bezos does pay less, as a percentage of how much he has. Percentage wise, he does pay far less. Think of the biblical story of the widow's mite. Bezos and other millionaires/ billionaires could pay multiple times more than they do without it making a difference to them. Why do they pay the vast majority of taxes? Because they make vastly more money. Of course they should pay more. Why do we need to encourage investment? Do we think the wealthy will stop investing if they have to pay taxes a…
/r/MensRights26/04/25 08:05 PM
1

Jeff Bezos pays far more than many Americans because he has far more than many Americans. Dismissing it this way is the deception. The rich exploit the tax laws by designing the tax laws in their favor. Why is dividend income taxed at a lower rate than earned income?
/r/MensRights26/04/25 07:26 PM
6

Sure, there's good natured jesting and roasting among friends. That's something most of us do and enjoy.This is not that. This is TikTok. TikTok isn't about old fashioned good natured fun. It's about one-upmanship and winning, at the cost of others. It is encouraging that you see this from the good natured side. Perhaps more see it like you do, and I and many replying here are wrong. Let's hope so.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 08:20 PM
9

Sure, kids are never cruel or hateful, right? I am settled. In reality.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 07:07 PM
10

I don't think the /S is either needed or true.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 06:06 PM
15

The intent is to depreciate. So, not really harmless.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 06:04 PM
6

Speaking of the breadwinning function not being appreciated: Growing up, my mother never worked, like her own mother. When my grandparents would come over for dinner Grandma liked to tell us we should thank Mom for preparing the meal. After hearing this a few times, I said, Shouldn't we also thank Dad for earning the money needed to pay for the meal Mom just prepared? Seeing how this got under Grandma's skin, for months afterward when we'd eat over there I'd thank my Pops for making the money to…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 12:19 AM
7

It's likely that the men don't either, but they don't like to advertise it.
/r/MensRights20/04/25 07:10 PM
5

And more than 55% of all murder victims in Germany are men. So more men are killed. Murder of anyone is wrong. How is gendering it speaking some truth? That's ignoring more than half the victims. Why can't this politician speak for all?
/r/MensRights16/04/25 08:58 PM
2

I'm fine too, since there were no issues for me, like most. But all are not so lucky. Why shouldn't it be an individual choice?
/r/MensRights15/04/25 12:58 AM
13

First, there is NO difference between circumcision and FGM. Both are unnecessary genital mutilation. Please educate yourself. Actually look it up. Look at botched circumcisions. They happen more than you'd think. Probably because they aren't talked about. Second do your many boyfriends/ friends actually ENJOY being circumcised, or are they just used to it and indifferent to it? I was circumcised. I'm not sure where the enjoyment would come in, but I don't remember it and there were no issues so …
/r/MensRights15/04/25 12:56 AM
2

Oh, I know some people say it. But no one was saying that in the thread you responded to me on, so I wasn't sure why you were telling me that. Stick to the items being discussed if you want to be understood correctly.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 10:10 PM
3

Agree. And your response is apparently all in good faith. It's all good.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 07:19 PM
8

If course. It's 'coercive control' when men speak colorfully or harshly toward defenseless women. /s
/r/MensRights14/04/25 06:54 PM
2

It doesn't seem that it takes much energy for small battles like this. Being aware of all that is happening seems worth it.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 06:47 PM
6

Actually I think it's good that 'microagressions' (a feminist term) like this are mentioned. Otherwise many of us would be unaware just how prevalent the 'women good, men bad' trope still is these days in movies.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 06:41 PM
1

That still is totally unrelated to anything I said. Maybe it would be a good standalone comment? If you think this sub has been heading in the wrong direction, be the change you want to see.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 03:14 AM
2

Yeah, who thinks 'much taller men' are more confident? I've never known that to be the case.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 01:45 AM
3

Wow, now I'm really confused. You said 'The men of this subreddit believe men are a monolith.' All I said is no, that's not a belief here. I don't know what you're saying here had to do with that. Where did anyone say there's any global feminist conspiracy?
/r/MensRights14/04/25 01:41 AM
2

You can certainly have your opinion, that's no problem. But I don't think anyone on here thinks men are a monolith. The subject at hand will seldom apply to all men, but if it applies to a reasonable number of men, it belongs here.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 01:27 AM
2

Mens Rights issues often involve women's interactions with them, or women's expectations of them, or responding to misinformation about them being spread by women. So while we don't want to focus too much on women, the roughly one third of posts you found mentioning women in the title doesn't sound out of line.
/r/MensRights14/04/25 01:18 AM
2

My interest is piqued? No, at first I thought you were serious about mail in balloting being bad. Then I thought you were misinformed. Now that I know you're full scale deluded and deranged I'll just correct your latest insane statement and be done. People AREN'T squealing. This would be large scale reported, because people love tattling. Paranoid rantings are all I see. Things that aren't based in fact or reality. Again, your side not winning does not prove cheating or massive conspiracy. Get h…
/r/MensRights13/04/25 09:54 PM
7

The exact same thing can happen to men and women and the women will call it discrimination while the men see it as just another day in the life of a man. If the terms and experiences aren't clearly spelled out then the poll is pointless and has proven nothing.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 09:43 PM
1

Sure, keep believing the lies. If it doesn't go your way then someone cheated, right? Grow up. People are easily swayed, hence the political landscape changing every few elections. Remember in school when someone would tell the teacher she forgot to assign homework? Those people are present all through life. An undertaking that forges thousands of ballots and then checks ballots submitted to know which are not submitted, which isn't done in real time anyway, would be quite involved and would tak…
/r/MensRights13/04/25 09:31 PM
0

This is all very paranoid. Computer generated signatures are easily seen as such. They don't ring true. And forging thousands of ballots? The response numbers would be way off and trigger an investigation. Again, the reality is very different than the ever present conspiracy theories many foolishly fall for.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 09:11 PM
1

Easily forged? The signatures are computer compared, not eye verified. To forge large numbers of signatures would be a long and expensive (and expansive) undertaking. The reality just doesn't support such nonsensical complaints.
/r/MensRights13/04/25 08:54 PM
5

I live in a state that is all mail in voting, so you automatically get a ballot for every election as long as you are actively voting. When you register to vote you need to prove your identity and you sign the ballot card. In each subsequent election you sign the outer envelope and the signatures are compared. Yes, you can drop off ballots for others, but the signatures are compared for each ballot. You can't steal someone else's ballot and have it counted, because the signatures won't match. Wh…
/r/MensRights13/04/25 08:36 PM
-2

Which states have unverifiable mail in ballots?
/r/MensRights13/04/25 07:09 PM
3

No, they currently conscript only men.
/r/MensRights12/04/25 03:43 AM
3

Thanks for clarifying that we're mostly in agreement. I would add that Ukraine's strategy should be to also conscript women in the same age range as the men being conscripted and have them fill in behind the scenes roles of the conflict. Make the women at least be inconvenienced while their men suffer and die.
/r/MensRights11/04/25 08:42 PM
8

It's important to understand that many who advocate for universal conscription also agree that many women aren't suitable for frontline combat, or many other roles for that matter. They're just against women being allowed to continue living their normal cushy lives while men are forcibly torn from their daily lives for a few years. Many countries conscript all men right after secondary school and make them complete two years or so in the armed forces, while women can continue their education and…
/r/MensRights11/04/25 07:50 PM
4

Did you ever watch reality cop shows on television? There are a lot of them these days. There are plenty of times when a woman has instigated violence on a man, usually due to a perceived slight, whether real or imagined. A woman thinks her man cheated on her, or believes a man called her a name or used bad language in speaking to her. These women will physically strike men and say they had to defend themself. The other women are usually in agreement, and a big majority of time they suffer no il…
/r/MensRights09/04/25 10:28 PM
7

https://www.fatherly.com/health/prostate-cancer-research-funding-breast-cancer According to this from 2020 prostate cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the US. Breast cancer is number five. https://www.google.com/search?q=leading+cancer+deaths+in+us&oq=leading+cancer+deaths+in+us&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyDggAEEUYJxg5GIAEGIoFMggIARAAGBYYHjIICAIQABgWGB4yCAgDEAAYFhgeMggIBBAAGBYYHjINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAYQABiGAxiABBiKBTIHCAcQABjvBdIBCDE2OTlqMGo5qAIOsAIB8QXvwSy0JYhueg&client=ms-android-…
/r/MensRights08/04/25 12:40 AM
4

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+cancer+gets+the+most+funding&oq=which+can&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqDQgAEAAYkQIYgAQYigUyDQgAEAAYkQIYgAQYigUyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDINCAMQABiRAhiABBiKBTIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIMCAgQABgUGIcCGIAEMgcICRAAGIAEMgcIChAAGIAEMgcICxAAGIAEMgcIDBAAGIAEMgcIDRAAGIAEMgcIDhAAGIAE0gEFMWowajeoAhSwAgHxBXZflEGL8HZ3&client=ms-android-verizon-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1&pi=which%20cancer%20gets%20the%20most%20funding
/r/MensRights07/04/25 10:47 PM
4

In reality, 1% of men do.
/r/MensRights07/04/25 10:37 PM
1

13% of women get breast cancer. 1% of men do. 12.8% of men get prostate cancer.
/r/MensRights07/04/25 10:36 PM
1

Buzz or howl under the influence of heat
/r/MensRights07/04/25 09:38 PM
2

If not himself, then he has naught
/r/MensRights07/04/25 09:30 PM
3

None of the men I know are 'scared of being victims of violent crime by other men', nor are the women 'afraid of men'. They are all aware that crime is out there and to be vigilant, but no, those fears aren't them.
/r/MensRights05/04/25 08:24 PM
7

Yes, it's bullshit that women get away with this lack of accountability..
/r/MensRights02/04/25 02:49 AM
7

It's cute that you think the same standards apply to women and men concerning child support. https://www.yahoo.com/news/7-celebrity-women-had-pay-153000968.html They wrote a story about women paying child support because it's not the norm. People were shocked! https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/06/09/TVs-Lunden-ordered-to-pay-estranged-spouse-18000-a-month/7527708062400/ This one's a bit older, but not unusual. My favorite line from it: 'Why the courts don't tell a husband who has been living off…
/r/MensRights01/04/25 08:07 PM
12

The law may be gender neutral, but the reality is that the rich women are more easily able to avoid the exorbitant amounts of support that the men are routinely subjected to. The men are often told that they are perfectly capable of working and don't need that much money. You only hear about Adele and Britney and Halle because they are the exception. It's unusual for men to actually get the amounts women get without question.
/r/MensRights01/04/25 07:35 PM
12

No, there aren't plenty who do. Adele and Britney stand out because they are two of the few who do. Halle Berry is another example, and she fought long and hard to avoid it.
/r/MensRights01/04/25 07:10 PM
4

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandates that health insurance plans cover certain preventive services for women, including contraception and related services, without cost-sharing, but it does not mandate similar coverage for men, focusing on services related to women's reproductive health. I found that by googling 'ACA Mandates for Women But Not Men'
/r/MensRights26/03/25 12:44 AM
14

Maybe he has a good reason. Maybe, like many women's excuses, he's had trauma in his life. Really, stop thinking the worst of people you don't know and never will know. The world will be a better place.
/r/MensRights25/03/25 10:46 PM
25

No one said anyone has to do the job for him. That's another invention of your mind. You don't know why he said what he said so you make up reasons to be angry.. He has every right to vent and you most certainly have a right to come here and shit on everything. Unlike those feminist subs, you won't be banned. And shitting on things you don't understand or even try to seems to make you happy. So go for it! It seems like you've had a lot of practice doing so.
/r/MensRights25/03/25 10:35 PM
32

What is with men needing everyone else to do the job for them? Those were your words. Then others answered and you had a snarky response every time You may not agree with the post and I may not either, but inventing background stories to be angry about seems pathetic or trollish or both. You've been on here a lot saying things like, Oh yeah, well men shouldn't do (whatever). This sub lets men vent about things they can't in a lot of other places. Let them. If you don't like it, no one is making …
/r/MensRights25/03/25 10:18 PM
48

Right? Isn't it so annoying when a woman invents a scenario for what a man said, shames him for it, and then gets pushback? /s, in case it's needed
/r/MensRights25/03/25 10:01 PM
5

What data SUPPORTS this argument? The saying itself is a variation on something Margaret Atwood, author of 'The Handmaid's Tale' wrote: 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.' There are no studies to back this up, and I've never known any man afraid that women will laugh at them. But Margaret said it, it was believed, and then we get this 'argument'. There are plenty of facts that show otherwise.
/r/MensRights25/03/25 07:48 PM
4

Any study about online victimization I've ever seen relies on self reporting of the victimization. If people feel that they've been victimized then they have. The problem with this is that men and women tend to define victimization differently. So the same exact thing can happen to men and women, but men are less likely to think of themselves as victims.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 08:05 PM
2

Because all women are helpless victims and are powerless to do anything about it, right? That seems to be what you're saying.
/r/MensRights22/03/25 09:24 PM
1

Okay, you're a conspiracy theorist looking for the highly recommended unlikely downside to everything. Me, I believe laziness and sloth and general apathy wins in most cases.
/r/MensRights19/03/25 10:33 PM
4

Funny, my experience is the opposite. It's usually the Mom worrying about this, and too often Dad just goes along to keep the peace. Just two different life experiences, I guess.
/r/MensRights19/03/25 10:22 PM
1

I never heard of that about Social Security numbers, but that's very different than this. Social Security was set up as a database from day one, so it's pretty nonsensical that anyone would think otherwise. For this, there is no existing infrastructure for that, and setting one up would be expensive and would serve no purpose. Paternity tests happen a lot without this happening. There's no reason it can't continue this way.
/r/MensRights19/03/25 10:18 PM
1

This is a serious misunderstanding of the process. In a paternity test, the two samples are compared. That is all. Nothing is compared AGAINST anything else. Just the two samples at hand. Things like 23andme and the like do the things you're thinking of, but that's not at all what is proposed here
/r/MensRights19/03/25 10:07 PM
0

Who said anything about creating a government data base with everyone's DNA? A standard paternity test compares the two samples for clues that the parties are related. No databases, no storing of information. In the US babies are typically subject to a lot of testing at birth so including a paternity test could be relatively routine and easy, and not expensive as well.
/r/MensRights19/03/25 09:51 PM
12

Sure, that's the norm in the military, for men anyway. It's not expected in a clothing store.
/r/MensRights19/03/25 09:16 PM
1

Ah. And fortunately I have good insurance, something that's getting rarer and rarer these days.
/r/MensRights18/03/25 09:27 PM
5

My sons and grandsons were all born in the US and none are circumcised. You know that it's not required, right?
/r/MensRights18/03/25 08:50 PM
9

Naw, what's referred to as female 'nudity' in movies is usually toplessness, not bottomlessness. Which was always confusing to a younger me, since feminists were (and are) protesting for the right to be topless everywhere men are (and now can be in some places) but protested the same in movies. And bottomless men typically show a lot more skin than bottomless women, so I don't see the equality there.
/r/MensRights18/03/25 12:47 AM
1

The majority of men know what they have to do to achieve ejaculation (not necessarily orgasm, as they aren't the same thing) and so they do it whenever they can. Thus, to use a line from a television show, they are masters of their own domain. Why then is the expectation that men need to do this for women as well? Why can't women be masters (or mistresses) of their own domain as well? Of course, in a loving and giving relationship, each partner learns what the other wants and needs and so provid…
/r/MensRights09/03/25 08:12 PM
20

Are women just damsels in distress in need of rescue by men? Not all PEOPLE are the problem, but all PEOPLE are part of the solution.
/r/MensRights09/03/25 07:41 PM
1

Over the years I've known a dozen married men who had vasectomies. All were required by the doctor to have their wife sign off on the procedure. The timeframe is from the 80s to just a couple of years ago.
/r/MensRights07/03/25 09:09 PM
3

This may be an unpopular opinion, but public crying is rarely necessary or welcome. Too many women cry way too much over way too many things. Add men to the mix and it's nearly chaos. Okay, not quite, but people, keep it together!. It's okay to be sad. But the whole world doesn't need to know. Be respectful of those around you. Don't suppress your feelings, but everyone else doesn't need to know.
/r/MensRights06/03/25 08:53 PM
1

You're the one who decided I must be naive. For some reason you need to be right and can't see that two or more things can be true at the same time. Broaden your horizons. See the other side of things. Accept that life can be contradictory. Have fun doing it. And have a good day or night or whatever it is where you are.
/r/MensRights05/03/25 08:34 AM
1

Who's being condescending? I:m not sure why you feel the need to believe that no one else has different yet valid experiences. Maybe because mine shows that life isn't all gloom and doom? But sure, that's fine.
/r/MensRights05/03/25 08:20 AM
1

I guess we know vastly different people. Maybe in a few years your experiences will be more varied and less negative.
/r/MensRights05/03/25 07:22 AM
1

I agree that it's sad for men who have this done to them. I'm not sure my life experiences are due to either good or bad fortune, but I do know I didn't get where I am in life through any naivety. I wonder why you believe your negative experiences are the norm. It seems pessimistic, but hey, whatever works for you.
/r/MensRights05/03/25 07:14 AM
1

Yeah, I've never been in a locker room where bullying occurred for any reason. Good natured bantering maybe, but nothing serious. So yes, good for me, and, sad for you, I guess.
/r/MensRights05/03/25 06:33 AM
5

I'm a 65 year old man who has lived across the US and have never known of men bullying others about whether they are cut or not. Some have strong opinions, but don't belittle or bully the differently equipped. I do however know of many women who refuse to date intact men. Those women have always been assholes. In my opinion, of course.
/r/MensRights05/03/25 06:21 AM
1

No, your exact words a few replies back were: I was just asking for clarification of what you were going to do with him.
/r/MensRights22/02/25 05:40 PM
1

It's exactly what you said. You asked for clarification where none was needed. Like just now.
/r/MensRights22/02/25 05:27 PM
1

I agree it's a versatile work. The word 'offensive' is from the Urban Dictionary meaning. I put that on there because you were confused by what exactly the poster meant. Or at least that's what your replies to them said.
/r/MensRights22/02/25 05:23 PM
1

Yes, it was a poor attempt at trolling.. it fell flat because it was idiotic and nonsensical, but you doubled and tripled down and more. I explained in case it was needed, as it seemed it may have been necessary. It was rather sad. Thanks for clarifying..
/r/MensRights22/02/25 05:17 PM
1

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? The poster I was replying to expressed confusion over what was meant by 'Fuck that guy'. I merely explained that it means to 'go away:. No judgement was passed on whether or not someone was made to feel bad. You believe what you want. I was explaining what a phrase means. Keep feeling what you do, but nothing was said either way about that.
/r/MensRights22/02/25 05:23 AM
1

That's your opinion. That's fine. Others have differing opinions. That's fine too. But the poster I was responding to claimed to not know what the phrase 'Fuck that guy' means. Nothing deep or confusing about the response. He doesn't agree with it. Opinions aside, to go on and on while feigning confusion certainly seems like trolling. But maybe not, so I explained what he means. Agreement or disagreement is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
/r/MensRights22/02/25 04:47 AM
1

I think you're trolling, but if not, the Urban Dictionary defines this phrase thusly: An offensive term to tell someone to go away
/r/MensRights21/02/25 10:05 PM
15

I don't know of any men only spaces. Please enlighten me.
/r/MensRights16/02/25 10:18 PM
3

Babies are given a series of tests when they're born to make sure they're healthy. Who pays for all that? Paternity testing should fall under the same umbrella. And they should have the technology right there in the hospital, so in house testing rather than sending to an outside facility would drive the cost down.
/r/MensRights10/02/25 10:02 PM
4

I think we can do both, no problem.
/r/MensRights09/02/25 02:46 AM
6

Just to point out: nowhere in the US is it legal to require women to wear high heels as part of the dress code.
/r/MensRights08/02/25 10:45 PM
2

So they said if you told men to have short hair only to tell women to tie theirs back? Not that men could also have theirs tied back? Yeah, sounds about right. /s
/r/MensRights08/02/25 10:42 PM
10

Same with American television. Remember 'Blossom' 1990 - 1995? Blossom had two older brothers, Anthony and Joey. Joey is in high school and gets a job as a pizza delivery boy. Older brother Anthony recalls (when Joey isn't around) that he once had the same job and a certain older woman was always 'friendly' and initiated him in the ways of love. He wonders if she's still around. Later Joey excitedly tells his big bro that he's also succumbed to her wiles. They're both happy with the common bond,…
/r/MensRights08/02/25 10:30 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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