Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Showing posts with label mensrights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mensrights. Show all posts

Mixed-up Meet up

I'm seeking RSVPs for an August 13, 2016 meetup beginning at noon and continuing until about 9PM. This event is not limited to a particular group, but open to Gamergaters, Badger fans, MRAs & antifeminists, anyone who has been a part of the greater conversation around these social issues.

If there is enough interest/response by 7/25, I'll send everyone who RSVPs information about the 2 Dayton, Ohio area locations at which the meetup will take place (beginning at one, and then heading to the second location.) Information sent to those who RSVP will include the names and locations of the venues and the names and locations of 2 hotels within walking distance (2 miles) of the second venue. You will not be able to get this information without an RSVP.

To RSVP, send an email to mixedupmeetup@gmail.com letting me know you are coming & if anyone else will be attending with you, or add yourself to the event page on facebook.
Also let me know if you have any other questions.

Let's talk

Rape/Assault victims: Phoebe Greenwood wants to hear from you (either sex) if your assault was dismissed "because you had been drinking." She tweeted a few hours ago that she was looking for such stories from women. In response to a reply criticizing her for ignoring male victims, she amended her statement in a second tweet, saying she'd be interested in hearing from men, as well.  
   
I think she should hear from victims whose assault was dismissed because they're male, or because their perpetrator was female, which I believe happens far more often than the dismissal of an assault strictly because the victim was drinking, regardless of gender.    

    
Why?    
    
Because this looks like a case of a feminist journalist attempting to use reporting only part of the story to support feminism's female-victim rape culture narrative.

How can you help?

If you've been victimized and you've been dismissed when seeking assistance or legal recourse, either because you're male or your perpetrator was female, or if you're male, because you'd been drinking (her original question) please reply to the tweet I sent in response to her request, and describe your experience. If it can't be put into 140 characters, Twit longer is a useful tool for creating longer than normal tweets. The tweet will then show the title, with the option of viewing the rest of the post.

If you haven't, but you know someone who has been dismissed while seeking assistance for any of those reasons, pass the tweet on. If you can, tweet a link to it with a request for responses.

Please only tweet responses that describe wrongful dismissal of your own experience or the experience of someone you know. Though it is frustrating to deal with a person who seems to have an anti-male or at least male-dismissive bias, this will only be productive if we offer evidence rather than blunt or emotional criticism, no matter how justified it might be.

I don't know if we'll touch her heart or change her mind, but at the very least, maybe receiving examples will help Ms. Greenwood see that narrowing her focus to support a narrative won't go unnoticed.



As I recall... a little history on feminism's SPLC claims

This post is actually a fleshed-out version of one of my responses in a skype conversation. In writing it, I realized that this particular bit of reddit's history hasn't been written down by anyone, so I thought I'd put it here. The following is from my memory.  

When the conflict between reddit feminists and /r/mensrights started, neither /r/mensrights nor /r/feminism had many subscribers. Reddit itself wasn't all that big yet. When it was new, its format was slightly different from the way it is now. Originally, links could be posted without choosing a subreddit. They were there, but they were not the focus for the site. They were for specialized posting when the link in question might not be fitting for general posting to the front page... but if you wanted to just post to reddit.com, you could. Both /r/feminism and /r/mensrights were created during that time, when subreddits were basically a side gig.

Contrary to feminist claims about men's issues discussion, it's been functional from the beginning. When /r/mensrights was new there was discussion about things like the Innocence Project, Dr. Farrell's writing, Murray Strauss's work, Erin Pizzey's work, etc. That was true even before AVFM had the readership or visibility in the movement that it has now. It took time for the staff to build up a body of sourced writing, and during that time it was just one among many blogs with sourced writing, all of which were regularly linked and cited in posts and comments on /r/mensrights. Discussion in the subreddit made it a communication hub for different groups of MRAs, where sources of information were offered, issues discussed, theories shared and evaluated, conclusions drawn, and even some real world activism planned. And while reddit's feminist presence divided itself among a plethora of heavily moderated subreddits (which feminist sub moderators have since labeled "the fempire,) for the longest time, men's issues discussion remained open, but centered firmly in /r/mensrights, leading to the faster and larger growth of that subreddit.

Feminists became upset that information contradicting their narrative was being shared and discussed in /r/mensrights. In fact, they didn't like any of what was going on in the subreddit, and some reddit feminists took it upon themselves to put a stop to it.

They began attacking /r/mensrights in a few different ways. Concern trolling complete with shaming tactics began immediately. There were a lot of women who seemed to think visiting the sub to state their disapproval would shame these unruly guys into silence, so there were actual lecture posts.

I wish today that I'd archived them, because it's hard to go back more than a few years on reddit, and some of those posts were really comical. One chick took the Nurse Ratched approach and demanded to know what our mothers would think if they knew "what we were doing in this subreddit." What I did eventually do was spend a little time archiving into a post titled "For the record" a set of links that includes concern troll posts and comments, manipulative efforts, and posts that appear to have been brigaded (targeted by other subreddits for vote or discussion manipulation). I'm not working on that as a project any more, having sampled a pretty good sized window in time, but if you look at today's posts on /r/mensrights, I'm sure you'll probably see some of the same things I noted during the creation of that archive.

Another form of attack was to make a sockpuppet account and post something positive that would garner emphatic responses, then edit it, changing to something that made the existing comments look misogynistic. That would then be archived and the archive of the edited post presented elsewhere on reddit as evidence of rampant misogyny in the sub. The mods of /r/mensrights had to employ a bot created by another redditor to archive posts so that there would be an accurate record when those accusations were made.

There were two results of this: One, the admins did temporarily ban /r/mensrights in its early stages, and we had to argue for it to be reinstated (it obviously was,)... and two, reddit was so inundated with complaints about posts and comments being edited to make responding comments look bad (in multiple subreddits) that they took user suggestions to denote edits. Posts and comments edited after the first 60 seconds are now marked with an asterisk, so now while you do have a chance to fix formatting, nobody can use editing to gaslight their commenters.

At the same time, there was a discussion among reddit's feminists about writing to the SPLC and asking them to declare men's rights activists a hate movement (referred to as "the MRA" because they apparently didn't know the "A" stood for Activists and not something like "Association.")

The SPLC article that feminists now cite as a declaration that the MRM is a hate movement came out shortly after that spate of edit-based gas-lighting and the reddit discussion. The speech it describes as hateful and misogynistic could just about only be what was presented after editing those posts.

Now, the SPLC itself is just a mouthpiece for the American left, for whom identity politics represents a major cash cow... and though they didn't apply the requested label, I believe the article is evidence that the organization was influenced by those demands from reddit feminists.

Even when the SPLC didn't do what feminists were asking, feminists immediately began citing the article to back the claim that the organization had labeled men's rights "a" hate group. They did that so quickly that I suspect we weren't even on the SPLC's radar until feminists started complaining about us, and that feminists have been bent on that goal (using the "hate group" label to discredit our advocacy) from the first time they heard of us.

The feminist derailing fallacy


Feminists abuse the term "derailing" as a tool to avoid information that contradicts an opinion, belief, or attitude they want to promote. While the term ordinarily refers to taking a discussion off on an unrelated tangent, feminists instead use it to describe any speech that contradicts one of their assertions. They rely on mislabeling relevant information as irrelevant and a distraction in order to protect disinformation from scrutiny and potential contradiction. It is like a line from The Wizard of Oz; "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

This exploitation of the term is rooted in a combined sense of ownership and entitlement to dictate public opinion. These ideologues believe, in all seriousness, that they own women and by extension, all gender issues. Therefore they feel morally exempt from being questioned or contradicted in assertions they make on our behalf, even when engaging the public in a dialogue led by an unsupported and potentially damaging claim.

One of the more ridiculous examples of this is their response to women who refuse to be fodder for the movement's ideological declarations. Feminists begin issue discussions with pronouncements like twitter's #yesallwomen, intended as blanket statements which generalize the experiences and beliefs of some women to all women. None of us are permitted under their worldview to disagree with their narrative about our lives, our experiences, our needs, wants, and beliefs. When we do we are silenced by a special brand of projection, accused of doing that which we're protesting. Feminists attempt to silence dissenting women by shouting us down with accusations that women who, in describing our experiences, question or contradict their dogma are "talking over other women to deny their experiences."

In other words, feminists are claiming that their experience of having ideological beliefs about women's lives is a more valid description of us than our own experience of living them. They use that claim to treat any resistance to their appropriation of our voices as an attack, rather than a defense against a presumptuous violation of personal boundaries.

Another example which is equally ridiculous is their response when their advocacy for a gendered government approach to a genderless issue is contradicted. The method is very similar to that used with women who refuse to be feminism's props. The accusation of derailing is used to shout down the voices of men and boys by treating their experience of conditions or circumstances, no matter how common, as an intrusion on what feminists want to portray as uniquely female experiences. The purpose in this case to sneak bigoted marginalization of men and boys past public scrutiny so that lobbying efforts for discriminatory law and policy will not be recognized for what they are.

This pretense has been a very effective tool for feminists desiring to enforce an ideological monopoly on gender issues discussion, especially, but not exclusively, in the areas of intimate partner and sexual violence. It has been used not only to shut dissenting voices out of feminist discussions, but also discussions involving the general public, discussions in academic and professional settings, and in the legislative process.

This is how American feminists manipulated the public and legislators into accepting a change from the genderless Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 to the female-specific, feminist research and training funding Violence Against Women Act of 1994. When men's advocates call for equal funding for assistance for men, feminists treat it as an attempt to siphon funds away from female victims they've convinced legislators and the public are more numerous and more in need. And to maintain that illusion, they accuse anyone offering evidence of female perpetration and male victims of "derailing" discussion about female experiences and female needs.

This tactic relies on two things: The fear of being seen as disruptive and rude, and the promise that diplomacy will result in some form of cooperative good will between these ideologues and the groups against whom they have used it. Feminists have demonstrated over and over that the former is going to happen regardless of when and where we speak, and the latter is simply a false hope. Believing they own these discussions, feminists invade and attempt to impose their ideological beliefs on any discussion about issues related to gender, and even many which are not. The only way for nonfeminists to have open discussion that is not dominated by feminist rhetoric and feminist sensibilities is to simply have it; to refuse to allow such accusations to shut us down. Speak up. Don't let feminists have a monopoly all discussion on gender issues.

Dear Wikipedia, no I don't plan on donating

Among other problems with it, Wikipedia's bias problem is a men's rights issue.
During the last few years the men's issues community has seen Wikipedia articles on gender issues targeted by feminists to create a biased source that can be used as backup for feminism's claims about everything from various gender issues themselves to the men's rights community and specific men's advocates. Feminist-leaning editors have banded together to shut other editors out of writing and influencing the choice of content.

The same thing has occurred with #gamergate, with Wikipedia's coverage of the topic including information that is demonstrably false and excluding information in order to support an inaccurate, negative portrayal of #gamergate's consumer revolt.

The bias stretches across topics of all kinds, wherever the site's biased editors find it politically prudent to limit the information presented in order to frame an article in their own political bias. Public figures, historical events, organizations, and even abstract concepts have been subjected to this treatment, making the site worthless as a source of information unless the reader is trying to support a similar bias. Even then, its credibility undercut by its own editors, Wikipedia's value as a source has been destroyed.

In the past, I've written to ask what can be done about the site's political bias problem. Administrators showed no interest in addressing it. Now they're having a donation drive. I thought it would be appropriate to let the staff involved with collecting donations know why I can't see participating in it as a wise choice. Given that the admins' previous response was "well this is just how we do things," I do not expect my one letter to have much impact. However, I'd bet that if their donations drop and they hear from a lot of consumers that rampant political bias on the site is why, they may have to take a second look at the problem.

My email, sent to donate@wikimedia.org, Wikipedia's contact address for issues with donating to the site:

My issue with donating to your site is not a technical one. It's a consumer complaint.
For years I've been researching and writing for various blogs and other publications. I have learned during that time that it is easy to find backup for anything a writer with a political bias wants to insert into an article. It's easy to ignore available information in order to frame an article to promote a political outlook. This is a thing that writers for political blogs often do. It's expected, and it's why readers should question what they read in those publications.
It should not, however, be a thing that writers for publications presented as reference material do. For reference material to be of any value, a reader should be able to trust that its presentation of information is complete, untainted by bias, and factual. It should present confirmed information without prejudice and allow readers to do their own evaluation of its meaning and importance.
Unfortunately your site does not do that.
Editors with a political bias have largely taken over the portions of Wikipedia which can be either categorized as or even remotely related to politics or the social sciences. Not only have they inserted bias into the writing on these topics, they have crowded out other editors in order to avoid being subject to any oversight on their work. When biased writing on the site is questioned, these biased editors treat that as harassment or sabotage of their work, and use Wikipedia's popular-opinion-weighted vetting process to censor dissenting editors.
This behavior calls the entire site's credibility and usefulness into question. I cannot use any Wikipedia articles as original reference material for any of my writing, as I cannot be certain without checking their work myself whether I'd be citing factual information, or quoting an ideologue's biased opinion. Instead, if I use the site at all, it's to search through your editors' sources as a starting point for online searches to see if I can get more complete information than your editors are willing to present. I might as well be doing the research for their articles myself.

I discourage my kids from using the site as an academic source except, again, as a starting point if they're having trouble figuring out what to search when doing their own research.
I don't see any sense in supporting such roughshod, useless work. It would would be a terrible waste of money; if I am going to pay someone to do my research for me it would be wiser and more productive to buy access to a more established encyclopedia site.

I am terribly disappointed to see this happen to Wikipedia. It is with that disappointment and much regret that I inform you that as long as your site's administrators tolerate the biased editing and censorship of dissent, I'm afraid I simply cannot be one of your donors.

Feminism, your Freudian slip is showing




On April 2nd, Adèle Mercier, Associate Professor of the Queen's University Department of Philosophy, commented in reply to Alison Tieman's comment on a Queens University Paper letter to the editor.

Alison had responded to the letter, in which the author argued that men's issues discussion shouldn't take place outside feminist oversight, with information and statistics that feminists ignore when choosing to demonize all men as potential rapists while denying female perpetration.

Adele's response specifically targeted Alison's discussion on sexual abuse against boys in juvenile facilities in the U.S., where a 2012 study found that 95% of them reported female perpetrators.

Adele responded with exactly the same types of rape apology that feminists accuse the general public of using to excuse raping women and girls, quoting text from the study describing how adult staff at juvenile facilities engaged in sex with inmates as a REBUTTAL to the statement that the youth housed there were victimized.

Appalled at the way Adele, in her comment, had treated incarcerated youth as if they were able to give meaningful consent to staff in positions of authority over them, wrote about the discussion in A Voice For Men, and talked about it in a video on her channel.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/professor-adele-mercier-it-wasnt-rape-he-was-asking-for-it-queensjournal/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBNQPJ0UTCg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfZWUDxmaog

For the record

Note to readers visiting from the link in the comment section of Manboobz: You may find this relevant.

I've been noticing it for a while... talking about it for a while, and replying as best I can when it happens; an influx of feminist posters, commenters, and voters in reddit's /r/mensrights. I've seen that other MRAs have started to notice it, too, so I decided to do a search in the sub using the word feminist, and highlight some of the posts which either were troll posts, or included a lot of feminist trolling.

Read: that means if your post is included in this list, that doesn't necessarily mean I think you are a troll. Before anyone gets hurt feelings, look through not just the post itself, but the comments underneath, or look through the list to see if your post (or the comment response) is part of a pattern I'm noting. I've tagged some posts to make it easier to see, but I don't have time to go through and tag everything.   
There are several, including (but not limited to)

  • "Feminism is your friend. You just don't understand." (Can't we all just get along?)
  • "Not All Feminists Are Like That" (NAFALT)
  • Tone policing, including "don't criticize feminism," "you sound whiny," "you sound misogynistic," etc.
  • "You're not good enough" (You're not doing anything. You're not helping group X. You're not talking about topic Y.)
  • Attempts to sneak feminist rhetoric into the sub
  • Divide and Conquer - attempts to create animosity or other conflict between /r/mensrights and other groups, or deny that the men's rights movement includes groups that are included in the movement (like gay men's rights, or trans rights.)
  • Fishing - posting something inflammatory or carefully worded to create an emotional response in order to facilitate quote mining.

   
That also means that if there's a lot of feminist support in the comments, that doesn't necessarily mean I don't think the post is a troll post, either - it may well be. Rather than placing a label, I'm simply tracking patterns.  
  
This post is not intended to call any specific redditor out (though if I have someone tagged as SRS or AMR, that's not getting removed from your name when I post it here.) Nor is it complete. There are posts I remember responding to in the past that I did not find using this method, so this entry will be periodically updated as I am able to go back and find those, as well. I have seen 2 to 4 a month up until the last few weeks, when there has been a dramatic increase, as far as I can tell.  
   
If you see posts you think belong here, PM me on reddit or leave a comment here, and I'll update. 

*note - I've recently added links to several self-posts which are all variations on asking if the MRM supports gay rights, or claiming it doesn't and asking why. If you see your post here, it doesn't mean I'm calling your post a troll post. It is simply that we're seeing the same self-posts over and over on this topic, with small variation, and that's a pattern.


Why is feminism discussed so much on this subreddit? (self.MensRights)
submitted by futfootballer  /u/AMRthroaway linked to AMR


i don't understand (self.MensRights)
submitted 21 Apr 2014 by aerxo17

So, I've been calling feminist groups in Canada about my effort to open more men's shelters, and have been pleasantly surprised. (self.MensRights)
submitted 19 Apr 2014 by William_Red
/r/againstmensrights vote manipulation used to boost feminist-friendly comments to top of thread

An example of feminism done right. (self.MensRights)
submitted by Broken_Castle 

Are men's rights in the US really being impinged upon? How? (self.MensRights)
submitted 17 Apr 2014 by MyUnpopularThoughts

submitted by Zacky007

submitted by DemonicHeartYeah, no.
Privilege as a cattle prod

(51|29) submitted by dullboy9000
(92|28) submitted 08 Apr 2014 by adevil

(8|6) submitted 08 Apr 2014* by SemperFlea
(Visits MR subreddit, totally misses the fact that many MRAs ARE women)

(51|21) submitted by OttersAreSuperCool
submitted by Kuramo

submitted 03 Apr 2014 by jcoe-in which wreckedsomething admits, in a roundabout way, to regularly violating reddit's rules on vote-manipulation.
This comment amounts to the claim that linking to a comment in a thread equals vote brigading, 


It also comes from someone who regularly links to /r/mensrights.
Now, one can reasonably argue that linking to a comment does not constitute brigading, especially when the link is an np (nonparticipation) link. However, one can't so reasonably argue that one who says that linking to a comment is done for the purpose of brigading is innocent of attempting to brigade when linking to a comment.

What does being a male rights activist mean to you? (self.MensRights)
submitted by appleeyed

(3|8) submitted by Prankster_Bob

submitted by OMoraine

submitted  by rocelot7

submitted  by nonhiphipster

submitted  by Mohaan

(43|32) submitted by Mouon

submitted by Winter_of_Discontent

(7|5) submitted by murtaza64

submitted by typhonblue 
Brigaded


(40|14) submitted 13 Feb 2014 by RelentlesslyDead
Not calling this a troll post by any means, but part of a pattern. I have noticed that periodically, there's a post like this with a lot of replies from names I don't see a lot in the sub.

(50|37) submitted 13 Feb 2014 by XisanXbeforeitsakiss
This is not a troll post, but it links to a post that goes along with a pattern I've seen with young accounts claiming to have visited /r/mensrights, read unspecified posts, and come to the conclusion that the sub and sometimes the movement is anti-some factor, usually something it's politically incorrect to oppose or criticize. When called the anti-factor claim, they offer replies that boil down to "you disagreed with something I or someone else said that I or they linked to (whatever the factor was) and therefore you're anti-(that factor.) Following an original post along the lines of "I had subjective experience X as a factor-1 person, therefore conclusion," MRAs may argue that the experience is subjective, that factor-1 doesn't make the experience applicable to everyone, or that the conclusion is based on some other flawed thinking. That is cited by anyone supporting the poster's stated conclusion as an indication that the sub is anti-factor-1, not because it's an indication of such, but because that's easier to do than make arguments supporting the conclusion. I've seen being gay or female as the factor a lot, but the trend lately seems to be using "I'm transgender" instead.

submitted  by lolbye2
(1|8) submitted  by jcoe

submitted  by throwaway41823

submitted by lolbye1

submitted  by Vladith

submitted  by smariroach

 submitted  by Dexter77
Brigaded

submitted  by [gutless snot who deleted their account almost immediately]


submitted  by guywithaccount

submitted  by transsisterradio

submitted  by gblr


submitted 29 Dec 2013 by Apemazzle

submitted 29 Dec 2013 ago by slu-g

submitted by stillissitting

A letter to the men's rights movement (dearnonacepeople.tumblr.com)
submitted ago by ezra811

submitted by summersanne
The short version: "I'm a trans-woman who entered life as a woman carrying a belief in the concept of male privilege, and have interpreted all of my experiences as confirmation of it. Since I'm trans, you now have to believe in male privilege."

Bonus: Brigaded by /r/againstmensrights.

submitted 18 Dec 13 by [deleted]
(OP didn't even stick around for a day.)

Why did sillymod remove the Occidental College post?" Let me tell you why. (self.MensRights)
submitted 17 Dec 13 by sillymod
Vote and comment brigaded by SRS, AMR, and SRD
Also, I was able to get an interesting result by engaging AMR trolls in discussion under the post.

submitted by infinette

submitted by relaxandenjoy

submitted by NickAckerman

submitted ago by buddyloveshispie


submitted  by 11thGRADEteacher

submitted by WheyDaBusAt

submitted  by Titsout4theboiz

(6|11) submitted by IjustcametosayAnyang
Divide and Conquer

submitted  by Horrorbuff2
Divide and Conquer

submitted by deathbutton1

submitted ago by zwirlo
 
submitted  by a_personification

submitted 15 Nov 2013* by Ultraoctopus

submitted 04 Nov 2013 by macnalley

submitted by perfectdesignNot a troll post, but the post itself was trolled in the comments.

submitted 22 Oct 2013 by nocbl2

submitted  by Smallpaul

submitted 10 Oct 2013 by thighproblem

submitted by NeonPiggy

submitted by ZerowithanH

(2|3) submitted by hhoburg

(109|30) submitted by onetenth

(11|9) submitted  by WheyDaBusAt

(8|10) submitted by Mishap89

submitted  by Anonaux

submitted 19 Sept 2013 by seego79

submitted 17 Sept 2013 by stageflight

submitted on by __banana
I'm not ready to say "pattern" after just 2 "let's associate MR with TRP posts, but still...
Divide and Conquer

submitted by didosrevenge

Hi. People on this site seem to talk about feminists a lot, but..
submitted on by Kate150

submitted 22 Aug 2013 by PinkiePo

A little confusion maybe you can clear up? (self.MensRights)
submitted  by punxpunx54"I've seen the term "red pill" thrown around here. Does this refer to the subreddit, or is it referring to the phrase as an alternative to "having my eyes opened"?
What are the general thoughts about the sub TRP and the manhood academy?"

submitted 06 Aug 2013 by recentlyunearthed

submitted 4 August 2013 by No_Fudge

Infographic: 40% of rapists are female (i.imgur.com)
 submitted submitted on by Frankly_No
Brigaded.


submitted by CosmicKeys
This is not a spam or troll post, but instead describes brigading that has happened in relation to discussion on the Anita Sarkeesian videos.


submitted by 6aerataob
Tone Policing, Divide and Conquer 

submitted by KGBway

 Brigaded, Tone Policing

submitted by HappyGerbil88
Tone Policing: Attempts to use term "Misogynistic" in describing men's rights blogs to poison MRAs against outspoken Men's rights bloggers. 

(103|41) submitted by Little_maroon_alien

submitted by MrScolex

submitted by indigotrip

(15|20) submitted by bubbleearth

submitted  the_shakeweight

(11|8) submitted  by MaunderingMoose

submitted by Camerinthus

(7|3) submitted by turiyag

submitted by ddxxdd
Brigaded 

submitted by mramrs

submitted by mehjbmeh

submitted by videoninja

submitted by fecal_encephalopathy
Tone Policing, NAFALT

submitted  by HalfysReddit

submitted by DaNiceguy
Heavily Brigaded.

submitted by royzin

submitted 29 Apr 2013 by lost-and-confused-

submitted  by GanbatteSisyphus

submitted by Tsaxmafia

   submitted  cypherdtraitor
NAFALT, but guys, it's a graphic so believe it! 
 

submitted 20 Apr 2013 by Typicaledgyname
Day old account, depressing message, maybe not a troll, but it sure looks like one.

(2|5) submitted by ga13be

submitted by mattblau

submitted by DerFisher
(Originally linked from /r/mensrights. Post removed by OP, who didn't like responses to it.)

(7|5) submitted  by GregoryPanic
Not a troll or brigade - just shows that there are MRAs who do not know everything feminism has done.

submitted 13 Apr 2013 by Kingle0nidas
Brigaded.

submitted by memymineown
OP is longstanding MRA, but post invaded by trolls due to subject matter.

(3|4) submitted  by NEET_Here

submitted by feminazi_ftw

submitted by vaselinepete

submitted on by nobodysothername
(wonder why a sub where gay rights does get discussed keeps getting asked if gay rights are part of the discussion?)
submitted 27 Mar 2013 by WikipediaBrown

submitted on by yourblacksister

(23|24) submitted on by nutflushdraw
This one is pretty ridiculous, apparently posted just to give SRSers a place to circlejerk in the sub. Regularly posting MRAs are downvoted into hiding, while the top voted comment is a blatantly feminist viewpoint not actually related to the sub or the movement. Not even sure what kind of an effect they thought this effort would achieve.

submitted by sherylintexas

submitted by HalfysReddit

(93|46) submitted on by smallsmerry01

submitted by NemosHero
submitted  by bravestlittletoaster

(690|143)submitted by icamefromtumblr

(656|133) submitted by SUPERSMILEYMAN
Fishing
This is not an MR regular. The wording of the post itself is rather fake - it's like a parody of "women behaving badly" posts, intended to set off comments. I think this one is trolling with intent to inspire speech which can be labeled "hate speech."

(128|21) submitted by gingerninjer2
I very strongly suspect this of being designed to get people's facebook profile information.

(3|1) submitted  by ElfmanLV

(46|19) submitted by eosri1

(327|94) submitted  by MercedezBento

(3|8) submitted by goddessworshipper


(3|0) submitted  by kwyjibo1230

submitted  by somethingofdoom

(9|13) submitted by XWindX

(13|0) submitted by They_Killed_Kenny

(12|10) submitted  by occupythekitchen

(28|17) submitted 02 Feb 2013 by viganhe005

(87|65 ago by ezra_epwell

submitted 26 Jan 2013 by T-rex_with_a_gun


submitted  ago by ExiledSenpai

submitted  by FEMANON_HERE
This thread is a response to the one listed below, contains vote brigading and a shitload of feminist apologists.


submitted  by DougDante This thread contains vote brigading and feminist apologists.

(4|2) submitted by SpaghettiLeftovers
(5|3) submitted  by morty369
      (Why can't we all just get along?)   (Again)

submitted  by kelloo
Post highlights the fraud behind Rosie the riveter poster. Issue is obvious - Rosie wasn't up to "equal work."
Immediately garnered "this is not a men's rights issue" and a brigade.

(11|8) submitted  by arrace415
Essentially, "I'm a feminist... please stop posting the Kanin study. I believe it's invalid because it used methodology similar to that used by feminists (small sample size), because Kanin was ethical, because it's based on women admitting that they lied, because polygraphs were used. The bottom line - (aside from the polygraph bit, which I can buy, but which doesn't carry the argument by itself) still the same old feminist crap about considering a rape accusation true if it isn't proved false, or guilty until proven innocent. Further, arrace415 asserts that a rape report is not an accusation, and that the accused isn't harmed by the report - a statement that assumes that every false report never gets past the paper stage, as if the accuser never says anything outside of the report itself. This completely ignores the effects caused by leveling such a serious charge. Conclusion: Troll trying to stop a useful argument from being circulated.

(1|2) submitted 02 Jan 2013 by curlymeatball38

As a feminist, thank you r/MensRights. (self.MensRights)
(106|49) submitted 01 Jan 2013 by HereToHumilateAFrand

submitted 01 Jan 2013 by thefran
 - heavily concern trolled by feminists  

Can We Try To Focus on Men's Rights, not "I Hate Feminists!" jokes? (self.MensRights)
(1649|610) submitted 30 Dec 2012 by absolutekraze

(25|11) submitted 29 Dec 2012 by Fisto27

(15|12) submitted by JaguscothSRS


7 Tactics Used by Academic Feminists To Suppress Information (self.MensRights)
(624|169) submitted by actanonverba8 
Brigaded

Why Feminism will always be the enemy (self.MensRights)(90|74) submitted by DavidByron
(comment section)Where Girlwriteswhat gets downvote brigaded by /r/againstmensrights for asserting that effective birth control is better than ineffective birth control

(17|14) submitted  by prettylittledaggers 

Something i think we all should read because i feel this means that our two groups are able able to reach a common ground.(MRAs and Feminists) Xpost to /r/Feminism (chicagonow.com)
(256|72) submitted  by Inbefore121

Men's Rights vs. Feminism vs. Egalitarianism (self.MensRights)
(17|14) submitted 24 Dec 2012 by DJ_Fleetwood_MacBook

what do you look for in a partner? (self.MensRights)
(8|4) submitted 22 Dec 2012 by hentaipolice 

(41|38) submitted 20 Dec 2012 by jawndisease


(40|28) submitted by ArchangelleFascist

(11|18) submitted by pretzelzetzel

(26|22)submitted by Jernlov

I'm both a feminist and a MRA. (self.MensRights)
(111|68) submitted by TheCameraLady

A question from an outsider. (self.MensRights)
(20|16) submitted by carpetpowder

Why do we have Men's Rights and Feminist Groups? Why not Gender Equality groups? (self.MensRights (8|11) submitted  by Skwalin 

A discussion on the word feminism. (self.MensRights)
(5|5) submitted  by ottawadeveloper 

 (7|10) submitted 04 Dec 2012 by Skwalin 

After just finding this sub a few days ago, I have some things I feel that I need to say, and would really love all your feedback. (self.MensRights)
(8|10) submitted  by duck97 


Well this is new. A feminist forum bringing awareness of men's rights issues, but still calling it feminism.(i.imgur.com)
(301|52) submitted  by idontgiveitout
Not a troll post, but feminists converged on it to try to out-shout MRAs.

I'm a little confused (self.MensRights) 
(32|10) submitted  by Tatshua 

submitted 28 Nov 2013 by 11thGRADEteacherFishing
I could be wrong, and this could just be a badly concluded paper, but the presentation of it here in this manner makes this post look to me like a quote-mining effort instead of a genuine attempt to get a paper graded, as it would provide a quote-miner with the ability to refer back to it later and twist people's comments into "MRAs support refusing to prosecute anyone accused of acquaintance rape," which will in turn be stretched to mean "MRAs support rape."

What do you people actually believe? (self.MensRights)
(20|21) submitted 19 Nov 2012 by jonahofscott 

Why is Men's Rights so anti-women/anti-feminist? (self.MensRights)
(9|18) submitted  by DerpinaTheThird 
    See also this post


(124|40) submitted  by femquestionthr 

(69|31) submitted  by Thermodynamo 

(269|55) submitted 03 Oct 2012 by deerp 
(8|10) submitted  by MRdaBakkle

(14|15) submitted  by ADevilNamedBen

Do you think Feminists can ever get along with MRA's? (self.MensRights)(16|9) submitted  by Species_0002

(41|33) submitted 22 Aug 2012 by toptrool

MR, what's your biggest "feminist" belief, or opinion that wouldn't mesh well with other MRA's? (self.MensRights)
(31|15) submitted 16 Aug 2012 by 12431 

I'm an aspiring equity feminist and I have some questions for you. (self.MensRights)(28|27) submitted  by PurpleVNeck

Female with a question about alliance-building around gender equality (self.MensRights)
submitted 01 Aug 2012 by tmesispieces 

(39|11) submitted 8 Jul 2012 by MrShenanigans

Feminists converged on this post to play victim Olympics over circumcision:  
 (661|186) submitted 14 Jun 2012 by shmittywerber 

(12|14) submitted 08 Jun 2012 by trombodachi 

(50|22) submitted 29 May 2012 by glass_hedgehog  

Not a troll post, but this one has been concern tolled by feminists

Isn't this subreddit getting kind of biased? (self.MensRights)
(13|23) submitted 23 May 2012 by FF15 

A quick word on feminists (self.MensRights)
(35|9) submitted 01 May 2012 by nlakes
 Appeal for more diplomatic feminist labels in discussion.
  
Why are we talking about (radical) feminists? (self.MensRights)(58|21) submitted 14 Apr 2012 by Police_Murdering_Us

(35|37) submitted 11 Apr 2012* by muckette

Do you hate Feminists? (self.MensRights)
 (24|29) submitted 31 Mar 2012* by Fluffy_Fsh 

(38|17) submitted 31 Mar 2012* by radiojojo

I'm new to Men's Rights and I am a feminist. Now that we have that out of the way, I want to let you know that I (and I believe most feminists my age) agree with the basic tenets of MRAs, if not the language and attitude of it.

(34|19) submitted 30 Mar 2012 ago by kratistos 


This subreddit needs to shake off its anti-women reputation for the sake of these issues being taken seriously. (self.MensRights)
(574|233) submitted 04 Mar 2012 by steam-pug 

(34|19) submitted 10 Feb 2012* by newsgentry 

I support complete gender equality, but the attitude towards feminism here is a bit disappointing... (self.MensRights)
(25|27) submitted 05 Jan 2012* by hippiechan

A suggestion for MensRights to maybe help the dialogue. (self.MensRights)
(13|14) submitted  by dangerousbirde 

Feminists for men's rights (self.MensRights)
(13|18) submitted * by feminazibitchyoumad 

So are gay men's rights somehow less important than straight men's rights? (self.MensRights)
(22|23) submitted  by rabbaroo

(332|113) submitted  by iamunstrung

(44|38) submitted  * by conn1e

I'm sorry, but I just had to say something. I'm sick of all these threads complaining about 'stupid feminist' and 'feminazis' and whatever other derogatory crap you want to throw at women who believe in equality for them.
I love this forum, it's great, men get kicked around some times too. This should be fought for too. But don't sink to the same low as these women who think they're feminists, but arn't, and slander men.
A true feminist just wants a fair go, she wants to work as hard as you (at WHATEVER, except maybe something like sport that is just genuinely unfair due to anatomy). This includes working when she's got her period, or pregnant. She's not a princess bitching about how men don't kiss her feet.
Don't slander feminists, they're supporting you. We can't be equal if men aren't.
Edit: Um wow. This is exactly what I needed to understand. I was angry because I lacked insight, into men's AND women's rights. I don't have the sheer power to reply to you all but once again, thankyou. I feel a bit emotional. I think I need to do a bit of reflection.
TL;DR, I am equalitarian. :)

Preparing for massive downvotes, but would like to share my opinion (self.MensRights)
(702|412) submitted  * by joannchilada
 (NAFALT)
I know many MR readers *really* don't like feminists, but I thought this was an interesting study (self.MensRights)(5|9) submitted * by a_curious_koala

A question from an employee of a "feminist" non-profit (self.MensRights)
(10|3) submitted by GoingTo

With one click... help hungry and homeless veterans. The Veterans Site.




















google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html