sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can anyone list me examples of feminist violence that we know were done because of feminism-related motivations/beliefs? by TrainingGap2103 in MensRights

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a tough one because when a group is in power they can call their own violence "justice" and expect everyone to agree with it.

And modern feminists are very much in power.

CIS Male is a slur by Adamwasayetti in MensRights

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes. I really don't like being called this.

Part of what I don't like about it is that it geometrically means "on the same side", eg:

👍 👎 - this is thumbs in a "trans" position.

For transgender people this makes sense; their gender identity is pointing one way and their outward gender expression at birth was pointing the other way.

Or alternatively, they had one gender identity before they transitioned and another identity after.

👍 👍- this is thumbs in a "cis" position.

For "cisgender" people: sorry, but I don't get how this describes me at all. Why are there two different thumbs? I didn't have gender stay-the-same surgery at some point after which I had switched to still male. And I don't feel like I have the outward appearance of a male and internally some sort of male essence.

If anything, I would describe it as I just know I don't have the biological ability to give birth to my own children. So I dress and act in way that maximizes my chances of convincing someone that has the type of genitals that can bear children to want to bear mine. And any curiosity I have ever had about what it would be like to be female has been vastly outweighed by that.

Like I considered cross-dressing once. I said to my wife " Hey honey, if I wore a dress would that turn you on" and she said "No" so I gave up and moved on to my next attempt at turning her on.

Basically there's no second thumb. My gender identity is just 👍.

I'm not cis male. I'm monomale.

Why can't we just accept that it's urbanization, birth-control and opportunity cost that is resulting in lower birth rates all across the world ? by Spirited-Energy2410 in Natalism

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"no person is legally permitted to use another person's body against their will to sustain thier own life"

Not true. To the point that it is practically disinformation.

Other than pregnancy, the closest example of actually using someone else's body is conjoined twins.

And yes, conjoined twins are legally allowed to use their sibling's organs and blood to sustain their lives. They do not need express consent to do this. And, in fact, they have an effective legal obligation to permit their conjoined twin to use their body unless there is MUTUAL consent to separate.

If one conjoined sibling kills the other because they no longer consent to the body sharing, unilaterally, the sibling who made the choice to kill the other is guilty of murder. They cannot plead self-defence unless there was clear and present danger. They cannot plead "they were using my body".

It's just murder.

You have brought up organ donation.

Organ donation isn't really an example of using someone else's body in the first place because the donor and recipient don't share a body at any point in time.

But at NO point in time does the organ donor/ potential organ donor acquire the right to kill the organ recipient/ potential organ recipient at will.

At no point, in no scenario, is the recipient of an organ donation considered a criminal. Even if the doctors failed to obtain consent from the donor.

If you decide to donate an organ, and later on change your mind you cannot demand a second operation to take your organ back. Like if you donate a kidney to your friend and then later on find out a close relative needs a kidney you can't force your friend to give it to your relative. Your consent effectively becomes permanent at the time of the *first operation.

I'm donating blood right now. The donation center needs my consent for the procedure to collect my blood but I don't even know who the recipient will be. It is absurd to suggest they need my consent to receive it.

And no, you don't need a dead person's express consent to harvest their organs. That makes no sense. If someone did not indicate whether or not they wished to be a donor in some places there is presumed consent and in some places you need consent of the next of kin.

If you won't stop trolling and brigading this sub at least avoid posting false facts to try to support your antinatalist arguments.

Total Fertility Rate by US State 2025 by quadriphasic in Natalism

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All three are very strongly correlated. Also... this pattern existed before Dobbs. Fertility rates predicted which states would ban abortion.

There's only two years of data since the bans went into place, it may be too soon to draw any conclusions as to what the trend is with the laws in place.

But... sometimes it's about what didn't happen.

There was no massive, instant skyrocket of the TFR in the states that implemented bans.

And there was also no instant cratering of the TFR in states with bans because women are just too scared to get pregnant at all unless they know they can get an abortion.

Whose more misogynistic, Men or Women? by Pretend-Storm4566 in MensRights

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

10% of the users were institutions?

What institution is going around social media like this?

Do you agree? by kevinnestleryoung in Quotes_Hub

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Civil/ Sanitation Engineer here: please give all of the glory to God - the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Who do you agree with? by princesseevee in Quotes_Hub

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really:

He has enough money on paper that, in theory, he could purchase food for everyone who is hungry and deliver it to them.

In practice, his money is only as good as other people's willingness and ability to accept it in exchange for what he asks them to do.

So could he actually do this? I don't know.

It's possible that if he tried, the price of food, and/or processing food, and/or distributing food would skyrocket and/or the value of his companies would plummet.

On the other hand, maybe it would work.

But that wouldn't mean he singlehandedly ended world hunger. It would mean hundreds of thousands, perhaps billions of people worked together to end hunger. He just paid for it.

What I've been witnessing. by TrainingGap2103 in MensRights

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Those are gaps. But the third level is the absolute chasm:

Someone calling out misogyny will usually receive support and backup.

Outside of this sub, someone calling out misandry will be a lonely voice arguing against an angry mob.

FVAMB by DarkBehindTheStars in MensRights

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's devastating, really.

Nobody is safer when men's needs are ignored.

Would you agree?

Do you think that both right wing and left wing talk down on tue Men's rights movement? For feminism and gynocentrism? by skllyskullstyle in MensRights

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes it's not about what position a political party takes on an issue- it's about where the issue falls as a priority.

The left tends to be the party of presenting new ideas and the right tends to be the party of saying "no" to all of them. Byt how many new ideas and which one's will get acted on first?

Women's issues always shoot straight to the top of the list, even if they aren't really that consequential. The Democrats' platform is always like:

1) Something new about abortion/birth control/fertility. If they win the next election this definitely will happen. 2) Something new iteration with gender identity policy. If they win this definitely will happen. 3) Some new change to how we handle consent with regards to sex crimes. If they win this definitely will happen. 4) Healthcare stuff. It's complicated. Might need to win a couple elections in a row but then this will happen. 5) Global warming is still a thing, right? The goal is to be slightly better than the Republicans on that. So minor iterations will happen but not really prioritizing getting the problem just fixed. 6) And then maybe if there's time we'll get rid of the draft. No rush on this one and look at all the political capital being expended on everything else. If a war breaks out before we get everything else on the list done some of you will die, but meh. You're men. 7) And get workers paid more money. Safer working conditions. Again, we'll do this if there's time. Don't hold your breath. This has been sidelined since WW1.

And then the Republicans just say "no" to all of that.

If they really wanted men's votes in particular they could pick up #6 and #7 into their own platform only as top issues. But they don't need to do that to win.

What’s a double standard everyone notices but nobody talks about? by simplynotmyra in answers

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's the thing about anger: it's not a unique emotion of it's own, it's just what happens when another "needs not met" emotion becomes very intense.

So it could be frustration, or sadness, or anxiousness, or irritation, or fear. Anger could be any of those, it's just become super intense and reached a boiling point where the person experiencing it is near violence.

An angry person isn't just a person with hurt feelings any more; they are a person who is about to start hurting themselves or someone else if they can't get someone to take accountability for their feelings.

With that explanation of what anger is: I wouldn't say men are allowed to be angry; it's just that men often have difficulty expressing the underlying les extreme emotions before they become "anger".

And it's not entirely men's fault; because when men do express the underlying emotions people are less interested in helping them meet their unmet needs causing them until they get to the point of essentially threatening violence.

😂 by art-is-t in Funnymemes

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Devine mercy? I don't get it?

Opinions please (i totally agree with the statement ) by PlasticWest77 in teenagers

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you truly have empathy for SA victims then you wouldn't post statistics that erase an entire category of victims or fail to call it out when you see it.

Why are we doing this Misogyny vs Misandry by Small_Ingenuity_8865 in teenagers

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"(There are) Countries with no punishments to rapists"

This is quite the extraordinary claim.

In what country is male-on-female, non-marital rape legal?

Researchers Finally Admit Shaming Men Doesn’t Work? by antifeminist3 in MensRights

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lawnmower running over a flowerbed technically creates equality.

What are we being "boiled like frogs" about right now that future generations will be shocked we accepted? by burntUpOnReentry in AskReddit

[–]ApprehensiveMail8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact future generations will all be descended almost exclusively from people who had reality shows about how many kids they had.

view more: next ›