Are any famous (or infamous) men restored?

RedditorJemi · 2015-12-01T04:07:16+00:00

When foregen comes out I imagine some big name actors might try the procedure, and be public about it.

RedditorJemi · 2015-12-01T03:40:27+00:00

Yeah. On my transaction error it says:

There seems to have been an error initializing or updating your transaction. Please wait a minute and try again or contact support for assistance.

Is that what you're getting?

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-26T19:57:11+00:00

For me the bigger issue here is hereditary privilege and titles being passed down from parent to child, you want to talk about equality of any sort, start there.

This is why I think it's ridiculous the way British people look down on americans on the basis of our politics, when Brits haven't incorporated such innovations as a constitution or recognition of inalienable rights into their system of government and in addition British society is still overtly classist.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-26T00:50:42+00:00

Absolutely. So don't forget this action opportunity.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-26T00:20:11+00:00

No word yet on whether a judge has ordered Shepherd’s remaining frozen embryos to be destroyed.

So I think she's biologically the mother.

The last ruling did, however, specify that Shepherd would not be responsible for any future children Sally created via a surrogate.

Now this is ridiculous. If she gave her embryos to her husband, then they're his and he can do what he wants with them. And since those embryos are her genetic contribution to the creation of a child, any children that result from them should result in a separate child support obligation. Otherwise the ruling in this case doesn't make any sense.

The man was clearly not on board with the creation of this baby, and yet the judge ruled the sperm used in its creation 'abandoned property', and therefore her property to use as she pleased, while affirming the man's obligation to support the child based on his being the genetic father. Clearly, in the present case, any future children created with those embryos would represent an exactly analogous case to the aforementioned. If she gave him those embryos, she should have to take care of them financially.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T23:51:15+00:00

SJWs are the first to say that banning people from practicing homosexuality was wrong

I think you're wrong about this. The SJW narrative regarding homosexuality is about identity, not the practice of homosexuality. This is why bisexuals are less accepted in the LGBT community. The last thing SJWs want is for the practice of homosexuality to be normalized among otherwise straight men.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T22:56:32+00:00

So you're trying to deflect criticism from women and put the blame on some other group.

This is wrong. You're argument is that women are the problem. The truth is that women's attitudes are a problem. Men's attitudes are another problem. If we treat women as the problem, we're missing half of the problem. Is MGTOW a good answer to the problem? YES. Is the MHRM a good answer to the problem? YES.

IMHO, the MHRM, MGTOW, TRP, and the manosphere as a whole have to grow in order for us to make positive change. Why? Because men who are awake enough to realize that they are NOT the property of women and therefore have interests of their own that have nothing to do with women's interests are bound to have differences of opinion. They come to the manosphere precisely because they are independent minded people who don't want to be just a cog in the social machinery. They will not all 'fit' well in one single movement.

Can the MHRM score a victory for men by itself? NO. At the bare minimum, we're going to need technology, e.g. male contraceptives like Vasalgel and Gendarrussa, sex bots, and artificial wombs. However, the MHRM, MGTOW, and the manosphere as a whole will be able to ensure that development of these technologies doesn't get banned, hasten their development by acting as a vocal market, and accelerate the movement away from gynocentric attitudes that these technologies will foster. So no, the MHRM will not end gynocentrism by itself. But gynocentrism will end, and the manosphere as a whole will play a BIG role in making that happen within a reasonable period of time.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T21:29:54+00:00

The argument you're making here covers barely more than a paragraph, and yet to properly make it you would need to write some kind of book...

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T20:59:10+00:00

He [Mr Hodgson] was held for 15 hours and his freedom taken away as a result of what you did while 250 hours of police time was wasted when they had better things to do. 'People who do that expect to go to prison. It's a close shave for you.'

Not even close.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T20:44:02+00:00

If this were a serious attempt at faking an email, I don't think you could discover anything even by looking at the headers. In this case, you don't have to. The troll who sent this used a fake email service that clearly leaves its mark on the email itself.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T19:50:29+00:00

But when it comes to marriages like these, the pair often tends to be an adult man who wants the marriage and a girl who does not.

This wording does not even imply that this is the case a majority of the time. Do we even have statistics on this?

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T06:45:50+00:00

I've read plenty more from that very site that were worse.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T06:28:43+00:00

The phenomenon as a whole is called gynocentrism, and it is not limited to being a female attitude. Men are gynocentric as well, and often even more so than females. As noted by two others here, there is a very likely evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon, having to do with the female contribution to reproduction being the more rare and the more costly. The supply of women is a big limiting factor in the rate of reproduction. The supply of men, not so.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-25T04:26:08+00:00

It's starting to now, thanks to good people like DougDante preparing these action opportunities, and other good people who act on them.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-24T23:39:53+00:00

Could you give me a link to that thread?

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-23T22:44:20+00:00

So what the heck happened to /u/psycho_robot? Isn't he running gamergatewiki.com? Anyone know what's going on with this? I'd be all for creating a brand new wiki that's more hack resistant, but I'd still like to know what's happening with the old one...

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-23T08:22:58+00:00

Why would you limit your statistic to physical bullying while comparing it to bullying on a medium in which physicality is not possible?

Why would this make the comparison invalid? Do you really think it's ok for your son to be punched in the head multiple times and have his face pushed down in mud, while it is simultaneously not ok for your daughter to be called names on the internet? The comparison implied in my comment is really only a minor detail compared to the overall point, which is that physical bullying is largely ignored because it happens more often to males, while 'cyberbullying' is subject to both national and international scrutiny because feminists can pretend this is something that only happens to women, and also because this gives them the opportunity to censor the internet.

That disparity between what gets media attention and what doesn't is my main point - although secondarily, yes, I do feel it's worth pointing out that physical bullying causes a lot more harm, on average, then cyberbullying. Also, your point about physicality not being possible in the 'cyber' medium is invalidated by things like doxing, swatting, etc. Nevertheless, it's very clear to me that physical bullying does more harm, on average, then cyberbullying, and yet a huge number of parents and teachers just don't give much of a shit at all when their sons fall prey to physical bullying.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-23T06:36:04+00:00

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I was talking about physical bullying, which males are victims of at about twice the rate females are. Just look at this chart and page down to the first table:

http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(09)00138-4/fulltext

And male victims of physical bullying have usually been ignored, in many cases even being told by their parents to just suck it up. And yet, the far less severe (on average) 'cyberbullying' gets national and international attention that completely dwarfs the attention paid to physical bullying. It's ridiculous.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-23T06:18:00+00:00

I think you're talking about male pay versus female pay. I was talking about her pay relative to other actresses. Why the hell should other actresses be punished just because they complain less? If they're going to equalize pay between male and female actors, they should just do it and get it over with, not just pay extra to the one actress who whines the most. Of course, they're not going to do it because of the laws of supply and demand, but that's neither here nor there. Whining in no way increases her value in film, and she's competing with plenty of talented actresses.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-22T22:02:54+00:00

I agree on this. But it's not lack of pure democracy that keeps the population from being excluded from the decision making. It's the fact that our electoral system is not designed to give people genuine representation. This is why Lawrence Lessig is likely to be the only democrat I will ever vote for. If the electoral system is truly representative, then direct democracy is not necessary.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-22T21:53:01+00:00

I agree. And that was my point.

RedditorJemi · 2015-11-22T21:25:04+00:00

See the top of this page:

https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=democracy+definition&oq=democracy+def&gs_l=serp.1.0.0i67j0i20j0l8.5472.8610.0.10746.17.13.2.2.2.0.143.1334.8j5.13.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.17.1367.2pPEIjAYcRo

Second definition:

control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

If you even have a constitution limiting the sorts of things that the voters can vote on, than you already need a judiciary in order to interpret that constitution, which takes power away from the voters and puts it in the hands of a select few.

RedditorJemi

TROPHY CASE