Honestly, I hear way too much of that phrase online. Like a lot of mothers don't. No one ever talks about daughters being coddled and conversely sons being raised. Besides what about the fact that black sons are expected to be tough. Besides people act like black mothers can't love and coddle their own daughter. They can! By the way, this applies to other races of families too, not just black. People act like black daughters and other daughters can't be spoiled and black sons and other can't be raised.

I copypasted image into my post, submitted it - it got removed cause of "Your submission in MensRights was automatically removed because you used a "redd.it" shortlink. redd.it links are not permitted in MensRights as they impair our ability to enforce link blacklists."

Then i copypasted it into another draft again and it was published this second time. I just dont understand.

A sub dedicated to busting the myth that only men are violent -

https://www.reddit.com/r/WomenAreViolentToo/s/muWTYs615R

The second and probably last debate of the presidential season is in the record books, with more viewers tuning in to view the sparing match that developed between former president Donald Trump and vice-president Kamala Harris after Joe Biden left the race. The implication is this debate will be more impactful than that in which his weak performance signaled his exit from the contest.

This may very well be so, but the results may not be what many thought. Despite much fanfare over the results of several post-debate focus groups – some of which were conducted on a national basis – figures on the state level are beginning to tell a different story. Nationally Kamala Harris was considered the winner of last week's debate, recent polls out of various swing states however seem to actually put the former president in a better position to secure victory on November 5^(th).

Specifically data coming out of two critical “rust belt” states and the south signal Trump's performance may have been stronger than previously understood, with Harris' lack of specificity and nuance erking some voters. Take for example Pennsylvania, here a poll conducted by InsiderAdvantage between the 14^(th) and 15^(th) of September put Trump ahead 50 to 48. Though a poll from USAToday and Suffolk University conducted in the same period flipping the results giving Harris a three point lead in the state, but here some of these surveys' internals may make the difference.

Though in both the results were essentially too close to call the fact Trump came out on top in the poll with the greater number of participants and smaller margin of error (MoE) suggests Pennsylvanians were not swayed into Harris' camp and lean Trump. With the ex-president's persistent lead in polls fitting these criteria across the country perhaps indicating how the race will develop as such surveys tend to be considered more accurate.

In Michigan, that heartland of labor power, another new poll shows the former president ahead 49 to 48 after being behind in an average of three pre-debate polls in the state. All of which had margins of error less than 4% (as will all the polls examined here). Wisconsin being the region's outlier with Mr. Trump falling behind his rival there by 2 points in another InsiderAdvantage survey after having lead in a pair of large polls prior to the tenth.

The south seems to be reinforcing the trend with North Carolina seemingly moving towards Trump. A pair of surveys in the state with MoEs between 2.9 and 3.2% from the 11^(th) and 12^(th) of September conducted by AmGreatness/TIPP and Trefalger Group putting him abead there by two to three points. True this is again within the MoE, but it is also a notable improvement from an almost completely tied race there before the debate. Trump also seems to be holding onto a slim lead in Georgia of 1%, though here in recent polling both candidates seem to have lost support there.

Victory in these four states being enough to guarantee the nation's former leader victory in the election barring any unforeseen circumstances, and once the west is taken into consideration this advantage only grows. Developments in Arizona illustrating much the same trend as in Georgia with both candidates losing support but with the Mr. Trump still leading 47-46; his former lead of 49-47 in a trio of polls having thus shrunk but held on.

In contrast Nevadans opinions seem to have shifted to a more favorable position for Harris. With her candidacy eenjoying a 1% lead in the race there after being tied in the lead up to the debate according to Trafalger Group, the only publicly available poll conducted there since. This perhaps attributable to a positive judgement of her performance among service sector workers there, in contrast to the ex-president's support among staff in manufacturing endeavors.

Even so these snapshots of voter intentions in the swing states would if they held would suggest a victory for Mr. Trump, with his campaign scoring 296 electoral college seats to Harris' 242 under this scenario. And although many Americans were turned off by his debate performance something about it may have resonated among America's most undecided and thus consequential voters.

So I saw a post on the mensright subreddit of someone saying they were no longer gonna vote for Democrats because of the feminism Democrats support. I became curious to know where most MRA members stand on. Feminism is one of the reasons I was pushed to the right.

I used to consider myself a liberal a few years back, but now I consider myself a Libertarian-Conservative. I'm a bisexual Hispanic guy, and I was brainwashed by the woke mob online a few years back because they made me think every person who didn't agree with me back then was homophobic or racist. I stopped identifying as a liberal because of hypocrisy I saw on the left. Like feminists claimed they were against sexism, yet they were sexists towards men. Or anti-"racist" activists who claimed to be against racism while being racist towards white people. Tons of woke things made me move to the right.

I don't live in America, so I can't say I belong to any party, but if I were I'd be Republican because a lot of beliefs align with those of Republicans. And my beliefs also align with many right-wing parties from different countries around the world.

I'm not looking for political debate or convince you of my political beliefs, but I just wanted to ask this considering that feminism is left-wing, and we MRA members oppose what feminism has brought lately, so I became curious to ask where you guys stand on the political spectrum.

You've gotta admit it's super weird how there's this widespread impression that MRAs are far-right, homophobic hate groups when their largest subreddit actually seems too overzealous in promoting pro-LGBT messages and will outright censor overtly pro-conservative content.

Here are some examples I've noticed (if anyone wants, can provide further details to show I'm not exaggerating):

• They censored a post entitled One reason why men should vote for Trump in which a guy argued in favour of MRAs voting Trump and said Democrats were anti-male
• They then censored this one of that same guy complaining about getting censored, not before getting 151 upvotes and overwhelming support in the comments.
• They once censored a gay guy from Brazil who posted "am I becoming a conservative gay?" (since deleted by the user, but I know the mods removed it because they messaged me to say they did).
• They censored a post of mine entitled, How and why woke LGBT ideologies fail at empathy for men

Along with everything else, it seems they have a monolithic view of gay men and think supporting us means getting rid of anyone who doesn't abide by the majority view of the LGBT movement. Also, I'm pretty sure they reported me so hard that Reddit still automatically removes anything I post to any subreddit with "LGBT" or "Gay" in the title.

I get it, Feminism isn’t perfect, feminist aren’t perfect, and it is in our moral and legal right to criticize it. But I need to adress the elephant in the room, which is the constant Anti-Feminist circlejerking of this subreddit

The MRM is supposed to be about caring for men. We fight for father’s rights to see their children, we fight for the paper abortion, we fight against false accusations and the views that men must be an emotionless breadwinner and war meatshield. So why should we give a shit about what feminist believe about women? Why fan’t we just care about ourselves?

Because since I’ve joined this sub three years ago (And it was one of the first subreddits I was interested in), one thing that always bugged me was the Feminist scapegoating under every post, many times on the post itself. A law favorise women? Feminist are to blame. A politician said something insensitive about men? Feminism is the cause. A boy die or get raped by a woman? It’s because of feminism!

Like I get it, I also had bad experience and disagreements with feminist before, and that’s absolutely fine. It’s a good thing to have different opinions, and it’s normal. And nobody is perfect, that’s also fine. But we can’t just keep blaming them for everything that happen to a man

Because what’s happening is when we will have an opportunity to explain our views and concern to communities and movement outside of our own, we will be greeted with nothing but disgust, as the only thing people will see is a bunch of intolerant idiot protesting against a movement which gave women the right to freedom. I am not saying it’s a OK to judge someone for his apparence rather than his opinion, but that’s what is happening right now. We can all bitch about it, me being the first, but that’s the truth

I don’t expect this post to get received positively, but honestly I don’t mind. I just have to say it. We can’t keep hating on feminism forever, this is one of the main reasons why we are seen badly not only on Reddit, but as a whole

If we want ourselves to be heard with credibility and respect, we have to be tolerant about Feminism, and try as much as possible to discuss in respect. I repeat it, I am not saying Feminism is perfect and I’m not asking for MRAs to excuse the wrongdoing of feminism, but like when we say "Not all men", not all feminist are bad. And let’s prove to them that not all MRAs are bad

https://preview.redd.it/dbgc8837fkad1.png?width=1119&format=png&auto=webp&s=d288b0295fb28ceb29e9ad7c5bb7683fbcb2fff3

Just got this notification a little while ago ... lol.

Hi

I just had a post deleted. Link Can someone explain why?

Thanks

In just the last ten minutes I've seen several racists comments in posts here, including: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1d8rtrb/men_should_date_older_women/l78xxdw/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1d8tj8j/3yearold_dies_after_being_stabbed_by_a_32_year/l7902yx/. Are the mods asleep?

Edit: That's it. I'm out. As they say, if you're at a table with three racists, there are four racists at the table.

So I was just banned from r/interestingasfuck for being apart of r/MensRights . As they deem it a bad faith sub. They specifically said it was r/MensRights . Is there a way to hide the subs we follow ? I get many comments making many assumptions about my beliefs. I irony here is I do not go through peoples accounts looking for a reason to report people but they think it is a good idea.

Is reddit really this rotten ? I wasn't discussing men's rights. Most of the stuff there isn't even political in nature. So why exclude people who may differ in opinions and values ?

I will include a screenshot as this is messed up. Edit: Cannot see the option to add it.

Recently, one of my posts in r/MensRights was removed under the rule against doxxing, citing Reddit's terms of service as their reference for the rule. This was the result of accidentally uncensored usernames in a screenshot. While I understand the intention behind the rule and the importance of protecting personal information, I believe there are instances where this rule might be applied too broadly.

The screenshot in question was from a public comment section where individuals willingly made their comments. In such cases, there is undoubtedly no expectation of privacy as the comments were made publicly and voluntarily. Therefore, I don't see it as a violation of Reddit's terms of service regarding doxxing.

The stringent enforcement of rules against doxxing can inadvertently stifle meaningful discussion within the community. When individuals inadvertently forget to censor usernames, which I can guarantee is a common oversight, their posts often garner initial engagement from users who are eager to participate in the discussion. However, by the time moderators identify and remove the post for violating doxxing rules, a significant portion of potential interaction and engagement has already occurred. If the original poster decides to repost the content with the necessary edits, the subsequent interaction and audience reach are typically diminished, leading to less community environment and exposure. This cycle can discourage users from actively participating in discussions and sharing their perspectives, ultimately hindering the overall growth and dynamism of the subreddit.

I would appreciate a reconsideration of this rule. It may at times be better manners to censor a username, but in no way should it be an obligation in circumstances like that.

Firstly, in the description of r/MensRights, there is a warning that other subreddits' bots may ban anyone that posts here, err, there.

Why? Is that a common practice on Reddit?

Second, rule #4, regarding cross-linking. Does that mean that a post in r/MensRights can't be crossposted to... I don't know, the cooking channel? Or only that posts from other subreddits can't be linked, or crossposted, or whatever, here there?

Just got banned from r/MensRights for arguing logically and avoiding insults. Yet when it comes to unhinged anti-woman rants anything goes.

Earlier this week someone asked why the group has a bad reputation. I think it's clear.

My friend, who's a part of GE4TW, has created croudfunding for men's rights activism. Could you please kindly share this somewhere? He told they have not too good ideas how to advertise it, so if you can give any tips, she'd also be happy to hear.

https://www.firefund.net/protectmenandboys

About a third of new posts on any given day are very low value/effort. Just a link with a subject line, zero content or sometimes exactly one sentence.

I have been examining them for a few weeks and I think that there are three different types, although sometimes it's difficult to tell which is which.

The most dangerous type are the malicious links. These posts encourage people to click on links that are not what they pretend to be.

There are posts made by bots to promote their clickbait. These are usually very obscure websites that are hard to distinguish from the malicious links without looking into them carefully.

Finally, there are posts made by human beings who are putting no effort into their posts. These are usually links to popular tabloid journalism with anecdotal rage bait stories and poorly presented statistics.

All of these posts are damaging to the movement. The muddy water makes it difficult to see clearly. We need more active moderation in order to improve the general post quality.

There is already a rule against low value posts. It just needs to be enforced more thoroughly.

However, if you're a troll who hates the MRA, you won't be banned because "free speech".

This is why I was banned:

"[–]subreddit message via /r/MensRights[M] sent 5 days ago

Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/MensRights because you broke this community's rules. You won't be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it.

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team by replying to this message.

Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole."

ok. "The rules". Look through my comment history you'll see I adhere to "the rules" pretty well.

Anybody who actually finds this thread: The mensrights movement has a good and pure goal in mind. The MensRights subreddit, aka the largest public MRA community on the internet, is dogshit. It's astroturfed to hell, and people there don't actually care about doing anything. They just want to wine complain in perpetuity. If you hate the direction the MRA has gone, you're not alone. Men who are suffering deserve something better.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/s/VcmYUsLKvj

My earlier post was taken down on rule 6. Which I understand is a rule meant to prevent doxing or harassment of people online.

However I think it doesn't apply here, as the person in question is a public figure with works dating back to '68. Posting a public tweet of a public individual just can't be considered doxing.

My post fits perfectly with the sub, and there is nothing about it that could possibly be problematic for anyone. Your decision to censor it without providing any reason is actually more discriminatory toward men than almost any of the other issues here.

Hi all

​

I am worried that r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic and r/SystemicSexism will simply disappear one day. I am not a technical person and I would appreciate if someone could help me back them up.

If you are familiar with reddit API or you know how to use a web scraper please help me out.

Hi guys

​

you probably know me at this point. I have been working on r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic and r/SystemicSexism for almost two years now - and I don't plan to stop. I was wondering if you would consider linking one or both of my subs in the MensRights side bar.

​

Thank you for consideration.

​

They seem to almost always be feminist trolls.

Hey, I wanted to know why this article was removed. I guess the argument goes that it doesn’t “match the guidelines of posts in the subreddit,” but I call BS on that seeing some of the posts that do remain on the forum. Incels seem to be a viable topic, specifically those who are lonely, so I am genuinely curious mods. Unless there is a bot that specifically removes posts with that word, I don’t see why this article had to be removed. Thank you.

Posted this elsewhere and felt it was also fitting of being here as well. Ranted about this before, I know, but "male domination/dominance" are terms I'm increasingly annoyed with seeing. It's just another way deluded misandrists like to tar the entire male gender for their failures and play into their delusion that more women in power and control would make the world a better place. It never dawns on them some men being in positions of power because they actually earned it and fought for it, and weren't merely given it due to gender. Which misandrists want, everything handed to them on a silver platter just for their gender and not because they earned it or even deserve it. Even if something is "male dominated," why change it if said men are actually qualified and dependable for jobs and are known to accomplish things? I don't feel male dominanation is something that truly exists, at least not in the way misandrists define it, which is pretty much just their variation of their favorite imaginary boogeyman and arch fiend, the patriarchy.

I think the whole notion of "male domination" plays into misandrists' delusions that a world with more women in positions of power and leadership would be better purely due to them being women and not being good or reliable people for the job and what they really want to do is fill quotas and disadvantage men and boys as much as possible. Such a delusion is foolish and dangerous to believe, and only creates division among both men and women. It's also another way for misandrists to avoid accounability. Being a good and competant leader who unites the people of the nation has nothing to do with gender, but misandrists always make it about precisely just that.