Comments

1. Posted by: thestudent09 on 5/11/2008 1:37 AM
   
   ...assualt just for raising my voice?...ya thats realy freaking balancing how did feminism get this far anyways? i mean this crap should have stoped once it was declared that on a politicle economic and social level wemon were equivivilent to men. but it just keeps going on these people do deserve the title of feminazi well thats all i have to say on that matter and please keep making videos like these argus im a long time fan and please excuse the spelling and grammer
2. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 5/11/2008 1:37 AM
   
   It's an oft-repeated feminist game to highlight an issue, procoke action on it, and then expand the definition of the issue after everyone agrees that it is a problem.
   
   Examples: DV, rape, sexual harassment.
3. Posted by: unknown on 5/11/2008 1:38 AM
   
   Hey!!! You men had it ALL for more than 4000yrs.
   The king has been caught without clothes for the first time. Male promotion ADVT. has no value anymore.
4. Posted by: gpurohit on 5/11/2008 1:38 AM
   
   dear retard, just because german killed so many english 70 years back should we start killing germans
5. Posted by: LW on 3/20/2009 6:58 AM
   
   Well this is sorta extreme, but I think part of the problem with men's rights is that some of the laws being passed assume that women are not evil and will not harm men if they didn't do anything wrong, making them very easy to exploit.
6. Posted by: Marc on 3/24/2010 2:49 AM
   
   War is being made on marriage in India to drive down the birthrates. If you look at a country like Italy with modest marriage rates and low birth rates, people hardly know what feminism is, if you look at a country like America its rampant and if you look at an hugely populated country like india, it is in overdrive.
   
   
7. Posted by: priacash on 3/24/2010 10:46 AM
   
   Sexual harassment at work place, schools, collages, parties, travel, roads etc. is a very common news which we hear the most. Most of the people are not aware about sexual harassment and its very important to make them aware, this will help us to decrease occurring sexual harassment. By the help of PriaCash.org website we can came to know a lots of things base on sexual harassment. It's my personal experience that this website help girls a lot and we can share our views and quarries with others in its forum.
   
8. Posted by: Please... on 3/26/2010 6:51 AM
   
   Well, well, Mark has been laying low after the "Women are more sexist than men" thread. Please read my post on it; you can't tout the "men are more victims of violent crime than women" misconception anymore. It is fundamentally a false comparison. If you want to gauge violence innate to either sex, you need to measure the amount of violent victimization to men or women in the SAME context. As it is, Mark peddles the 'men are more victims of violent crime overall' while deliberately ignoring that men are many times more likely to be involved in violent situations, crime, drugs, gangs, petty deviancy etc. Not accounting for these variables is, oh, I don't know, DISHONEST, and is similar to me saying, "women get paid less than men in the workforce" without accounting for the fact that women choose lower paying jobs (though nepotism and discrimination haven't completely gone away). Please don't mention violence against men unless you have controlled for situational variables and can honestly, let me say that again, honestly compare it with violence against women in the same context.
9. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/26/2010 4:51 PM
   
   "men are many times more likely to be involved in violent situations, crime, drugs, gangs, petty deviancy etc."
   
   Why is that? Hand of God? Because they have a penis? Is that it? hehehe.. when ignoramuses like you talk about "honestly compare" and "controlled for situational variables" it is quite ironic.
   
   What is even more interesting is that the same crowd will go into these things when talking about more Black involvement in criminal activity. Which is at least scientifically coherent - but when it comes to non-black men.. who cares, right? what becomes more important is that some angle of statistical interpretation MAY lead to different or lower figures that what a man is using. Is there any claim of what these numbers are? Nope!
   
   By the way, considering that this is a page about sexual discrimination in India - there is a case where poor day laborers (and when I say poor, I mean really poor.. most of them have never ridden, let alone owned or driven a car) will have to loose wages thanks to the "male-dominated" government in India trying to kiss up to middle class and upper middle class women. Already short on trains in the socialized railroads of the nation, the "authorities" decided to convert existing trains to WOMEN ONLY trains. Its not like another train is gonna follow to pickup the men - so guess what happens? Risky behavior? Fights (yes, I am talking physical fights) to get access to existing transportation means? Things don't just happen in a vacuum. But we should let feminists decide when to ignore external factors and when to chastise people for not examining external factors!
10. Posted by: Please.. on 3/26/2010 6:53 PM
    
    Please don't change the subject. Mark needs to control for variables if he wants to get an accurate picture of who is more susceptible to violent victimization. So far he's deliberately compared women and men on unequal grounds and is peddling this 'disparity'. Is honesty too much to ask?
11. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/26/2010 11:50 PM
    
    "Mark needs to ..."
    
    No he does not. You want him to become a research monkey. Doesn't mean he has to or "needs to".
    As to - "Is honesty too much to ask?" That depends on who is asking. Physician heal thyself first.
12. Posted by: Please... on 3/27/2010 12:02 AM
    
    Can we stop the inane straw men tactics? Research monkey? And yes, he doesn't 'need' to, but he 'should' be honest. Saying that men are more victims of violence than women while refusing to control for variables is dishonest. Comparing them within equal contexts is honest, and is the only thing that will elicit a true measure of which sex is more violently victimized. Mark has been hiding behind this misconception too long. And I've noticed no one has addressed this, instead you've been dancing around this subject.
13. Posted by: Please.. on 3/27/2010 2:37 AM
    
    And actually the WOMEN ONLY trains are a reactionary measure to the egregious amount of sexual assault and harassment that goes on. Omitted that bit, did you?
14. Posted by: Please.. on 3/27/2010 2:47 AM
    
    Here's a link to a Times article on the subject. Basically men could ride with women until they (not all) caused too many problems, thus having their prviliges rescinded. This is really no one's fault but mens'. Rarely does a public transport issue ever get so big as to require a governmental intervention response, but men were so persistently assaulting that you really have no one else to blame in this situation. But I guess accountability isn't really relevant to your agenda.
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/world/asia/16ladies.html?_r=1
    
    
15. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 2:51 AM
    
    So you do understand you don't have any leg to demand any honesty from anyone, don't you? Its a nice demonstration of the gall of feminists to demand that everything that questions their dogma, MUST BE WRONG somehow.. And if it looks like it isn't then the details should be hashed and rehashed until it is proven so. On the other hand feminists have made no effort to correct their 4 out of 3 women are raped and killed every microsecond statistics.
    
    Let me concede that Mark should be honest - but so should feminists. And since feminists started lying first - its their turn to be honest first too. Care to name a single honest feminist?
16. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 2:52 AM
    
    "And actually the WOMEN ONLY trains are a reactionary measure to the egregious amount of sexual assault and harassment that goes on. Omitted that bit, did you?"
    
    Where is the evidence? LOL! Honesty!
17. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 3:11 AM
    
    IF "I heard it on TV/Times says it is so" makes it so for you, then well.. we all know where that goes, right?
    
    What is hilarious is that you don't have the slightest idea about how you would even find out if there was any veracity to any claims you made, but you did not wait. You went ahead and wrote down what you thought based on what you knew. Oh, but others shouldn't do that, they should go through scrupulous procedures (and they should) ... but what about you?
    
    If you had the slightest experience dealing with Indian govt .. oh god, the ironies are stacking up one top of the other as I think all the things you would need to know the real story.
    
    Understand that you are a hypocrite and a liar of convenience. Its not your fault if you didn't know it until now.. but now you know. Try not to delude yourself that you are some sort of honesty police.. it might help you.
18. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 3:14 AM
    
    BTW, "we all know where that goes, right? "
    
    The answer to that question is Iraq.
19. Posted by: Please.. on 3/27/2010 5:07 AM
    
    Mark, I'm going to say this again. Please stop touting the "men are more victims of violence than women" refrain. If you mention any violence toward men or women, be sure your statistics were derived from a controlled setting in which men and women were in the same situation: a marriage, in a similar job, in a house with parents, etc. As it is, if women sought violent/dangerous situations at the same percentages as men (gangs, etc.) women would experience violence in the same amount, perhaps more, because they're weaker. However, when we do control for situational variables, we find women usually are more highly victimized. In a marriage- women gets more abused. As children in a family- women get more sexually abused. In a crowded area/ subway- women get more assaulted. At a party- women are more raped/ assaulted.
    
    And still he hasn't addressed this. Odd, isn't it?
    
    And Pankaj, are you really asserting that no harassment/assault happened on Indian subways? You didn't even read the article, or anything on the subject, did you? Do you realize that in New York, policemen have to be deployed to see that the men don't grope the women, that's how big of a problem it is. In America. In India it is much worse.
20. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 5:28 AM
    
    Lets address the distortions and dishonesty shall we?
    
    "egregious amount of sexual assault and harassment that goes on"
    So there is a claim of seriously high volume, i.e. higher than any other place, say a govt school or office (those who have lived in India will definitely get a kick out of that one).
    
    In response, I demand evidence on which this is claimed. Like a good feminist, the demand is not answered, instead the claim is conveniently made into a negative absolute.
    "are you really asserting that no harassment/assault happened on Indian subways?"
    
    Either this means that you have no sense of proportionality, or that this is a clever attempt to manipulate me into proving a negative. And because policemen are deployed - means there is/was a problem? The Nazi police rounded up the Jews a while ago, does this mean there was a problem with the Jews? The policemen in India routinely torture people for information, does this mean there is a genuine need for torturing people in India?
    
    It is entertaining (in a dark comic sense) when cultural ignoramuses and political sheeple try to make sense of the situation based on actions of police and government, always assuming that these saintly organizations consist of angels and civic minded people just trying to fix things.. Ah! the humanity!
21. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 5:34 AM
    
    "In India it is much worse. "
    
    On what basis do you make that declaration? Do you have stats and figures to back up this claim?
    
    Or is it because Indian men are just criminal? Is it an anecdotal quip, a scientific finding or is it a racist prejudice? For a person demanding people be honest, your claims are backed by even less than Mark's.
22. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 5:59 AM
    
    Also, do you understand what constitutes sexual touching for these Indian women? Its a shame, I cannot make you into a man for a day and drop you amongst these neo-elitists of India.. It would be a quite amusing but enlightening experiment to find the horrors of touching of hands be perceived as sexual touching. A huge majority of Indian women still will not shake hands with men and some even express offense at the mere offer to do so! There is a youtube video on this, where the woman complains of "they LOOK at us"! Yes, LOOK! that is an harassment/assault! And notice she has no hint of any ambivalence about it.. i.e. she is absolutely certain, that "LOOK" is sexual harassment!
    
    What next, "they breathe"?
    
    By the way, do watch that video and tell me how do you ever board a train with that sort of rush and not be touched? Heck, I will give you a cookie, if you can show me a way to board an express train in India without being crushed (which is much worse than touch.. you would think!).
23. Posted by: Please... on 3/27/2010 7:09 AM
    
    You're equivocating the term sexual harassment to mean 'getting crushed' or 'looked at'. Eve teasing, as it's called is groping, molestation, or lewd or derisive comments. The United Nations analytical report Women in India: How Free? How Equal? articulates this, as well as the India 2007 Crime Report: New Delhi.
    
    And yes, you were the one who made the claim that the New York Times article was false. I simply called you out on this assertion. It's quite disturbing, all these attempts to illegitimize and downplay sexual assault/harassment. Calling me various names won't get you around the fact that the vast reports (though also vastly underreported) of sexual assault/harassment on India commuter trains is what prompted authorities to separate men and women.
    
    Mark, I think we're still awaiting your response to the 'men are more victims of violence' distortion. See the above posts.
24. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 8:35 AM
    
    Let me get this straight.
    
    You think they separated men and women? Is that all that happened? I am beginning to see why you think I am downplaying sexual harassment.
    
    I will try to make this short and sweet. There have been women only cars in Indian Railways' trains for more than 30 years now. A man who is even accused of touching a woman faces a quick vigilante justice, unlike your comfy world. Men do not board that female-only car, even if they are late to work, even if men are overflowing the mixed cars and even if there are women in the mixed cars, who chose to board the mixed cars (apparently in your view risking sexual harassment). And they do this every single day of their commute.
    
    The reason this was outrageous is this - the authorities did not create new trains just for women (which had been slightly less outrageous).
    They did not separate commuters into men-only and women-only trains.
    Instead, they just kicked men off mixed trains, making them women-only.
    There are no Men-only trains in India. Did you get that? Yes, so now women have a choice to travel
    A. in mixed trains amongst men sometimes because they have brothers, friends, fathers and sons to travel with who won't be allowed in female only cars (which are usually empty)
    B. in mixed trains but in female only cars or
    C. in female only trains.
    
    What did men get? Well they just lost an entire train and when you are a day laborer it matters.. if you don't show up on time = no work for that day.
    
    Now, if there were enough trains to comfortably shuttle people back and forth, it would be tolerable. But there are not. And when something that close to your livelihood is taken away you expect men to not complain?
    
    All those men you see complaining about this "separation", right, they have families at home. Their wives probably sew clothes and work as domestic help for entire month for less than what you spend on a meal in the US.. Those men are eager to get to back breaking work (and I am not exaggerating here - work literally kills them over time), so their families don't starve or go without shelter.. But who cares about that huh?
    
    "They look at us". That says it all.
25. Posted by: Please... on 3/27/2010 8:45 AM
    
    They do a lot more than look. You didn't bother to look up my sources, did you? Molestation is a serious problem and a violation of a person's fundamental rights to not be assaulted. Men had privileges, they abused them, and they got them taken away. If women would have done that, the same would have happened to them.
    
    The fact that Mark refuses to address this 'violence against men' issue is telling, to say the least.
26. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 8:55 AM
    
    How do you explain that the female only compartment is quite noticeable due to its high vacancy? You would think that all the females worried about sexual harassment would be flooding it.. but they don't. And its pretty much a given that a female only car will have more free space than any other mixed car on that entire train.. Try and explain that.
    
    Also, note the irony that young mothers with sons, girls who travel with their brothers will now have to share the trains with those pesky molestors in even more crowded confines than before. Not every female is a gender separatist, even though your kind does not understand it - they like their male folks and prefer to travel with them than without them. So do tell who are the "authorities" helping?
27. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 9:06 AM
    
    "You didn't bother to look up my sources, did you?"
    
    I don't need to. I have lived there for three decades. I would go into the perverse and convoluted nature of these sources but that would be a very long story, probably starting with the British conquest of India.. Summary being - there is no way these sources can get anything right. India does not work as clean to provide collectible data. This will be very hard for anyone who thinks in terms of data and sources.. but it takes a lifetime for a non-Indian to understand how things are. The reason I asked you about your sources was sort of an inside "lead". There was no way you could have supported your side with "sources" which I knew right from the start - my apologies, but this is what westerners need to know and understand, if they want to be coherent about India.
    
    How is a tax-subsidized, ticket-fare purchased rail service a "privilege" to the tax-payers and the buyer of the ticket?? It is no more a privilege than the salary you get paid for the work you do, or the groceries you take home for the money you shelled out at the cash register.
    
    Try not to talking nonsense like "privilege" and I will not resort to language like socialist/progressive moron.
28. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 9:20 AM
    
    On the lighter side, there is a rumor of some western economist coming to India to understand the local economics. On his return, he was asked what did he learn? He answered - that God exists, because God is running the Indian economy and knows how it works.
29. Posted by: Please... on 3/27/2010 4:03 PM
    
    You stated that the Times article on eve teasing and molestation was false. There are other articles on this subject the Washington Post and Indian news networks have done. Are these false as well?
    
    Also, please tell Mark to own up to his gender violence misrepresentation. Apparently he won't do it on his own blog.
30. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 4:19 PM
    
    "You stated that the Times article on eve teasing and molestation was false"
    
    Now you are resorting to lying outright? I did not take your bait on proving a negative or making a negative claim so you are making it for me now? Yes, these sources are receiving distorted information - mostly because the Indian news media is heavily controlled by the government and the western news media wants to parrot whatever the Indian news media thinks. Plus, there is additional advantage to demonize Indian men and men in foreign countries period.. so who wants to do a reality check? Also, none of these news media ever claimed that there was a men-only train anywhere.. so its not like they are exactly disagreeing with my clarification of the situation. Instead they tried to spin it to make things seem like that.
    
    The art of propaganda is to know which facts (or non-facts) to present and which to present in distorted form and which not to present at all.
    
    As to Mark, I think he is right in his claims and has made no misrepresentation. It seems in a typical aristocratic fashion you keep demanding that he respond to your point.. which is comic for those that know his blog
31. Posted by: Please... on 3/27/2010 7:10 PM
    
    He has made a false comparison, similar to me saying "women get paid less than men" without accounting for the fact that women tend to seek lesser paying jobs. False comparison = misrepresentation.
32. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/27/2010 8:16 PM
    
    And you have a problem with "False comparison = misrepresentation."
    
    Okay, I think Marc would be justified in behaving the EXACT same way as feminists have operated. To his credit he is not. So when you wipe out the "women get paid less than men FOR THE SAME JOB" (that is how feminists posit their claim) myth that feminists perpetrate and still spout.. I will be eagerly waiting here with the recommended edits and the right stats to make the changes you expect to eliminate "False comparisons".
    Again.. till then.. you can demand all you want, but you have no claim to get anyone to do anything.
33. Posted by: Please... on 3/27/2010 11:31 PM
    
    I am not responsible for what feminists say, or even what Mark says. I could not call myself a feminist, as their issues and causes and usually variegated and I haven't done enough research on the topic. Your claim that Mark is justified in being dishonest is very damning and only drives home my point, that honesty is too much to ask from MRAs. When I do ask for it, you skirt the issue to respond with ad hominem attacks and immature name calling. Please stop speaking for Mark; you should instead question why he is deliberately avoiding this issue.
34. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 12:21 AM
    
    "Please stop speaking for Mark;"
    Never did..
    
    First, Is there any reason MRAs should be honest? Feminists succeeded with lies.. what's the harm if men too adopt their highly successful tactics?
    
    Second, who told you that Mark is an MRA - if you read his description of self - he categorically denies being an MRA or calling himself so? But then if you want to form an opinion about MRAs depending on what non-MRAs say - could it be that you really want to have a particular opinion of MRAs and are grasping for straws to make yourself believe so?
    
    Third, say Mark really gets down to work, factors out the numbers, and posts the corrected values - does that mean that you will believe MRAs are honest folks? What is the benefit of trying to convince folks like you that MRAs are honest in their work?
    
    I would rather MRAs work with the open minds who can see things around themselves and think for themselves, even adopt the feminist tactics than to try to prove to folks like you that they are honest in a hope that you will stop attacking them and start helping them. A hope that will never be fulfilled anyway..
    
    Moral of the story - IF you don't like what Mark is writing, don't read it - for its not for you. You can scream at the top of your internet voice that Mark is dishonest. Who gives a crap?
35. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 2:16 AM
    
    "you should instead question why he is deliberately avoiding this issue. "
    
    I like the first part "you should". To which I simply ask - Why?
36. Posted by: Please.. on 3/28/2010 2:30 AM
    
    "First, Is there any reason MRAs should be honest?"
    
    Wow.. just, wow.
    
    "in a hope that you will stop attacking them and start helping them."
    
    Have I attacked Mark? I merely pointed out a false comparison he repeatedly makes. You're the one engaging in belittling and antagonizing tactics: "ignoramus", "progressive moron", "liar of convenience", "aristocrat", "hypocrite", and "your kind" come to mind.
    
    "I like the first part "you should". To which I simply ask - Why?"
    
    Yes, why? Why are you even talking to me?
    
    "You can scream at the top of your internet voice that Mark is dishonest. Who gives a crap?"
    
    Really? MRAs don't give a crap if Mark is honest or not?
37. Posted by: Please.. on 3/28/2010 2:35 AM
    
    Does Mark not refer to himself as an MRA on his personal profile? My mistake, I believed what he said.
38. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 4:18 AM
    
    ""First, Is there any reason MRAs should be honest?"
    
    Wow.. just, wow. "
    
    Actually, if you can give me a good reason, I would change my position. Its not a rhetorical question. Feminist techniques have been amazingly successful and I see no reason to not adopt them. And being dishonesty is the fundamental ethical tennet of feminism.
    
    Say for some miraculous reason, MRAs (whom I do not represent) decide that they are going to be honest - who should decide what is honest? YOU? Why? Again - if you have a good reason behind why you should be made authority of honesty.. I could make peace with that. So please, do tell.
    
    And if you don't have any substantive answers - think what made you think you had any right to tell others what to do, what to say, or what ethical standards to follow?
39. Posted by: Please.. on 3/28/2010 4:58 AM
    
    My only reason for being on this thread is to point out where Mark ceaselessly makes a false comparison as a rejoinder to violent victimization and crime. Read my post:
    
    "Also, Mark, your brandishing of "men are more victims of violent crime than women" is misrepresenting and (deliberately?) dishonest, because it's basically a false comparison. Men are, on average, many, many times more likely to be involved with gangs (of which there are more than 30,000 identified in the US alone), drugs, organized crime, the mafia, and petty deviant behavior. If women were involved in these situations proportionately, then violence against women would be the same. As it is, you've chosen to take two dissimilar situations, compare them, and lament the disparity. If you really want to get an idea REAL victimization, compare women and men in the SAME situation and control for the very egregious confounding variables you've chosen to ignore. This is like me saying, "Well women are paid less than men overall!", while ignoring that women tend to choose less presitigous careers. Likewise, your charge, "Men are more victims of violent crime!" ignores that men on a much larger scale actively seek violent situations. You do know what a confounding variable is?
    
    The only way to gauge violence against either gender and to decide whether it is innate to that gender is to make a true comparison: put men and women in the same situation and then observe if one is more victimized. When we actually do this, we find women are disadvantaged. Men and women can be at the same party, for instance, and one will run the risk of being assualted, drugged, or raped. Both can be on the subway, and one will run the risk of being assualted. Both can be in the workplace, and one will be more sexually harassed. Both can be in a marriage, and one will be, on average, more abused."
    
    Give you a good reason to be honest? It's a free country: you or Mark can be as dishonest as you want. However, I have the right to point out dishonesty when I see it; it's called free speech.
    
    Again, no one has addressed this issue. Mark peddles this misconception and when called out on it refuses to defend it. What should we think?
    
    
    
    
40. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 5:45 AM
    
    "What should we think?"
    
    Think whatever you want. Quite honestly there is no reason for men who understand the message of MRM to appease anyone. Experience has taught men like myself that there is ABSOLUTELY no use/benefit and hence no need of trying to convince feminists (dogmatic or stylistic) about a man's honesty when he brings up issues about men. Its not going to make a dime's difference in the perception of these folks. And are far more likely to end with a shaming put down at the end of the exercise of convincing them that there is a problem. So much so that some observant men have made a quite accurate list of shaming tactics meant to combat men as they make their case. I presume, you could inspire a stalling tactic list.
    
    You - while not being knowledgeable about the Indian Rail system, were not hesitant to deduce evidence from verdict, never once admitting that you don't know, or apologizing for your remarks that pretty much assume the worse of Indian men, most certainly do not have the ethical cred to demand others do anything.. including defend their arguments on their blog.
    
    Seems this has gone long enough, so I will give up the secret. You see, Mark does not respond everyday. Its not as if he has opted not to defend it.. quite likely he has not gotten around to checking his blog!
    Entitlement princesses think everyone "should" be around to respond to them.. now! now! now! are some times disappointed that they have to wait. What a concept! huh?!
41. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 5:55 AM
    
    "However, I have the right to point out dishonesty when I see it; it's called free speech. "
    According to which theory of justice? Maybe you need some philosophy courses before you answer that.
    
    Why do people who know nothing about the idea about rights talk the loudest about "right to free speech"? You also have the right to be a moron, to harbor hateful thoughts or to eat dog poo.. doesn't mean you have to advertise it here.
42. Posted by: Please.. on 3/28/2010 6:51 AM
    
    Well Mark can respond when and if he wants to. I got my information on 'eve teasing' from the Times and the Washington Post, as well as the New Delhi Crime Report. I'm just trying to make Mark aware of his mistake, amid various insults:
    
    "I know nothing about the idea of rights".
    "I need philosophy courses"
    "I'm an entitlement princess"
    "I assume the worst of Indian men"
    "I have no ethical cred"
    "Who gives a crap if I think Mark is dishonest?"
    "I'm an aristocrat"
    "I'm a socialist/progressive moron"
    "I'm an ignoramus".
    "I'm a liar of convenience"
    "I'm a hypocrite."
    
    "And are far more likely to end with a shaming put down at the end of the exercise of convincing them that there is a problem. So much so that some observant men have made a quite accurate list of shaming tactics meant to combat men as they make their case."
    
    Who's used shaming tactics on this post?
    
    "Actually, if you can give me a good reason, I would change my position. Its not a rhetorical question. Feminist techniques have been amazingly successful and I see no reason to not adopt them."
    
    You say you see no reason to not adopt lying "feminst techniques" and want me to give you a good reason to be honest. Who's the "liar of convenience"?
43. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 8:08 AM
    
    Good.. that you noticed.
    
    This is how feminists and women have treated men thus far. Don't like the taste of your own medicine now do you? I must be doing something right.
    Don't like being called all those things? .. Then stop being/behaving like all those things!
    
    And no I don't want you to be honest, I don't expect you to be honest.. Heck, I don't think you CAN be honest since you have no desire to be honest.
44. Posted by: Please... on 3/28/2010 6:53 PM
    
    "Don't like being called all those things? .. Then stop being/behaving like all those things!"
    
    Concrete examples, please. I've been nothing but patient with you.
    
    "And no I don't want you to be honest, I don't expect you to be honest.. Heck, I don't think you CAN be honest since you have no desire to be honest."
    
    This is amusing. Please prove it.
    
    Let me get this straight: you want to use shaming/belittling tactics with impunity, but when called out on it, play the victim and say it's just restitution for the way you've been treated in the past. And Mark is an MRA, by the way, did you notice?
    
    Whoever is following this exchange is invited to respond to the 'violence against men' issue. So far Mark and Pankaj have very carefully skirted the subject.
45. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 8:16 PM
    
    "Please prove it."
    No need. I don't need to convince you of anything, for all I care you can (as I am pretty sure you already do) think MRAs are the anti-christ or satan or whatever fits your dogmatic idiocy. There is nothing you have that I want/need/hope for, including your good will. In simple terms - you don't matter!
    
    If you like - prove me wrong - go do the research that you want Mark to do, bring out the numbers and sources and post them here. You will have to distinguish between the number of men who were victimized because of their involvement in criminal activity or seeking benefit from it and who were not and same for women. Once you are done doing that you can challenge Mark's claims. As they say in science, you cannot challenge something with nothing. Might as well say - "God did it". But then this path is for those with ethics, and you should stay away from it. It might even change what you really believe.
46. Posted by: Please.. on 3/28/2010 9:24 PM
    
    More ranting and raving. I'm here simply to say that Mark should account for confounding variables when making a comparison, any comparison at all. That is the only way to get accurate information.
    
    "There is nothing you have that I want/need/hope for, including your good will. In simple terms - you don't matter!"
    
    Then why are you even talking to me? I don't recall asking you to.
    
    Latest profundities:
    
    "I think MRAs are the anti-Christ/ Satan"
    "I am a dogmatic idiot"
    "I have no ethics"
    
47. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 10:55 PM
    
    Because it is fun to poke holes imaginary sanctity of idiots who think they know things better than anyone else.
48. Posted by: Please... on 3/28/2010 11:23 PM
    
    What have I said that's wrong? Mark has not accounted for variables, that's a fact. Don't flatter yourself that you're 'poking holes', more accurately you're raving and engaging in facile name calling and personal attacks, and have persistently tried to stifle any criticism of dishonesty, or any opinion that isn't in line with your own. I've noticed others, including Mark, have judiciously avoided this thread; maybe they don't want your ranting, belittling tactics to reflect badly on them.
49. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/28/2010 11:50 PM
    
    You are right, I should be using the right terms like "Deconstructing" and "coopting" and "social justice" and "emotional logic".
    
    Its a added advantage that Mark and others have avoided the thread. Too bad your demands for "honesty" will be ignored. And things will come down to "put up or shut up". So how far along are you on your research? Working hard I presume.. lol!
50. Posted by: Please... on 3/29/2010 1:31 AM
    
    Mark, I'm beginning to think you specifically asked Pankaj to derail the topic with raving tangents and ad hominem attacks so you could avoid addressing the issue yourself. You thought if Pankaj were obnoxious enough, I'd leave and you could get away with intoning this "men are more violently victimized" statement. As it is, everything about this thread and other dishonest statements you've made (women are more sexist than men, for instance), as well as your continued dodging of accountability on this topic doesn't reflect well on you, or MRAs.
    
    "Too bad your demands for "honesty" will be ignored. And things will come down to "put up or shut up".
    
    Demands for honesty will be ignored by MRAs? Well that distills what MRAs are all about; you said it, not me. You'll notice (or not) that I'm not the one making a claim. I'm merely criticizing Mark for making a claim which involves a false comparison.
    
    
51. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/29/2010 5:40 AM
    
    Ah! A conspiracy theory! Reminds me of something I heard some time ago.. sounds something like "Patriarchy!".
    
    "Demands for honesty will be ignored by MRAs?"
    They should be, but many of them do attempt to provide honest stats despite lack of state subsidized costs to refute every misandric moron's concocted false statistics. MRAs are fully justified - especially when the demanding side has no interest in being honest themselves, or helping men and have claimed the right to decide what it means to be honest.
    I have no interest in proving my honesty or the honesty of my convictions to any person who has demonstrated unrestrained hatred, disregard and ill will towards men in the first place. So - believe whatever it is that you want. Tell it to whomever you want. There are a whole lot of man-haters already - one more isn't going to hurt MRM anyway, so you see, your opinion means.. nothing!
52. Posted by: Please.. on 3/29/2010 6:24 AM
    
    "I have no interest in proving my honesty or the honesty of my convictions to any person who has demonstrated unrestrained hatred, disregard and ill will towards men in the first place."
    
    Good. Don't prove yourself honest. In fact, don't talk to me at all. I was and still am addressing Mark, not you.
    
    Have I demonstrated unrestrained hatred, disregard, and ill will towards men? Am I a man hater? I'm anticipating you'll have "no interest in proving the honesty" of these latest shrill, straw men accusations as well as your others.
    
    "Your opinion means nothing!"
    
    I get it already. You have a persecution complex and no life.
    
    Well, Mark is, by now, pretty blatantly refusing to address this issue, perhaps because he's hoping to get away with it and use it again in the future. Quite a far cry from "true equality", isn't it? But what can you expect..
    
    Well Pankaj, it's been.. interesting. Maybe we could talk sometime about a topic other than MRAs, provided you stop foaming at the mouth for more than two seconds. You should save your breath, you'll need it to blow up your date tonight. I'm pretty sure you'll roll over and play the victim at these comments, though you've shown you can't post a sentence without multiple snide, personal attacks at me.
53. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/29/2010 8:29 PM
    
    "Don't prove yourself honest."
    
    Only men should prove ourselves honest?
    
    Look, I am totally fine with challenging the stats of MRAs. But you have to establish your bonafides first. Otherwise, it is safe to assume that you are a detractor and be chastised and ignored. That is what I was attempting to do first. But then you accidentally revealed that you are the kind of person that goes on the basis of mass media claims - have no humility in acknowledging that you could be wrong, and in case of Indian men that you were wrong. Then you endorsed the idea of collective punishment (a violation of the Geneva convention by the way) for a crime which is not even registered in any police records in India. After that, it became quite clear that there is no point in arguing with you logically or reasonably.. labeling is good enough.
    
    Morons who will believe ANY hearsay when it suits their ideological sympathies - deserve no better.
54. Posted by: Please... on 3/29/2010 11:46 PM
    
    More skirting the issue. You and Mark are doing your very best to avoid this 'men are more violently victimized' misconception. And for the umpteenth time, I am not criticizing Mark's statistics, I'm criticizing his false comparison, or his failure to account for confounding variables when making a comparison.
    
    I need to provide my bonafides? What would you like? My college transcript? Now you're changing the subject with more ad hominem assaults.
    
    Arguing with me logically or reasonably? I think anyone examining this post will laugh that you flatter yourself with that; so far I've been the logical, collected, reasonable one, and you've launched nothing but immature belittling tactics, straw men, lies (which you yourself admitted you like to resort to) and excuse after excuse for avoiding the topic.
    
    I was wrong about 'eve teasing'? Please.. provide the truth about 'eve teasing' in India.
55. Posted by: Please.. on 3/30/2010 1:29 AM
    
    Latest excuses for not addressing the topic:
    
    "MRAs have no reason to be honest, so why should Mark correct his mistake?"
    
    "I have no ethical cred (please demonstrate this) and therefore no one should respond to me."
    
    "My opinion means nothing because I'm a 'man-hater' (another baseless attack you refused to support)"
    
    "I cited the New York Times, Washington Post, and the New Delhi Crime Report, so obviously I'm a liar. Therefore, Mark is entitled to get away with circulating HIS lies."
    
    "No one should defend this false comparison until I present some statistics about violence against men and women (a completely unrelated topic and a tu quoque fallacy)."
    
    "I said only men should prove the honesty of their claims (no, I didn't. Please point this out for everyone to see.) This is unfair, thus MRAs don't have to respond honestly."
    
    "MRAs shouldn't have to respond to demands for honesty."
    
    
    And you bragged that it was fun for you to 'poke holes' and 'aruge logically and reasonably' in response to my post that 'men are more violently victimized' was a false comparison. So far, instead of 'poking holes' you've manufactured every conceivable excuse to get out of 'arguing logically and reasonbly' about this issue.
56. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/31/2010 4:42 PM
    
    "Please.. provide the truth about 'eve teasing' in India. "
    
    Check out the FIR log of the Indian Railway police, count the sexual harassment cases filed. Sadly they are not available online and it will take weeks for you to get to them. It will give you enough time to figure out other magical ways of determining that there was indeed "egregious" sexual harassment going on and the Indian govt had a way to find that out. There is more sexual harassment by the parliament members of India than at any other place in the entire world with ~30% of them accused of serious crimes like kidnapping, rape, extortion and murder. The Indian police is notorious for gang raping women with impunity.
    
    Thankfully there exist idiots like you who think these people are the saints looking out for poor Indian women - protecting them from sexual harassment and are happy to endorse their measures without knowing anything about India.
57. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/31/2010 4:49 PM
    
    "which you yourself admitted you like to resort to"
    
    Go back and read all the posts. Try to find where I admitted that - I like to resort to lies. If you do.. point it out for everyone to see. If you don't - admit that you always assume worst of men who argue for the issues of men. Fair enough?
58. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/31/2010 7:51 PM
    
    It could be that you still harbor the notion that to be published in a major news outlet things have to be true. Given that the Indian news media cannot and does not print anything that is against the Indian govt, never questions its rationale at the things it does.
    
    It could be the non-Indian, typical western "liberal" outlook of "Why would they lie?".. but this is insanely naive thinking about India and its media whose stories are sadly is parroted by international outlets like NYTimes.
59. Posted by: Please... on 3/31/2010 9:49 PM
    
    "First, Is there any reason MRAs should be honest? Feminists succeeded with lies.. what's the harm if men too adopt their highly successful tactics?"
    
    There you go.
    
    And now I harbor the "worst assumptions of men..", and I think "MRAs are the anti-christ", and I've demonstrated "unrestrained hatred, disregard, and ill will towards men", and I'm a "man-hater". Considering all the insults and personal attacks directed at me, and considering how patient I've been with you up to this point, I'm now completely sure you have a persecution complex coupled with a victim complex as well.
    
    I'm also now sure you'll find some other stalling tactics to avoid talking about the 'violence against men' issue.
60. Posted by: Pankaj on 3/31/2010 11:10 PM
    
    You understand that is not saying "I like to resort to lies." Right? Unless English reads something else to you.. what I or anyone else is justified in doing does not mean they are doing it or like doing it.
    Thank you for proving once again that you assume the worst of men, especially those that focus on the welfare of men.
61. Posted by: Please... on 4/1/2010 12:23 AM
    
    "Feminist techniques [lies] have been amazingly successful and I see no reason to not adopt them."
    
    Just going by what you wrote.
    
    If 'focusing on the welfare of men' means launching unmitigated ad hominem, personal attacks on anyone who DARES to point out a false comparison Mark used... and then crumpling and playing the victim by saying I'm a 'man-hater' who 'likes to assume the worst of men'...
    
    More stalling tactics.
62. Posted by: Please.. on 4/1/2010 2:08 AM
    
    "More stalling tactics"
    
    Whoops, there I go again with my "unrestrained hatred, disregard, and ill will towards men".
    
    I think we can fairly say by now that Mark's refusal to address his mistake is for some other reason rather than his simply not checking his threads.
63. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/1/2010 3:50 AM
    
    ""Feminist techniques [lies] have been amazingly successful and I see no reason to not adopt them."
    
    Just going by what you wrote."
    
    Again.. doesn't say I like to resort to lying. I see no reason not to adopt them.
    I see no reason not to end wars also does not mean I am ending wars.
    I see no reason not to eat burgers does not mean I am eating burgers.
    
    Get it?
    
    Thanks again for yet another confirmation of your misandry.
64. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/1/2010 7:58 AM
    
    I see no reason for feminists to not jump in the river - does not mean feminists are jumping in the river.
65. Posted by: Please.. on 4/2/2010 5:41 AM
    
    "Thanks again for yet another confirmation of your misandry"
    
    Thanks again for yet another confirmation of your victim complex. You 'see no reason not to lie'. It's pretty obvious by now that Mark has no interest in correcting his mistake and thus being honest.
    
    MRA tactics when arguing:
    
    1. Deny that Mark made a false comparison.
    2. Toss out some insults and shaming language.
    3. Grudgingly admit that Mark lied but attempt to excuse Mark's lies by saying that he and MRAs are justified in lying.
    4. Attack some more.
    5. Lie about having said this.
    6. When confronted with the truth, lie some more and whine that everyone's a 'misandrist'.
    
    Doesn't reflect well on MRAs, does it?
    
    
66. Posted by: Please.. on 4/2/2010 7:17 AM
    
    If you're so fixated on not lying, why don't you give us your version of the truth on the 'violence against men' subject? I'm still waiting for you to 'poke holes' in it and aruge 'logically and reasonably'. I'll repost the topic for you:
    
    So far you've carefully veered the subject away from this to avoid addressing Mark's misrepresentation of violence.
    
    "Also, Mark, your brandishing of "men are more victims of violent crime than women" is misrepresenting and (deliberately?) dishonest, because it's basically a false comparison. Men are, on average, many, many times more likely to be involved with gangs (of which there are more than 30,000 identified in the US alone), drugs, organized crime, the mafia, and petty deviant behavior. If women were involved in these situations proportionately, then violence against women would be the same. As it is, you've chosen to take two dissimilar situations, compare them, and lament the disparity. If you really want to get an idea REAL victimization, compare women and men in the SAME situation and control for the very egregious confounding variables you've chosen to ignore. This is like me saying, "Well women are paid less than men overall!", while ignoring that women tend to choose less presitigous careers. Likewise, your charge, "Men are more victims of violent crime!" ignores that men on a much larger scale actively seek violent situations. The only way to gauge violence against either gender and to decide whether it is innate to that gender is to make a true comparison: put men and women in the same situation and then observe if one is more victimized."
67. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/2/2010 7:48 AM
    
    "why don't you give us your version of the truth on the 'violence against men' subject?"
    
    I don't need to. You see, there is nothing I need to "give", For there is nothing that I "want" or nothing you can "give" either. For all I care you can believe with absolute certainty that MRAs and anyone that speaks on the man's side is evil/lying.. etc. etc. and it would not make a dime's difference. Its simply not worth it. You are useless to the MRM for whatever legitimate needs there exist - hence there is no need to argue what the legitimate needs there exist for the MRM. If you were any use whatsoever, there would be some need to argue those things.. sadly/gladly that's not the case.
68. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/2/2010 8:07 AM
    
    "Doesn't reflect well on MRAs, does it? "
    Who cares? MRAs are not in a popularity contest.
    
    You still don't get it (which isn't surprising) - MRAs are working against your privileges and your approval means squat to them. Don't need to get your good graces for what they do. Seriously.. go threaten someone else who cares about what you think about them.
69. Posted by: Please.. on 4/4/2010 6:23 AM
    
    Ah.. now I think MRAs are 'evil liars' and I like to 'threaten' them. You very desperately want to be a victim, (while simultaneously calling me 'useless') The purpose of this post is to point out that Mark frequently references that "men are more violently victimized than women". However, he consistently fails to account for situational variables, making this statement misleading, at best.
    
    I guess it doesn't make a 'dime's difference' whether I point this out or not, because neither you nor Mark are interested in correcting misleading arguments.
    
    I've been very patient with you so far. Your reaction thus far to anyone who refers to a hitch in MRA argumentation is to try to silence them with various insults and shaming tactics. If you "don't need to" respond to my points, then why are you on this thread, except to hurl insults at anyone who dares to have an opposing opinion?
70. Posted by: Please.. on 4/4/2010 6:58 AM
    
    It's very telling that any legitimate criticism is doctored as me "hating men and anyone who speaks for the man's side". I guess when spinning anything you don't like as 'man-hate' you can get away with silencing any opinion contrary to your own.
71. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 4/4/2010 11:17 AM
    
    @Please..
    
    I’ve been busy and haven’t had the time to respond to all the mail and comments I’ve been receiving so excuse me for shunning the remedial reading and could you please clarify a few things for me?
    
    1. Deny that Mark made a false comparison.
    
    Where did I make a false comparison?
    
    3. Grudgingly admit that Mark lied but attempt to excuse Mark's lies by saying that he and MRAs are justified in lying.
    
    Where did I lie?
72. Posted by: Please.. on 4/4/2010 5:58 PM
    
    Read my other post:
    
    "Also, Mark, your brandishing of "men are more victims of violent crime than women" is misrepresenting and (deliberately?) dishonest, because it's basically a false comparison. Men are, on average, many, many times more likely to be involved with gangs (of which there are more than 30,000 identified in the US alone), drugs, organized crime, the mafia, and petty deviant behavior. If women were involved in these situations proportionately, then violence against women would be the same. As it is, you've chosen to take two dissimilar situations, compare them, and lament the disparity. If you really want to get an idea REAL victimization, compare women and men in the SAME situation and control for the very egregious confounding variables you've chosen to ignore. This is like me saying, "Well women are paid less than men overall!", while ignoring that women tend to choose less presitigous careers. Likewise, your charge, "Men are more victims of violent crime!" ignores that men on a much larger scale actively seek violent situations. The only way to gauge violence against either gender and to decide whether it is innate to that gender is to make a true comparison: put men and women in the same situation and then observe if one is more victimized."
    
    "3. Grudgingly admit that Mark lied but attempt to excuse Mark's lies by saying that he and MRAs are justified in lying.
    
    Where did I lie?"
    
    This is at Pankaj. If you bother to sift through these posts you'll understand.
73. Posted by: Please.. on 4/4/2010 6:03 PM
    
    "Seriously.. go threaten someone else who cares about what you think about them."
    
    I'll say this again; I've been nothing but patient with you. Please point out wherever I've 'threatened' anyone on this post or own up to this very stupid lie.
74. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/4/2010 6:51 PM
    
    "I've 'threatened' anyone on this post"
    
    You are right in a sense. You cannot threaten someone who doesn't care, My mistake - my apologies. Fair enough - I rephrase - go demand consideration from those that care what you think.
    
    Here is the stereotypical attitude of a MRM critic, when the problem seems to affect women, anecdotes are acceptable and evidence enough (e.g. the woman in the Indian railway news article). When it applies to men we need detail statistics argued with all possible factors accounted for. If any factor is unaccounted for - somehow it is dishonest - never mind that the same idea isn't applied to anything to do with women. When it comes to women, it is failure to reject in face of evidence, in case of men, it is failure to accept in face of statistics.
    
    Who wants to argue in such a rigged system?
    
    BTW, how is the paperwork coming along for acquiring the FIR logs? I present your own attitude towards Indian men, lack of knowledge of the already existing female only rail cars, your readiness to accept what sounded like it is in favor of women (but actually is a political ploy) and what was done to the male commuters as evidence. It has me convinced for the moment that you are not interested in the well being of men (incidentally and ironically that of women either) - so no thanks for your being "patient" with me. Do your worst.
75. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/4/2010 6:59 PM
    
    Also to be noted at this point is the fact that your imagined "separation" even though demonstrably untrue - EVEN from your own sources, not one word of kindness or sympathy has been uttered by you for the hundreds decent men who have not committed any criminal act and are now denied a necessity of living in a poor nation. Given that the male commuters on an Indian train amount to a couple of thousand, I am sure there at least a hundred who were punished for nothing at all other than being born men.
    
    NOT ONE WORD! Usually I detest lip service, but with you, even that is not forthcoming.
76. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/4/2010 7:12 PM
    
    Fundamental false Assumption/Claim #1: "If women were involved in these situations proportionately, then violence against women would be the same."
    
    Based on what? Correlation isn't causation.
    
    Gangs, drug traders, and organized criminals (so essentially .. gangs again) aren't victims of violence, they are perpetrators of violence. Unless you confuse the victim and perpetrator groups and/or include violence by law enforcement towards criminal elements as "violence against men" - this is not valid.
77. Posted by: Please.. on 4/5/2010 12:51 AM
    
    "...so no thanks for your being "patient" with me. Do your worst."
    
    *Eye roll*
    
    Eve teasing is a serious problem in India. If you want to call 'anecdotes' the Times and the Washington Post, as well as the crime report, then by all means...
    So you've now apologized for your hyperbolic "you threatened me!", but now want to rephrase that into more insults "no one cares what you think!"
    
    "Who wants to argue in such a rigged system?"
    
    You do, apparently. You can't leave me alone.
    
    The average life span of a gang member is about 20 years. Yes, those who are involved (perpetrators) of violence are also proportionately more victims of violence.
78. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/5/2010 6:53 AM
    
    "Eve teasing is a serious problem in India."
    
    Yes, those dirty Indians! the Times and Washington Post said so and they never lie, never exaggerate and always verify sources.
79. Posted by: Please.. on 4/5/2010 3:38 PM
    
    So eve teasing **isn't** a serious problem in India? And now you're constructing a new straw man in which I have contempt for Indian men.. (I think they're "dirty"), which is basically another silencing/shaming tactic. How dare I comment on sexual harassment in India!
80. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/5/2010 6:44 PM
    
    "How dare I comment on sexual harassment in India!"
    
    Indeed.. How dare you? Especially since you have no knowledge of the society, the laws or the political infrastructure.. much less how to evaluate the seriousness of one issue in India?
81. Posted by: Please.. on 4/5/2010 10:16 PM
    
    My comment was that it exists, nothing more.
    
    Pankaj, you want to bully anyone with legitimate concerns about the 'violence against men' issue, but you don't want your belittling/shaming tactics to reflect poorly on MRAs. You want to degrade and use straw men but you want your behavior to be excused away. And when someone points out your bullying, you want to threaten them into silence with phrases like "misandrist" and "man hater". You want to silence any opposition to Mark's view by saying "you're opinion doesn't matter" and "go away and don't read it", etc. You also want to portray anyone who disagrees with you as 'threatening' you, but you don't want to substantiate this lie.
    
    You want to be both tyrannical and to escape accountability. As I'm addressing Mark now, I see no reason for your continued attacks on me.
82. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/6/2010 2:01 AM
    
    "legitimate concerns"
    legitimate according to whom? You? Oh yes, you are very concerned about "violence against men". That is why you can keep making claims on baseless and patently false propaganda pieces. After all, those poor men who were deprived of their tax-funded benefits couldn't even speak english.. we really shouldn't care about them.. Understood!
    We also should OKAY collective punishment, when the punished class is "MEN", if it were Jews or Muslims or Blacks.. there would be hell to pay.
    The middle class, upper middle class woman says "They LOOK at us" is evidence enough for making claims like
    "Eve teasing is a serious problem in India." (emphasis is mine). Nevermind - that there are negligible numbers of FIR (First-Incident-Report) filed of any such incidents filed with Indian Railway Police which is the only way, the govt or press could actually count such incidents (more accurately count allegations of such incidents). But, don't let the facts get in the way of buying into hate propaganda. That is what legitimately concerned people do.
    
    Amazing! I must have missed all that. Really I should have ignored the 3 decades I have lived there, known how things operate, how the press works and should have just taken the word of Times and Washington Post. My apologies.
    
    As to why I am not an MRA - Because they are too naive - and think that the feminists and the state will roll back their oppressive regime without significant opposition, if only they appeal to folks like you - debate and discuss data and information and "factors" till the cows come home. Sad to say I used to be that naive at a point of time.
    Now, I realize that the disregard and blatant violation of the rights of men is not going to end in that rosy manner, I cannot call myself an MRA.
83. Posted by: Please.. on 4/6/2010 3:07 AM
    
    "Now, I realize that the disregard and blatant violation of the rights of men is not going to end in that rosy manner, I cannot call myself an MRA."
    
    Whose rights are more violated in India? Ever hear of bride burning?
84. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/6/2010 7:38 AM
    
    "Whose rights are more violated in India? Ever hear of bride burning?"
    
    LOL! I was waiting for that. How predictable! Hmm.. let us not examine why and how things happen. Lets just get hysterical. The sad thing about the whole bride burning issue is not that you get it wrong, its that folks who throw it out there don't understand the depth of the tragedy - which is actually far worse than just the burning. What is even worse is this is one of the issues I can just demolish any semblance of coherency about anything - out of concern for devaluing real injustice - although you fully deserve it.
    
    But this is a very good indicator of a hatred towards Indian men by the way. Most often than not, the feminist types don't know much about Indian society or how relationships work, how law and order works etc. etc. All they know is "Bride burning" and throw it out there as if it is a trump card to end the debate on existence of evil treatment of women that often attempts to justify services/rights/legal protections cut from men. It does not matter who that particular man is - whether he treats fellow human beings right or not. He is Indian and he is a man - that is enough to accuse him of violating someone's rights.
    
    Also, notice that this officially marks the one sided oppression olympics on here. Also, notice no statistics required, no counting of FIRs, no counting of court convictions..
    Which is interesting - I am sure ALL those train riders were bride burners AND ALL were molesting women, so it is okay to kick them ALL off that train.
    
    Is that it? Is this your new case for supporting keeping men from boarding tax-funded trains now?
    
    As sad as this is - let me point out another self-contradiction here. You know those men (yes, they are usually men) who - you think - took notice of the tremendous harassment and stepped up to protect women from the predatory Indian men.. well they too are Indian and male! Imagine the miracle - all enlightened, reformed men taking up jobs with the IRP and the Indian bureaucrats and politicians. What are the chances?
    What is even funny in a black comedic sense is that this is the generally criminal class and you cannot read any local newspaper without running across one of these enlightened folks being accused of rape or worse EVEN burning brides! Heck, one of them barbecued his girlfriend .. literally!! The naivety of the feminist.. always entertaining.
85. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/6/2010 7:42 AM
    
    I messed this up
    
    "What is even worse is this is one of the issues I can just demolish any semblance of coherency about anything - out of concern for devaluing real injustice - although you fully deserve it. "
    
    should have been
    
    "What is even worse is this is one of the issues I can just demolish any semblance of coherency about anything, but I wont - out of concern for devaluing real injustice - although YOU fully deserve it. "
86. Posted by: Please.. on 4/7/2010 3:13 AM
    
    "Hmm.. let us not examine why and how things happen."
    
    Are you trying to say that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for setting a bride on fire.. or that examining the nuance of 'how' and 'why' women getting burned to death will make it less of a human rights violation?
    
    "The sad thing about the whole bride burning issue is not that you get it wrong"
    
    I mentioned two words: 'bride' and 'burning'. Please explain exactly how I got those two words wrong.
    
    "Lets just get hysterical"
    
    My comment: "Ever hear of bride burning?" Please point out the hysteria. And actually if I did get hysterical about this (which I didn't) I would be reacting like any normal human being with a token of sympathy at the prospect of people getting burned alive.
    
    "What is even worse is this is one of the issues I can just demolish any semblance of coherency about anything."
    
    I've noticed that.
    
    "Most often than not, the feminist types don't know much about Indian society or how relationships work, how law and order works etc. etc. All they know is "Bride burning" and throw it out there as if it is a trump card.."
    
    So a careful examination of Indian society, "how relationships work", and "how law and order works" will make bride burning any less of a violent, heinous crime?
    
    "It does not matter who that particular man is - whether he treats fellow human beings right or not. He is Indian and he is a man - that is enough to accuse him of violating someone's rights.."
    
    Amusing.. please point out where I said this. You're playing the 'man-hate' card; I guess you can effectively silence any recourse to justice or sympathy for victims of bride burning by simply labeling it 'man-hate'. You've figured out that anyone who mentions setting a woman on fire can be immediately silenced by construing it as 'misandry', kind of like the Catholic church labeling anyone who mentions their various sex scandals as 'religion bashers'.
    
    "You know those men (yes, they are usually men) who - you think - took notice of the tremendous harassment and stepped up to protect women from the predatory Indian men.. well they too are Indian and male!"
    
    So really you're angry at males for banning other males from a commuter train? Or what?
    
    "Also, notice that this officially marks the one sided oppression olympics on here."
    
    You're right. I guess women dying in agonizing fiery pain because they are women just have "oppression" complexes. They really play up the 'victim' stance by being dead.
87. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/7/2010 5:45 AM
    
    "Are you trying to say that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for setting a bride on fire.."
    There is hysteria for you. Another glorious example of idiocy of feminists.
    
    We investigate murder, so must be that murder has perfectly reasonable explanation.. right? As weird as this is, there is a perfectly valid/reasonable reason for murder but that is a philosophical issue. I know a few genocide historians - must be they are all providing perfectly reasonable explanations for committing genocide and I just did not realize it!
    
    "So really you're angry at males for banning other males from a commuter train? Or what?"
    Of course! When evil politicians and stupid bureaucrats sacrifice the poor to keep their pots boiling, a good person should recognize and highlight the evil wherever possible.
    
    You folks and even the local feminists think the world rotates around them, but it does not. Instead your type forms a convenient human-shield for their stupid/evil plans. They formulate a plausible "woman" centered solution, and anything is done under this cover is quickly endorsed by the idiotic feminists as "protecting" the women (why not? It bashes men, portrays them ALL as molestors.. so must be good, right?).
    
    Like gullible and obedient sheeple you think they care about women.. could be because your local "authorities" seem trustworthy enough to you and somehow assume that this is how the entire world operates (which is a human tendency). But at least get to know who you are working for - inadvertently and against whom?
    
    AGAIN - KEY WORD is KNOW who you are attacking/endorsing attacks on.. and for whose benefit. The position you are arguing from is like that of the socialists claiming to be for the well being of the working class, superficially plausible but totally bankrupt of substance.
    
    Also, note that India is a crowded place. Sexual harassment is not just limited to railways.. it is everywhere. Just to be consistent they should prohibit men from everywhere too, not just trains...right?
88. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/7/2010 5:57 AM
    
    Hmm.. that could be one solution. If men and women just separate themselves from each other, there would be no bride burning (because there wouldn't be brides or marriages). The trains would be female only and male only, so will be the streets, the homes, the offices and eateries, shops etc. etc.
    There is a whole lot more eve-teasing on the streets than anywhere else - EVEN the trains - except maybe in colleges, clubs and schools. So lets segregate them all in the way the trains were.
    
    Everything for women and nothing for men.
    
    I am kinda beginning to like your idea.. no men = no problems... right?
89. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/7/2010 6:12 AM
    
    "So a careful examination of Indian society, "how relationships work", and "how law and order works" will make bride burning any less of a violent, heinous crime? "
    
    Another piece of hysteria..
    
    Does understanding the ideas of totalitarianism help avoiding the massive genocides they inevitably result in?
    Are efforts to examine the circumstances, individuals and actions simply attempts to "make" violent crimes any less violent or criminal?
    
    But all that sensible talk is only for men. Feminists prefer trump cards.. I get it. Which is why sensible talk with feminists is useless but quite entertaining activity.
90. Posted by: Adi on 4/8/2010 1:30 AM
    
    @Please
    
    You are the one who made a false comparison when drawing parallels to the pay gap which does indeed require controlling for variables of choice.
    
    I, for example, work part-time. It gives me more freedom, less stress and less slaving for someone else's profit. The price I pay is that I have a lower income. That was a choice I made and could change if I wanted to and maybe one day I will.
    
    However, people descending into gangs, drugs and any other form of criminal life that will increase their exposure to violence do not have that luxury. How CAN you dare to call that a lifestyle choice? What a perverted form of cynicism is that? By that reasoning one could say that Jews in Europe of 1944 where not more likely to die than Catholics after you factor out that many where in concentration camps where more deaths occurred anyway.
    Shame on you!
    
    I hate to spoil your day with the truth but people dying is a tragedy - even when they're male.
91. Posted by: Pankaj on 4/8/2010 6:48 AM
    
    @Adi,
    
    Actually the correct analogy is - if you factor your calculations for the Jews that walked into the ovens, no more Jews died than non-jews. After all, similar number of non-Jews had walked into ovens, they too would have died. So Jews weren't exactly killed because they were jews.. its just a statistical factor to compensate.
    
    The goal of this "Please" person is to ignore the obvious, chase the statistic and eventually claim that MRAs use distorted stats (which is a serious possibility due to the nature of the statistics). After all, if the OTHER side is busy chasing stats (an endless chase by the way) - that is a good way of wasting effort and time on THEIR side, while our side throws out even more baseless lies.. 5 out of 4 women will get raped every nanosecond or something totally baseless like that.
    
    I purposefully brought up the whole Indian Railway thing to figure out how honest this person is.. A decent person would have asked "Were the men allowed a new male only train?" "What about the people that prefer to travel mixed with their family and friends?" "Maybe if that was their concern, then they should have divided the train into male-only, female-only and mixed sections"
    
    As I suspected the quick response was to endorse collective punishment. Such people should never be taken seriously.
92. Posted by: Adi on 4/8/2010 10:38 PM
    
    Lol
    5 out of 4 women get raped. I was going to point that out as a typo.
    
    Better not use numbers to make your point with feminists. They'll tell you that maths was a product of the patriarchy and therefore suppresses women so you'd better learn to build and program computers for us without using maths in the future or you're contributing to female oppression.
    
93. Posted by: goLookGoRead on 6/22/2010 2:34 PM
    
    The topic of legislation in India that seems to be pro-women and anti-men is obviously a hot issue. Without knowing anything about the background and without having read the actual legislation it is hard to follow the pros and cons of the debate.
    
    It is dangerous to make hasty legislation without full consultation and an assessment of how this legislation will affect everyone. I do not know if India's legal system works like our own - new laws passed in parliament are issued, but afterwards they need to be formed in the law by being tested through cases that go to court - and only the wealthy can afford to have access to the law. The rest of us have to abide quietly by the laws that are formed by other people.
    
    Maybe the time has come to actually have a legally binding bill of rights in Britain. Women should not get equality simply to oppress men, that would be stupid indeed. Segregation of men from women or vice versa, is also stupid - where would that get either men or women? Why build a gender 'Berlin Wall' as a solution? It would become a sad and boring world if men and women stopped talking, listening, and caring about eachother ... just like the two people in the video. Surely this law is only going to affect Indian families in India.
    
    If you don't live in India and if your family is not Indian, you've got nothing to fear. Do not take what is happening in India as a personal indication to abandon women for the rest of your life! You are sentencing yourself to a lonely existence at the peak of your youth and also probably in your old age, that is crazy.
94. Posted by: Men on 7/30/2010 2:57 PM
    
    Dear Please:
    
    You seriously need to read these two articles. You can think of them as written specifically to YOU:
    
    http://mensightmagazine.com/Library/shameshenk.htm
    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/18/hate-bounces-how-man-hating-and-man-bashing-harms-women-the-making-of-a-misogynist/
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Men