TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AyeMatey Archive

View 30 posts and 520 comments by AyeMatey on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
106

AyeMatey/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:12 AM
90

AyeMatey/r/MensRights11/04/11 02:01 PM
82

AyeMatey/r/MensRights22/04/11 11:00 PM
79

AyeMatey/r/MensRights14/05/11 03:09 AM
63

AyeMatey/r/MensRights28/01/11 07:51 PM
44

AyeMatey/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:23 PM
44

AyeMatey/r/MensRights15/05/11 03:19 PM
43

AyeMatey/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:11 AM
36

AyeMatey/r/MensRights14/04/11 12:53 AM
35

AyeMatey/r/MensRights26/04/11 11:24 PM
34

AyeMatey/r/MensRights03/02/12 12:45 AM
30

AyeMatey/r/MensRights15/05/11 02:46 PM
20

AyeMatey/r/MensRights03/06/11 09:10 AM
19

AyeMatey/r/MensRights28/03/11 12:57 AM
17

AyeMatey/r/MensRights29/03/11 01:51 PM
16

AyeMatey/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:48 PM
16

AyeMatey/r/MensRights11/01/12 11:54 PM
14

AyeMatey/r/MensRights02/07/11 12:02 PM
11

AyeMatey/r/MensRights16/03/11 12:20 PM
10

AyeMatey/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:43 AM
10

AyeMatey/r/MensRights27/11/10 04:54 AM
10

AyeMatey/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:35 PM
8

AyeMatey/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:46 PM
7

AyeMatey/r/MensRights27/01/11 09:07 PM
7

AyeMatey/r/MensRights26/04/11 02:15 PM
5

AyeMatey/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:39 PM
4

AyeMatey/r/MensRights08/04/11 04:48 PM
4

AyeMatey/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:22 PM
0

AyeMatey/r/MensRights11/12/10 02:14 AM
0

AyeMatey/r/MensRights17/12/10 02:54 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

I don't think that's a pussy pass. She lashed out at him for all of 15 seconds. It was hateful and wrong, but not egregious. Come on now. I'm not sure she actually connected with any of her flailing attempts. Mostly, apparently, she tried to cover the camera with her jacket, which is assault, hence the conviction. But it wasn't egregious. For that 15 seconds of loss-of-control she's doing 32 hours of service. a pretty good exchange. Judging from her prior activities, It may just end up being ser…
/r/MensRights12/03/12 09:59 PM
2

yeap, I should read first before firing my weapon.
/r/MensRights03/02/12 03:35 PM
1

First reaction to hearing this is - you're damn straight. I have this idea that fathers get ripped off in child support demands. But wait - he's suing... another man. I don't think this necessarily supports men's rights or father's rights. There's no resolution to the original case; the ruling here just says that the man can proceed with his lawsuit. If the case is decided that the other man owes a debt to the resident father, it's possible (Depending on the details of the case) that men's/fathe…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 01:21 AM
6

Without a large State bureaucracy, ...and you can bet that the state apparatus that makes this all possible is 99.8% female. There is not one single divorced father in the raft of people working to enforce child support, there is not a single male in the group that evaluates parenting situations for the state court I went to. Not one. Coincidence?
/r/MensRights03/02/12 12:52 AM
20

All this stuff happened to me, except she did not take me to court and throw me in jail. She could at any moment I suppose. Not sure why she doesn't. I suppose it's nice for her to just feel the power. I used to walk around town, feeling like a first class citizen. I went to work, paid my taxes, gave to charity, volunteered. Now, honestly... after they took everything away? No house, no driver's license, no job. I don't know what to think. For anyone else out there with a similar story - go your…
/r/MensRights03/02/12 12:50 AM
6

A better approach would have been to let the girls teams play the boys teams. They adopted a restricted view that said, girls' teams could play only other girls' teams, and boys' teams only boys' teams. This meant that when only 2 or 3 girls' teams showed up, the girls' season was kaput. The solution the superintendent proposed was to cancel the boys' season too, to make it "fair." I guess that's "fair" in the sense that no one is happy. A better approach might have been to introduce co-ed teams…
/r/MensRights12/01/12 01:54 AM
2

I had missed that. Thanks.
/r/MensRights12/01/12 01:29 AM
14

Charlotte Murphy, 11, of Squirrel Hill, requested a meeting with Superintendent Linda Lane in January 2011 after she learned her season would be canceled because there weren't enough teams in the league to play against. She and her mother also consulted with the Women's Law Project, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization. Charlotte told Ms. Lane that she didn't think it was fair that the girls wouldn't have an opportunity to play, but the boys' season would continue. Problem: Not enough girls w…
/r/MensRights11/01/12 11:56 PM
5

This really happened to me. My then-wife, now ex-wife, in the course of our divorce, formally accused me of a pattern of violence in the home. She had no concrete evidence backing these accusations, but she had plenty of accusations. Beating the children, threatening her, threatening her friends, threatening to kill her boyfriend, preventing her relationships with her family, sabotaging her efforts to find employment, and on, and on. When I denied these accusations flatly, it was prima facie evi…
/r/MensRights18/12/11 04:44 AM
1

What i mean is, if the court had recognized her problems to the extent that she lost custody, the court could (and often does) mandate some kind of psychiatric or psychological care for the person, whih could have helped her and the kids avoid this tragedy. Even if thr court does not order therapy, losing custody might be the thing to convince her to get help.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 01:12 AM
1

Had she been denied custody for reasons of mental instability, she may have gotten the care she needed to manage through her difficulties.
/r/MensRights10/12/11 12:21 AM
2

Don't forget the dead children.
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:55 PM
2

If only! If only justice could be won for the price of a few innocent souls. But that won't happen. These children will have died in vain, because nothing will change, and the courts will continue to remove fathers from their children's lives, by force. Teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, and school dropouts are all correlated with fatherlessness, but the courts don't frigging care. If only one more sad sacrifice were all that was necessary to restore equality and fairness to the family courts. It wo…
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:53 PM
1

Obviously it was not in the best interest of the mother in this case either. She needed help and did not get it, and in the end destroyed herself and two innocents. So the family court action was not in anyone's best interest. No one benefits from the current situation. No one. This is true more generally, too. Sure, in a contested divorce women win sole custody, but that in the end is not a net benefit to them. It's a short term "win" and they feel like they nailed the man they hate (for whatev…
/r/MensRights09/12/11 08:50 PM
-1

Write your congressman. Whoops - "congressperson"
/r/MensRights13/07/11 04:42 AM
7

To me, it's just good advice, along the same lines as the advice to women to dress conservatively if they want to avoid unwanted attention from men. Anyone who reacts negatively to this kind of advice wants to deny their own personal responsibility.
/r/MensRights03/07/11 09:41 PM
2

In this particular case, the state of Illinois found corruption and uncertainty in many of the cases of convicted criminals who were sentenced to die. Eleven years ago, Gov George Ryan became aware that some of the men who were executed by the state were LATER found to have been exonerated by DNA evidence: They could not have been guilty of the crime they were executed for. This happened either through prosecutorial misconduct or incompetence of the defense. Either way, he believed he could no l…
/r/MensRights02/07/11 10:39 PM
1

better link: http://www.wbez.org/story/2011-07-02/illinois-death-row-shuts-down-88667
/r/MensRights02/07/11 10:30 PM
2

At first glance this story may seem to be not about men's rights, there is no specific man under question here, and who among us is In favor of child sex trafficking? But this sort of vague truthiness is often used to portray threats as being much more severe than they actually are, particularly threats involving gender conflict. The inflated threat in turn is used as a foundation for believing that men in general are more dangerous than they actually are. It is why 16-yr old girls can see a whi…
/r/MensRights02/07/11 02:39 PM
8

That data is probably not easy to come by. If a man standing accused dies, often the investigation is dropped completely. There is typically no effort to "clear the name" of a dead man.
/r/MensRights02/07/11 02:26 PM
2

Notice how the article is all about women's perspective on divorce. How women think about it, how other women think about divorced women, what it means to women to be divorced, what happens to women who decide to get divorced. That perspective is very revealing.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 12:43 AM
2

...or child abuse in divorce court
/r/MensRights20/06/11 08:56 PM
1

We mostly have a winner-take-all "primary" parent/loser "visitor" post-separation custody system. You know, the one where mom always gets custody unless she's unfit and that just so happens to coincide with the "best interests of the child". what I meant was this: in my state, the actual law states that equal parenting ought to be presumed. Despite the law, there is still a winner-take-all system just as you described. The law is there, it is just not being followed. I am no expert, but I think …
/r/MensRights20/06/11 05:14 AM
2

Brief, clear, to the point. A good opinion column. But, the call-to-action is a limited and weak. Write your state rep to urge him to support equal parenting initiatives? I'm no expert but as far as I am aware, this is already the law in many states. The problem is the law has no teeth. The family law courts are corrupt and biased despite the laws. An accusation is as good as a conviction. We need REAL reform, not new mamby pamby laws that say "Dad should get equal time" and if Dad's don't get e…
/r/MensRights20/06/11 03:04 AM
4

The althletes in the pro sports leagues are primarily young men who suddenly have come into lots and lots of money. My guess is that shakedown attempts by former sexual partners are commonplace. Sounds very cynical when I write it out, but... that's the way things are these days.
/r/MensRights20/06/11 02:54 AM
0

didn't read it! Oops!
/r/MensRights15/06/11 02:19 PM
3

Very simple: All sexism is bad, except the sexism that benefits me.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 10:40 AM
2

??? seems to me there is a big difference between the things we were discussing...
/r/MensRights13/06/11 06:30 PM
10

There is always something to be learned from such an experience I won't argue with that. But that is not the same as your earlier statement. "Always something to be learned" is not the same as "you can learn as much from shitty leadership as from good leadership." The former is a platitude, the latter is just false. In my opinion. No disrespect.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 12:47 PM
12

it's simply my personal observation that you can learn as much from shitty leadership as you can from stellar leadership good attempt to put a positive spin on a negative experience, but ... I disagree with this completely.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 11:33 AM
1

That is what I meant.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 11:21 AM
1

costs a lot more to handle a bottle of beer than pour one from the tap. don't know about profits, though.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 05:09 AM
2

Actually, Russell Crowe's recent tweetstorm about circumcision was a huge win. It raises the issue to new levels of attention. This wasn't happening 5 yrs ago.
/r/MensRights13/06/11 05:07 AM
6

"Why don't you sew up your ass" gotta love Mr Crowe.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:33 PM
2

That's fair.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:27 PM
1

Yes I do. Yes I believe that mainstream mens rights advocates believe in the rule of law, and believe rape is a crime that should be punished. on the other hand, here on /r/mr, there is some lukewarm support for that idea.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:08 PM
1

I originally didn't read it that way; on re-reading, I did see THIS: I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that so many men’s rights groups take up the cause of false rape accusations with great gusto, but that their enthusiasm for seeking justice through the law rarely extends to victims of sexual assault. Your summary, "MRAs are unempathetic to the plight of rape victims." is pretty accurate, I'd say. And, I'm finding it hard to disagree with the statement. The focus, here at least, really is …
/r/MensRights11/06/11 06:01 PM
1

The quoted comments are very insightful. Your conclusion also sounds right to me.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:47 PM
3

Forgive? This isn't about forgiveness, or remembering past hurts. Jeez, can we not seek justice. Hell, someone wants to talk about false rape accusations, I think that's GREAT. If we can come to some understanding that not all accusations are true, when women accuse men, and that we need to examine them with a dispassionate eye, that's a huge win for many men, current and future. It's a huge win for society as a whole. This has nothing to do with forgiveness.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:45 PM
1

But then you have the issue of, not guilty does not mean falsely accused. Not guilty can mean, not enough evidence; technical violation of law during investigation; mishandling of evidence (OJ). For a false rape accusation to be punished, it has to be tried in court with all the standards that apply in criminal proceedings. By the way, there are already penalties for bearing false witness (perjury) and for falsely accusing people, regardless of whether the accusation is rape or some other crime.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:43 PM
3

did the article really say that? "be a feminist and maybe we'll stop falsely accusing you of rape." ?? EDIT I just read the linked-to article and didn't see anything like that. If I had to summarize the article, it would be: false accusations are bad for everybody. For the anti-feminists to jump ONLY on false rape accusations seems sort of hollow and narrow. The quest for justice doesn't need to be an exercise in woman-bashing.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:36 PM
4

Ah, ok, thanks for the clarification. Seems bitter and counter-productive. Childish even. One man's opinion, though. Sure it reflects on MRA but let's all maintain some perspective here.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 05:22 PM
1

Forgot to mention in the title that this is an xpost from /r/news
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:51 PM
5

Quoting from the article: [Crowe] said: 'Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect.' When one Twitter user 'Hodanismail' claimed 'there's actually a scientific reason for it', Crowe answered: 'My friend, "human" science has caused too much damage, don't be a moron.' Things took a stronger tone when another user 'BarackMcBush' insisted 'It's more hygienic and nobody remembers it'. The Tweet then prom…
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:50 PM
1

I don't get it. I don't get the outrage. I don't even know what levelate's post meant. more context please? why is this so bad?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:42 PM
3

If you don't want to get catcalls, then don't run with no shirt on! Turnabout is fair play. This is what some men say to some women, who wear low-cut blouses and then complain that some men notice, comment, or whistle. And I think it's fair to say for them, and it's fair to say to you.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:40 PM
1

Cool!
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:35 PM
9

+1 insightful
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:35 PM
6

Desiring equal treatment seems consistent with some definitions of "feminist", although not consistent with most implications of feminist-influenced policies.
/r/MensRights11/06/11 04:34 PM
1

Interesting. I will check out the link. So... in my observation, she is actually afraid, herself. She has never confronted those fears, never overcome them. I don't know to what extent she has thought about how her fears affect her kid. I tried to bring it up, just as an open-ended question, but she shut down that conversation completely. Is this ignorance? abuse? both?
/r/MensRights11/06/11 08:14 AM
0

What fun sport. And about the kids? Anyone? anyone care?
/r/MensRights10/06/11 11:17 PM
1

she's being abusive. hmmm. ? What do you mean? Her reasons for it are no different to anybody elses for their abuse. what do you mean by this? Really, I'm quite interested.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 09:57 PM
2

She has a daughter shes extremely protective of; she'll not allow her to take the bus to school, instead she must drive her daughter herself to school, and insists that our boss rescheduled around this (has almost been fired a couple of times over this). No one can baby sit unless it's her or the child's father, anyone else is a molester. The daughter is not allowed to go to friends houses even if shes there with her, if the daughter wants to play with friends she can do it at school or at her h…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 04:40 PM
0

That seems fair.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 12:50 PM
4

I live in the home of a single mother; she's putting me up for a while. She has an 8 yr old kid. She is completely, utterly irrational. About lots of things. But most of all, about her 8 yr old kid. she loves being a mom, and is refusing to let this kid grow up. She treats him like a toddler, he still drinks from sippy cups, and he still has all his baby toys all over the house. She ties his shoes. She is the proverbial helicopter mom, except she is an apache attack helicopter. he is NEVER out o…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 12:47 PM
2

Crime, violent crime, and pedophilia have been dropping steadily for a long, long time. These fears are unfounded. And, counter-intuitively, they are rising! As crime drops, irrational fear increases. I think it's really neither the irrational mom or the fictional criminal that's to blame. The problem is the leadership that's willing to use fear to distort politics. The police chief who stokes fear in order to keep his staff numbers up. The sheriff who uses fear in the population to maintain con…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 12:32 PM
2

don't know about that. The implicit atmospheric message these days is that danger is everywhere and creeps are ready to pounce, despite the fact that in the USA, crime and violent crime has been steadily dropping for 40 years, and is at a new all-time low nationally. Unjustified fear is used as a way to control people, and control the political dialogue. We have women who refuse to let their children go out and play, for fear of abduction. We have police who reinforce this idea. We have women wh…
/r/MensRights10/06/11 12:29 PM
2

Marriage is a contract. Really? Then I want to have standards of law upheld in family court. I want accusations to be proven, and I want obvious perjury to be punished. I want my custody of my children to be treated as a right, not a privilege that can be revoked at the drop of a hat. I want abrogation of the contract by one party to result in penalties. I want binding arbitration. But WAIT! We already did away with all of that by adopting no-fault divorce. So,.... it ISN'T a contract, not in an…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 10:50 PM
2

Cheaper and lower risk to hire service providers - maid, cook, nanny, and "night nanny".
/r/MensRights09/06/11 10:20 PM
3

I don't like the harsh language but there is truth in what you say.
/r/MensRights09/06/11 10:18 PM
1

I don't buy it. If this reasoning holds, then my ex-wife should be responsible for providing love and companionship for years to me after divorce. You see, I agreed with her to have a traditional marriage, in which I did not screw around and I was monogamous. And now she left me, and of course my skillz have deteriorated to nothing, so I am left without options with respect to adult companionship. Since SHE PROMISED ME that she would fulfill that role, and then elected to STOP doing so, she owes…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 10:13 PM
13

This is pretty "weak tea" for those in favor of reform of family law** courts. How tepid is it to say that a giver of alimony shouldn't end up with "significantly less" money that the receiver of alimony? Significantly less??? I suppose that means "somewhat less" is OK? If we are satisfied with this kind of "reform", we deserve what we get. Alimony should be rescinded, tossed out. In 2011 America, there is no rational legal justification for it. Everyone has the right to get a job. Fair wage law…
/r/MensRights09/06/11 02:25 PM
3

I didn't read the article, but... ...When my ex-wife was pregnant I thought she was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen. I don't mean in a sexual way; just that she had a beautiful human form. It was also very cool to see the changes over time.
/r/MensRights08/06/11 05:54 AM
7

Irrelevant. The interesting question is, should it pass?
/r/MensRights05/06/11 04:04 AM
2

both public restrooms and company restrooms have these special areas for women that do not exist for men. I really don't see this as an intrusion on men's right's. Men do not breast feed. Why would they want a lounge area for it? When men whine about not getting sofas in the restroom, it sounds like whining. Whoops, I mean.... it IS whining.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 03:45 AM
1

Hmmm.... wait, you're a.... a... a woman ? and you think you don't need to be protected by a state apparatus that jumps between you and every male you encounter? That sounds very odd to me. Where do you get these silly ideas? You think women are capable persons? All by themselves?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 10:41 PM
2

I'm curious about what it was that tipped it for him, to write such a post. He himself said it might seem out of character. I wonder what the catalyst was.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 10:35 PM
-2

Umm, women need protection from the big bad world. Feminism is here to help. What about that do you not understand?
/r/MensRights04/06/11 10:30 PM
1

I don't downvote. And... We weren't talking about "companies" - I thought the topic was public restrooms. If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 05:15 PM
1

where I seem to end up loitering just so I can either fetch a different dress size or reassure MrsGrylls' that her bum doesn't look big? Because some man was looking out for you, trying to discourage you from going shopping with her, by eliminating seating areas. . .
/r/MensRights04/06/11 12:26 PM
6

Presumably because some women are uncomfortable nursing their babies in public, so they retreat to restrooms to do so. A man doesn't nurse a baby, so he doesn't need the lounge.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 12:22 PM
2

Women Behaving Badly posts are pretty common here. The point is to illustrate that women can behave badly too. Relevant to men's rights by reminding us all that men do not have a monopoly on abusive behavior.
/r/MensRights04/06/11 01:43 AM
1

??? they were serving her with an order of protection, on behalf of her husband. That's what the article said.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 09:30 AM
4

I am in favor of supporting children, financially. I am also of the opinion that the current regime of family court law in the US is rife with abuse, particularly against fathers.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 06:59 PM
3

Happened to me. She tapered down the sex steadily, every time I asked she would have a new excuse. We talked about it, she told me "I just don't feel sexual", all that crap. Then in the divorce trial she alleged marital rape, said she "cried" every time we made love. (I never saw any of this) This was just one more example of how I abused her, you see. And my "pattern of abuse" was the reason I could not have any custody of the children.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:47 PM
1

Why isn't it happening? Because we are in a place where a woman has a choice to get a job, or be a mom, or do both. This choice leads to unhappiness. This is a common phenomenon, and has been demonstrated across many scenarios. It's very robust. Suppose the mother "chooses" to be a stay-at-home mom. Maybe she tells herself she is doing this "only while the children are young," and that "it's more important that she be with them, than for her to have a job." They she has 3 kids, spanning 5 years,…
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:44 PM
8

the vast majority of men don't have to keep paying their wife after they divorce. I have no idea if this is true regarding alimony, but I do know that "child support" is unaccounted-for and is absolutely the same as alimony. The money does not go to the child, it goes to the custodial parent, the woman. She spends it how she likes, she never needs to account for any of it. This is ex-wife support, whether you call it "alimony" or not.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:25 PM
6

Child support is just alimony by a different name. The court says it is for children, but the recipient can and does spend it any way she chooses, and there is no accountability. It is ex-wife support, we should just call it that.
/r/MensRights02/06/11 05:20 PM
1

yeah, I hope. That's what I hope for. I don't know what happened to her, but I only wish her the best; I want the kids to have the best life possible, and for that (since I am out of the picture) they need a solvent, sane mother. So I wish her the best and I don't want to raise the veil on her behavior too soon. They won't be helped if they realize too soon that their mother is a nutjob. We'll see what happens. Not the life I had planned for, but...
/r/MensRights02/06/11 01:49 AM
2

Are you still paying child support? If not, I've read that fathers are arrested for this. Have you been or are you concerned about arrest and jail time? no, I don't have a job, I'm not paying. I am concerned about being arrested and jailed. Right now I am exploring ways to get right with all of this but it will require her to relent. I am at her mercy, basically. The last communication I had from her was a threat of arrest, and a warning that she will never let me out of the back payments. If th…
/r/MensRights01/06/11 01:34 PM
1

try this one: http://hvrd.me/kvGGug
/r/MensRights01/06/11 05:40 AM
1

That link just gave me the abstract. Here's the link to the full paper.
/r/MensRights01/06/11 04:09 AM
2

Right, that's what I understood. What I meant when I wrote that was: you were getting downvoted for saying so.
/r/MensRights31/05/11 01:00 AM
2

yes and you get downvoted too !!!
/r/MensRights30/05/11 09:00 PM
2

Well I agree with you, but the law cannot compel the woman to not accuse the man. The law cannot tell the woman to mind her manners. Once she accuses, it's over. O V E R. There is no response that will put that accusation away. If the accusation is found to be unfounded, the woman STILL gets custody, unless she is a drug addict, because the accusation proves the lack of cooperation. Therefore the accusation guarantees custody for the accuser, if she is a woman. The enmity between the parties con…
/r/MensRights30/05/11 08:59 PM
1

I remember silence. Think about it - there was a huge gaping maw of personal responsibility in front of her. She was not good at accepting responsibility, had not practiced it her entire life. Here it was, in front of her. She was blowing up her family, and her father told her that her mother did the same thing. The same frigging thing. Did she have the courage to say, "yes, I am responsible for this" ? In the end, no. She did not. a great pity.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:19 PM
3

That exact thing happened in my case. Very sad if you are a caring father.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:15 PM
1

If you think about it, there's no other way. The spirit of cooperation has to be unanimous in order for "shared parenting" to be able to work. Without cooperation, then there can be no shared parenting. At this point the judge has to decide - where do the kids go? They cannot go to the state. Where? mother or father? OR maybe slice the kid down the middle?
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:14 PM
1

If I could do one thing differently it would be to talk with her parents seriously before I ever started thinking about marriage. Had I done that I'll bet I would have avoided all this. Not to say I wouldn't have gotten married to her - but I would have been more vigilant about monitoring for signs of alienation or whatever, and would have been more attentive in addressing such problems. My ex didn't even know why her parents split up. It wasn't til she expressed a desire to divorce that her fat…
/r/MensRights30/05/11 01:08 PM
2

People should get used to this kind of verdict, where no one is happy. This is what happens in rape cases. It's a he said, she said thing. If the men in question don't admit to having sex with her, and she cannot remember, and there's no DNA, well then there's no case. Sure they behaved terribly as police. They took advantage of their position. False reports, lying about their presence there. For any "civilian" that would be enough to convict. But in the end they didn't admit to a crime, and no …
/r/MensRights30/05/11 12:44 PM
6

yeah, does that sub-theme in the comments carry any weight here? I think it ought to. My take away: in order to be taken more seriously, MRA needs less "I hate women" ranting, and more "this system is broken." This is not the first time I've seen it; the attitude toward MRAs is pervasive. S'ok though, it will take some time.
/r/MensRights30/05/11 12:26 PM
2

Yes, looking back it's always easy to see signs, but it's hard to tell if this is 20/20 hindsight or if there were real signs. I think the #1 thing I discounted was the mental health of her own mother. When I told my mother about my new love's family, she had some serious concerns about her. She asked me, have you thought about all that family history? So I guess warning sign #1 was: her mother had no healthy relationships with men. None. She was divorced and alone and every man in her life was …
/r/MensRights30/05/11 12:04 PM
5

I found myself in a similar situation and I walked away. I don't think that was an ideal response, but i felt as if I had no other options. We had a little home equity, some savings for college, 4 kids, some retirement savings. We didn't live extravagantly. Then she had an affair, and decided she didn't want to be married anymore. When she saw a lawyer, the lawyer advised her to seek the services of a woman's shelter, which she did. Next thing was accusations of abuse, a protection order, ejecti…
/r/MensRights29/05/11 07:59 PM
1

If a Man had his arm cut off but couldn't afford the reattachment surgery, would you be saying the government shouldn't cover it and have him pay it back later? YES ! The government is not my mommy. The government is not YOUR Mommy. It is not the role of government to pay for every problem every citizen experiences. When I dive off a cliff into a shallow pool and break my neck, it is not the government's responsibility to provide me with a wheelchair and rehab sessions. I'm an idiot for diving o…
/r/MensRights27/05/11 02:33 AM
1

an EVIL plant.
/r/MensRights26/05/11 12:32 PM
0

Just because one party is wronged doesn't mean we should wrong the other out of spite. This supposes that when the govt doesn't bail an individual out for some misfortune that befalls them, it is "wronging" that person. Continuing your line of reasoning, everyone who is robbed also needs to be compensated by the government. Also, when someone driving a car gets into an accident, not their fault, then it is the responsibility of the government to compensate the person for the cost of repair of th…
/r/MensRights26/05/11 12:27 PM
-3

There are still places that won't even test rape kits, and just leave them sitting in warehouses by the thousands. I don't buy that at all. If there is a criminal prosecution, the prosecutor is going to insist on getting and using the evidence. Do you have any evidence for your statement? In fact your entire statement seems off balance. Rape is really hard to prove. Particularly real rape, and not a false accusation, because with a false accusation the rape-crier can make up any crazy story and …
/r/MensRights24/05/11 06:21 PM
2

Gays want to get married, I've got no problem with that. On the other hand I think marriage should be more than "til lawyers do us part."
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:17 PM
1

I meant it in the sense that its treated lightly when it shouldn't be ok- well then the word you're looking for might be "flaunted", although that doesn't really fit either. Flouted doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm just sayin. ps: I'm not trying to insult you. In each interaction with others, people can choose to take one of any number of perspectives. They can prepare to take offense; they can be offensive; They can be standoffish or insulting or rude or solicitous. They can look at an…
/r/MensRights24/05/11 02:02 PM
1

This one small, simple change would do so much to eliminate the abuse of the law now. Accusations would be lodged only when they are true, when children are truly at risk. The tactical accusation would disappear.
/r/MensRights23/05/11 04:18 AM
1

this is flouted about frequently. flout means to treat contemptuously. As in flouting rules, flouting cultural standards, etc. maybe you want "bandied about" or "flogged" or "spouted".
/r/MensRights23/05/11 04:02 AM
3

No, in the western countries (USA, Canada, etc) one party can divorce the other. But if you want a "good" divorce, then it's best to get both parties to agree to split. Otherwise you can get fights, litigation, lose a bunch of money, dueling allegations, great recriminations, etc etc. It's not as simple as breaking up with a BF/GF, especially if the marriage is long term, as in this case.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:07 PM
2

I don't get how this is relevant to the topic at hand. maybe relevant or interesting to /r/soccer, but ... here? I don't get it.
/r/MensRights22/05/11 09:05 PM
4

doing a 180 and assuming false accusation isn't the correct response I agree with that, too. Elsewhere, it is assumed the rapist is guilty, on r/mensrights, it is assumed that the woman is lying. Both seem counter-productive. I agree.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:54 PM
15

we can't automatically assume it was a false accusation either. I agree with that. But the trend in this country is to presume the accusation is true. This is an obvious infringement of an entire group's rights, yet we are proceeding with it anyway. Assault is always going to be one party's word against the other, unless and until we have cameras to detect our every movement. Somehow we have got to the point that sexual assault is treated very differently than any other type of assault: when an …
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:50 PM
8

You are correct. Absence of evidence of a crime is not the same thing as evidence of the absence of a crime. (keeping in mind that the latter is impossible to prove) "Not guilty" does not automatically mean "falsely accused."
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:42 PM
1

Who was that guy? ... hmmmm... I'm trying to remember his name. William something? William Jefferson Clinton? yeah, that's the name. Or was I thinking of Julian Assange? Doesn't matter - whichever male you wanna get rid of, just accuse him of sexual violence. ps: It's men that are doing the accusing.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:39 PM
1

Keep it rational, baby. One of the phenomena I see very often on this subreddit is naysayers or MR detractors that come in, throw out some ridiculous or provocative comment, then wait for everyone to shout her down. A little later, she deletes her posts. The result is a skeleton of a discussion, leaving only the responses from actual /r/MR participants. If those responses are sane, rational, to the point, non-emotional, and free from personal attacks, it reflects well on the community at large. …
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:39 PM
1

Investigators combing through the data around Chernobyl have concluded that the heaviest negative impact on people was not from radiation, but from fear of radiation. The fear ruined their lives. They were afraid to live, afraid to play outside, afraid to eat. Don't let it happen to you. Find a way.
/r/MensRights16/05/11 06:34 PM
2

I'd encourage you to contribute something to the conversation, rather than simply be provocative.
/r/MensRights15/05/11 08:37 PM
2

These are now the top 2 stories.
/r/MensRights15/05/11 08:36 PM
1

How TV Ruined Your Life - a 6 episode BBC 2 tv series, written and presented by Charlie Brooker, about the use of fear in TV news and entertainment, to create and encourage irrational fear. His view is that it's not a conspiracy against men; instead, it's just a way to sell products. People who design these TV programs understand that inducing fear can grab people's attention. They are only selecting the topics that most strongly induce fear.
/r/MensRights15/05/11 03:39 PM
1

I think this kind of story is really important to disseminate widely. The point is to illustrate the prevalence of the use of unnecessary police intervention when women disagree with men .
/r/MensRights15/05/11 03:11 PM
8

Your thinking is part of the problem. There are predators out there, and many of them are men. That does not make all men predators, nor does it mean that non-predator men are unworthy of protection. Turn it just a little. Suppose you found out that it was Italians who were committing all the robberies in a particular area. If an Italian person happened to fall victim to a robbery, would you be of the opinion that "he or she deserved it" ? How does that make sense? The point here is not that men…
/r/MensRights14/05/11 06:25 PM
3

If 1 in 6 is raped and we assume a 40 year window for the majority of those to occur in, it means there are nearly 4 million rapes a year. That's more than the number of all violent crimes combined which, in 2009 was 1,318,398. Yes, but you're forgetting the 90% underreporting aspect. They say that rape is unrereported by 90%, so ... that means you'd need to see 400,000 reported rapes to get to 4 million actual rapes... wait... my math must be wrong.... somehow... hmmm.
/r/MensRights14/05/11 04:18 PM
6

bingo
/r/MensRights14/05/11 04:16 PM
1

Sure thing, you can ask. it's a long story... http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/h6gax/seeking_advice_really_long_story_divorced_and/
/r/MensRights11/05/11 03:28 AM
1

I'm not against being "on the hook" but it has to be reasonable, I need to be able to afford my own place. Anyway I understand that I need to pay support if I have a job, the real question is, .. how to get from "here" to "there". not looking for legal advice, just insight, suggestions, perspective.
/r/MensRights08/05/11 03:42 AM
1

comment #3 of 3. Read last. Some other ideas I haven't really considered. What do you think: go on a PR tour. Write letters to congressmen, get on MensRights radio shows, get my story written on theSpearhead.com or fathers and families or whatever. Get some attention. Devote myself to exposing this issue, this crap. Embarrass everyone involved. Name names. just wait. Wait til the kids turn 18 and then seek them out. walk away completely. Just chalk it up to experience. This would be heartbreakin…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:52 AM
1

comment #2 of 3. Read this one 2nd. My concerns with this: The risk of spooking her. During the divorce, she made many allegations about me controlling her, under the current doctrine of "DV doesn't have to be violent to be DV". So if I connect with all these people, asking for their help in changing things, who knows if she'll conclude the same thing again, and go nuclear again. More court orders, etc. Of course, nothing could be worse than my current situation, but if this would occur, if the …
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:44 AM
2

comment #1 of 3. Read this one first. Here are some ideas i've been thinking about: I am still on good terms, I think, with my ex employer. I think they'd extend a job offer to me, not my old job, but a good job. My skills are still current. It would be good pay, with benefits for everyone. I could get that back. That would mean I'd have enough money to get a place to live, and pay child support, and sort of return to respectability. Even if not this job, I'm sure I'm employable somewhere. I hav…
/r/MensRights08/05/11 02:43 AM
8

in other words, men not getting married, and beginning to provide for a family, shoulder a mortgage, and take on other long term commitments. had I known then, what I know now, I would not have gotten married. Had I know what it was possible to do to men, with the force of the legal system, I would not have gotten married, or done any of those other things. Live and learn.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 07:53 PM
9

This is a clear illustration of the double standard. Reverse the genders and see how it sounds. "Hundreds of girls undergo genital surgery" . There would be a huge outcry, worldwide. Why? Only because of tradition. Only because tradition says that "it's ok" to cut boys, but not to cut girls. The boys will survive. I think it's an abomination and a crime, but they will survive. What is more important now, is to use this event to expose the unexamined double-standard that poisons people's thinking…
/r/MensRights07/05/11 05:24 PM
1

I don't really think that it was done to persuade people it was "a nastier fight". I am a bit more cynical than that. I believe it was done for a totally different reason: to perpetuate the idea that worldwide, men are animals, and women should fear them. Actually it is sort of a self-reinforcing meme. Women who believe it gain power, then perpetuate this idea, which convinces other people, who then move into positions of power, who perpetuate the idea, and so on. Pretty soon the people who perp…
/r/MensRights02/05/11 02:36 AM
3

tl/dr: It appears that ...US ambassador Susan Rice has made a massive false rape claim. Rice announced in a closed door meeting at the United Nations Security Council last week that Gaddafi's forces were issuing Viagra, the drug used to treat erectile dysfunction, to soldiers "so that they go out and rape" civilians in areas that support the rebels. According to this news report, Rice's allegation was false. The article then goes further in stating a clear opinion on the matter: If we, as a soci…
/r/MensRights01/05/11 08:14 PM
3

This linked story is from 2005; interesting history lesson, but it would be more valuable if we had an update on where Sweden is now. It is under Swedish law that Julian Assange is being prosecuted for sexual assault based on the allegations of two women. Recent news
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:08 PM
2

When I click "Sign" on that page, nothing happens.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 05:21 PM
26

it's natural for them to do so. why do we need to turn that into a bad thing by litigating it? Because adults in this country are crazy. There's no other word for it. About sex, we are completely insane. We think it's ok for 12 year olds to see mortal violence depicted in movies, beheadings, stabbings, people being run over by vehicles. But a 12 year old seeing the physical act of love? Oh my GOD NO!
/r/MensRights01/05/11 05:08 PM
5

I have another anecdote to share with you, maybe a more helpful one. I know a divorced woman with one child, now, who used to be similar to your ex. She treated the baby's father like hell, always attacking, no respect for him. She looked for ways to keep the kid from the father, she badmouthed him, she made exchanges difficult, changed schedules at will and without notice, fought him over payments, lodged a protection order, and generally was pissy. Maybe less legalistic that yours, but still, …
/r/MensRights30/04/11 04:09 PM
6

I've been in a similar situation. I know what you mean about the game of chicken. That describes it exactly. I surrendered. I tried everything. Talking to her family, her friends, her pastor. Then she got a protection order preventing me from doing so. I spent ALL of my money on lawyers. That didn't work. I worked hard and never missed a payment. That was irrelevant. I was never ever late, not even once, for an exchange. Irrelevant. The court did not smile on me, because every time I went there,…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 03:47 PM
1

I'm sorry if anything I said demeaned you. it was not my intent.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 09:22 PM
1

I'm not trying to make anyone feel foolish or demean anyone. I'm asking "what is it that you don't understand?" It's an earnest question. I am surprised if people don't know about this. That's what I mean by "somehow not aware". this is not an insult; just asking a question. No offense intended to anyone and I apologize if it came out that way.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 08:46 PM
3

Dispensing with all possible defenses makes the hearings much shorter. Saves everyone tons of time.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 07:40 PM
2

Wait til you are on the other side of the judge's bench. It gets a little more surreal then. "Witch hunt" is the only thing I could think, for about a year of my life. Of course, the damage never goes away, the loss of time with my children never goes away, but at least right now, I am no longer being led out to the lake with my arms and legs bound, to "see if I float".
/r/MensRights29/04/11 07:39 PM
4

Protection From Abuse order, aka Restraining Order. Different jurisdictions use different terms. The basic idea is that a woman goes to a judge and requests protection. Different states have different requirements, but in many states the requirements for granting protective orders have been relaxed greatly. In this particular case, the judge is saying that he sees PFAs being deployed as weapons in divorce cases. If the request is granted (as it probably will be), the man (98% of the time it is a…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 06:51 PM
5

His name was Brian.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 05:03 PM
7

Ah, well, he lives in Perry North, which is a workingclass area of Pittsburgh. The average home price there looks to be around $90k, which is slightly below the overall average for Pittsburgh. http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Perry_North-Pittsburgh/5897/market-trends/ I suppose it is possible she is wealthy, but it seems unlikely. It is true that money was never mentioned in the article.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:51 PM
-1

Wait, what are you surprised about? The judge is saying that he is aware that the PFA is ripe for abuse. I don't get it. What is it that you don't understand? Were you somehow not aware that these things exist? I thought everyone on /r/mensrights knew about this.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:50 PM
7

Depression related to... maybe... loss of his children? loss of his home? a regime of surveillance by the police? He was depressed enough to kill himself. What caused the depression? Why is he drinking himself to death? By attributing this man's death to depression, you are missing the real cause. You may as well say, "it wasn't feminism that killed him, it was a BULLET." It is feminism that turns a man who is no longer desired by his wife, into a pseudo-criminal, presumed guilty, with restricte…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 03:33 PM
15

I already commented on this thread about the ridiculousness of a system that chews up men and spits them out. A conflict between estranged spouses shouldn't inevitably result in the injury or death of either spouse. Surely we want to guard against hurting women, but accepting suicides of men? We've gone too far. And will there be outrage among people who fight for "equality"? Beyond that, though, the woman who brought the request for protection has now been tragically educated about the abuses o…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 01:23 PM
3

I don't get it. If a judge is an elected official, and he makes a campaign-related statement, you take that as justification for the idea that electing judges is an invalid approach. I don't see the logic in that reasoning. I would expect an official holding an elected office to try to get re-elected. You may have a point that judges shouldn't be elected officials, but I don't see it. I think it IS crazy for a judge to do political campaigning at all, especially relating to the cases he's ruled …
/r/MensRights29/04/11 01:11 PM
3

Whether he's right or not, only in a crazy system could such a thing be said. What do you mean? Seriously. Do you mean to say that it's crazy for a judge to assert his judicial independence? I take his statement to mean that he believes that women's groups are not entirely happy with his record on the bench, and he is using this moment to get his campaign message through, that he is independently minded. I don't think that's bizarre; am I missing something?
/r/MensRights29/04/11 12:08 PM
18

Terrorism is the new Communism. It is the thing you accuse someone of, if you want to end all debate, and go straight to irrational persecution.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:28 AM
20

I have no idea if the protection-from-abuse order was appropriate in this case or not (See recent related article on huffpo, talking about how women abuse the system). But the effects on the man in this case are incontrovertible. Whether or not he was "a danger to other people", it is clear that the regime of sanctions placed on the man were such that he felt the desire to kill himself. Did he have prior mental problems? Who knows. It doesn't matter. The point is that he died as a direct result …
/r/MensRights29/04/11 11:22 AM
2

OK, you are assuring me of this now. You've had plenty of chances to present a reasoned, supported position. So far I haven't seen it at all. Within /r/mr, which under your view would supposedly be his friendliest audience, I have never seen him espouse any viewpoint even close to "all feminists are men-hating misandrists", as you have directly accused him of doing. You argue dishonestly, and when I called you on it, you resorted to "trust me". Twice. C'mon. Gimme a break.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:28 AM
3

oh! I see. He is secretly unreasonable. You are not persuasive at all. Your style is argumentative and combative. You bring few facts, and those you do bring do not support your points. You seem to rely solely on emotion. I'm all done here.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 04:15 AM
1

Clearly you don't understand that I was talking about kloo2yoo. Well I haven't seen him say that either. I'm not interested in associating with people who think that way. If I had seen it I wouldn't be here. "Clearly" you want to argue. Making stuff up doesn't cut it.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 03:20 AM
3

The problem is that those things aren't caused or perpetuated by feminism! I lost my children because of VAWA and distorted "Family law" statutes which were made law of the land directly based on heavy lobbying by radical feminists. Men are being expelled from college campuses based on accusations alone, without due process, under policies that have been pushed by radical feminists. Yes, these problems were caused by people waving the feminist flag. It may not be what you agree with. It may not …
/r/MensRights29/04/11 02:56 AM
3

Would you want a misandrist to take over as a mod for /r/mensrights? You equate "anti feminist" with misogynist. I think you are incorrect. I think you're too quick to judge, too quick to take offense, too impatient to think and consider. I don't think Kloo is that way. Feminism was not always corrupt. I think kloo would agree with that. He is against the current guise, which allows children to be taken from fathers without just cause or due process, or men to be expelled from schools without du…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 02:41 AM
2

You are being suspicious, argumentative, and unreasonable, from the outset. It seems you want to argue. You are arguing about arguments you've had previously. Do you not see the pointlessness of that approach? arguments about previous arguments... I suppose that sort of thing is precisely what this change is imagined to combat.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 02:27 AM
1

That's crazy talk.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 08:42 PM
5

Keep em coming. That's what we need, people bringing suit to get these laws, policies and practices exposed to the light of day.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 11:50 PM
10

Does this mean I will regain shared custody of my children?
/r/MensRights26/04/11 11:24 PM
2

don't feed the troll!
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:04 PM
2

I agree it's not directly related, but this is the kind of "brass tacks" discussion we need to push for, in all issues relating to justice and rights. It's out of fashion now, to be willing to examine the rights-vs-safety issues surrounding all aspects of the law. But we dismiss our reading of Locke and Kant at our peril.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 07:01 PM
7

I started to follow up. I began with the last link you offered, in evidence that this reddit is a bunch of woman-demonizing misogynists. Your analysis of the linked-to-article was: (the linked article appears to be saying something to the effect of 'don't let women do stuff like lawyering or engineering 'cause they just don't do that shit well! keep 'em at home!' 'Neutral' restriction my ass.) You just absolutely, 100% made that up. The article says nothing of the sort. The article does not argu…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 06:52 PM
2

You should not denigrate women just because they've got a vagina and just because that's what's been done for millennia by the overwhelming idiot majority. I don't see that here. You apparently have your own issues. They're not caused by this reddit, or men fighting to regain their rights.
/r/MensRights26/04/11 06:17 PM
2

I'm not against "a group" and I think attempting to fight "a group" or "an ideology" will not work. There are too many people who remember clearly what it was like for women 30 years ago, and don't want to go back. They will not turn their backs on women's rights. Good for them. If you ask them to disavow feminism, they will scoff. On the other hand I think it can be effective to fight a specific injustice. The injustice described in this opinion piece - Fathers being dispossessed of their child…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 04:42 PM
6

that's valid. she observes the problem, she describes the problem, but she ducks responsibility for it, she deflects responsibility from her beloved feminism. That's lazy. understandable, but lazy. Pointing the blame at a particular political or social group is unhelpful. Really? Is it not important to know where the bias and abuse stems from? I think this is a cop out. She is RIGHT though, that having an argument over blame can be unhelpful. It can just delay real solutions. I'm not primarily i…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 03:48 PM
21

Yes, and who will notice? EDIT I take it back. After having read the article, it serves as a clear articulation of the problems surrounding abuse of protection orders. The summary given at the top of this reddit post does not do justice to the piece. The piece does NOT state that the primary problem with abuse of protection orders is that women are harmed. In fact the (woman) author of the piece goes into great detail about the injustice that results from abuse of these orders, how it works, why…
/r/MensRights26/04/11 02:47 PM
2

Interesting to view the perspective and sympathetic tone of the article. She stole computers from the school where she worked, and she robbed banks, to get money for her drug addiction. She was with a man during the bank robbery. The article describes her status as "Accused" but she confessed openly to all of these crimes. Also - they have her on video. There's really no doubt that she did these things. There was no weapon involved in any of them, as far as we know. Here's the earlier report of …
/r/MensRights26/04/11 02:17 PM
7

All of this is based on hearsay. She has no witnesses, evidence, and there is no history of violence on my part. And frankly none of the crimes she's claiming happened are true. She's completely making stuff up. You can tell by her affidavit which doesn't give specific examples, she just wrote "he physically restrained my person". Who talks like that? Obviously she has someone helping her. The same happened to me. No evidence, no witnesses, etc. The result: I haven't seen my kids in 2 years. I h…
/r/MensRights23/04/11 10:19 PM
2

It's no coincidence. Stanford. Harvard. U of Chicago will be coming soon. Yale Dartmouth Penn Princeton. They are well-organized, they are methodical, they are smart, they know what they are doing.
/r/MensRights23/04/11 04:37 AM
10

I am rooting for him. I hope he wins millions in damages. Something, anything, to get the attention of the people that are ruining men.
/r/MensRights22/04/11 11:42 PM
0

What was her source? The US Dept of Justice. I just listened again, and Couric qualified it to say "95% of sexual attacks on college campuses go unreported" see for yourself: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7363066n The citation is at about 3:25 into the 12-minute segment.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:29 PM
0

I don't understand. How can it be both "60% go unreported" and "40% are unreported" ? On the 60 Minutes Beckett Brennan story from last Sunday, Katie Couric said that 95% of sexual assaults go unreported. 95%.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 02:27 PM
1

Thanks for your concern. Now, go tell a friend. or write your state legislator.
/r/MensRights20/04/11 02:21 PM
3

I'm against women serving as combat troops and female conscription as a matter of principle. that principle being.... ?
/r/MensRights20/04/11 02:19 PM
1

(even if nothing happened, you can just say you're scared something might happen). Then, the man gets kicked out of the house and the woman basically owns it now. This is exactly what happened to me. There was no event, there was no allegation of violence. My ex, though, testified that she was scared that I might "do something." This was enough to get me ejected from my home, and to lose custody of my children. I never returned to the place, and I never regained possession of my belongings, and …
/r/MensRights20/04/11 05:04 AM
1

I guess when it comes down to it, if the woman does have some small amount of responsibility because she took risks, it doesn't really matter, the problem is the person raping who needs to be brought to justice. ok, well suppose there was no rape or suppose there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for rape, which is exactly the case in this Beckett situation. Who, if anyone, should be "brought to justice," and just what does it mean to do so? In the current case the University formally penal…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 04:55 AM
1

Again we agree I think it's just semantics we are disagreeing about. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and normally I look for common ground. But on this, I don't think we agree. Earlier you said: doesn't mean she's responsible for what happened, the guy who raped her is. (Keep in mind there was no finding of rape in this case. However we are speaking of mostly hypotheticals anyway so I won't quibble on that issue) I don't believe that treating rape as a crime means the woman bears no responsi…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 04:28 AM
1

I'm not saying 100% safe. I'm saying she bears some responsibility. It doesn't lessen the guilt of a would-be attacker to say, the woman bears responsibility. Just because I might starve in the future, because of some factor out of my control, doesn't mean I am not responsible today, right now, for providing for my own nutrition. I don't buy your reasoning that because life has risk, that means she is absolved of responsibility. A woman is a person. She is not powerless or without responsibility…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 03:45 AM
1

A woman can maintain the safety of her body up until a point but if the man is stronger it'll come to a point where she can't overpower him, more than likely. You're quite correct. But if you please, respond to the situation at hand here. Supposing the information I provided to you is accurate, do you believe that the woman here bears any responsibility for what befell her that evening? Do you accept that individuals bear responsibility for keeping themselves out of harm? I understand that she c…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 03:37 AM
1

Well in this situation there was no issue of clothing. It was a matter of a woman maintaining control over her own body. Getting drunk and then going into a house with a bunch of strangers at night... is not a smart move. It has nothing to do with burqas or modesty. She simply ceded control over her own safety to a bunch of men she had just met. This is dumb. The outcome was negative for her, but it was very predictable. I guess I disagree that it is a womans responsibility not to get raped. !!!…
/r/MensRights20/04/11 03:29 AM
1

I'm not advocating Saudi Arabia. But the woman consumed at least 6 shots of vodka, by her own admission! which makes me think the number was probably more like 9. Then she left a group, just her and three large strange men. Then she went to an apartment, alone, with 3 large men. She "thought the party was going to continue there" she said. Then she went upstairs to the bedroom with the three men. None of these things was smart. I get that "No means no" and that a woman has the right to say "no" …
/r/MensRights20/04/11 12:33 AM
1

I've been thinking a lot about the problem of false rape claims, too. I think the burden of proof should absolutely be on the woman and a man shouldnt be convicted on her word alone, but the penalties for rape/sexual assault should be harsher to hopefully scare people out of doing it. I think that's a happy medium. Interesting. I take this Brennan incident as a case study. What could have been done better? Is Beckett Brennan made whole by the sanctions taken against the accused men? No. She is n…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 11:19 PM
2

I think both feminists and MRAs tend to demonize the other side and I don't like that. I agree with you, and I think the current "demonizing" strategy of these opposing sides isn't likely to prove fruitful. On the other hand both sides will justify their positions, saying that it is necessary to be extremists when the stakes are so high, when the issue is so important, and so on. I don't agree with that either. If the issue is important, it is the time for wisdom, not appeals to emotion and fear…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 10:57 PM
1

Well a rape's a rape. Married or no, if she reports it and gets it investigated, fine. Let the process roll. I guess the term "spousal rape" is necessary to eliminate the idea that it is impossible for a man to rape a woman to whom he is legally married. (probably common among law enforcement) But otherwise I don't think it warrants special attention, especially not iif it means that allegations can be raised years and years after the fact. I'm sorry about what happened to you :( Thanks for your…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 10:33 PM
1

I don't even know what "spousal rape" is. Rape is rape. What the hell is spousal rape? The problem I have with spousal rape is that accusations tend to come YEARS after the alleged crimes, during a divorce trial. They are vague and non-specific, there are no times and dates, and there is literally no defense other than "no, that didn't happen." I saw this from experience. Women's advocates say that women in these situations didn't realize that what they were experiencing was rape, and therefore …
/r/MensRights19/04/11 09:59 PM
1

Well that's my point. It's a minefield. It's hard to know the right answer. they got expelled just by her word. And that's not right. This was the prerogative of the university disciplinary review board. We presume that there was actual testimony, and it was not just "her word." It sounds like the guy who got expelled, received that sanction for lying. He denied even being there; probably his buds commented that he was there - hence he is shown to be probably lying to the review board. If I'm on…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 06:37 PM
3

. It seems to me that liberals are all about due process and rights of the accused. Correct! Certainly the ACLU is in favor of those things. If that is your definition of liberal. But the original quote from above is: you can just point to illiberal crap like this and ask why a "good" ideology would be cheering for the termination of due process. the emphasis is mine. num3rb0y called it ILLIBERAL.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:38 PM
1

Summary: Beckett Brennan was a bright, wholesome looking girl, a student at Pacific University in California. One night she attended a party, drank to excess, found herself in an off-campus condo, where she says 3 men "led her upstairs" and then 2 of them had sex with her, against her will. She declined to press charges, never filed a police report. A number of weeks after the incident, she took her case to her university's review board. The board expelled one student, suspended the other two - …
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:34 PM
3

... a perfectly legit divorce with genuine reasons to break up without ill will becomes a mudslinging contest. which is what we have now. No one wins, except the attorneys. Yet people keep playing the game. Why? Actually, there is no legal requirement to have "reasons" to break up. Any person can dissolve a marriage. Despite the law, judges cast moral judgments on people who petition for dissolution of "workable" marriages without proper cause. Therefore a woman who is just tired of being marrie…
/r/MensRights19/04/11 05:16 PM
2

Craigslist is authoritative. We can believe everything we read there, and from a single article, we can draw conclusions that apply to the whole of society.
/r/MensRights19/04/11 11:28 AM
3

Why can't we men all understand this? It's so simple! Earn money, go away, leave us alone.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 10:53 PM
13

But hey... it's "just" a false accusation, guys. exactly. "Man up" Get over it. We need to protect the women and children. etc etc
/r/MensRights18/04/11 06:38 PM
1

"why am I here" .... I referring, of course, to YOU. iow explain the thought processes that you went through, deciding to do this, deciding that writing about this issue was more important to you than free time, what led you to feel the need to speak out more broadly, how you moved from apathetic or unaware to concerned person, to someone who feels the need to actually speak about men's rights. (I suppose you don't know why I am here, that's not really your purview)
/r/MensRights17/04/11 12:02 AM
2

First post - I'd like to see "why am I here?"
/r/MensRights16/04/11 07:12 PM
3

no, the police aren't there to protect anyone. I understand. But that is what women like this think. The police are her personal security detail.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 07:01 PM
6

If I were you I'd talk to a lawyer. It will cost him lots of money, and a huge headache, to go this route. The sad thing is, there is no good way out. It doesn't even enter the police's mind that this woman is wasting police's time and resources, ha ha ha! The police are there to protect her, of course.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 06:47 PM
5

Thank you Joe Biden.
/r/MensRights16/04/11 06:14 PM
1

We need a James O'Keefe in the women's protection industry. If mainstream people saw what goes on in the shelters, suborning perjury and so on, the tax dollars would dry up real quick.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:25 AM
3

It's going to happen. Here's the thing: you owe it to yourself, to the world, and to the men who will follow you to keep speaking truth. do not be discouraged if, after providing factual information, people stop listening to you. Continue to seek the truth and share it when you find it. You must. It is an imperative. It is not relevant that this is a "feminist" issue. This will happen with anyone who has entrenched beliefs. That's ok. Eventually the truth comes out. It will take tooooo long for …
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:16 AM
1

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.
/r/MensRights15/04/11 03:11 AM
2

works if you're a woman. not so much, if you're a man, and the accusation is a crime against a woman.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 02:33 PM
1

Just one sarcastic comment from a person who is tired of the war.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:22 PM
-2

I'm sure she had a dern good reason to shoot him. No doubt he deserved it.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 01:00 AM
1

A win for young men. Also, a convincing victory for libertarian principles.
/r/MensRights14/04/11 12:59 AM
4

Currently the top 2 news stories on /r/news are about wrongly-convicted men whose convictions were overturned, and the lack of justice they are getting now. Both are in the USA.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:29 PM
1

men would just be put in jail for it Probably true, but it would be unsustainable. If enough men did it, eventually it would resolve the current imbalance.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 02:15 PM
2

WAT?! All he's doing is forcing HER to pay. If SHE removes him from his kids' lives, then it seems only appropriate that SHE should be financially responsible for them.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 12:45 AM
17

It's a sad state of affairs, but ... think about it. If every man did this - when faced with the injustice of false allegations and inappropriate infringement of his parenting rights - if he just checked out, and the money stream dried up, I'll tell you that the false allegations would stop real quick, and society would work to figure out a way to be more fair. As it is, too many men try to "man up" for the good of the children, you see, which only perpetuates the situation.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 12:44 AM
3

ya, I thought the same thing as I read that piece. She's dealing with the programming embedded in her brain by all the feminists who believe that looking at sex, is, by definition, exploitation of women. She likes it, but the voice inside her head is saying "No, you DON'T like it!"
/r/MensRights08/04/11 05:19 PM
2

Women do not have the same situation.. they are only damned if they don't because women lose little to nothing by taking the choice of ending the relationship Right.... but how does that make them immoral? If women enjoy a legal advantage (whether it is an appropriate one or not), how is it immoral to benefit from that advantage? women have less of a reason to cheat than men. I don't agree with this either. The way you described it, partners have a reason to cheat if their needs "are not being m…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 05:03 PM
-1

Given that most reports show husbands and wives cheating at similar rates, that speaks to either the moral fortitude of men, or the immorality of women. It does not follow. You've offered that women and men cheat at similar rates. Presuming that cheating is the primary indicator of morality - How does "similar rates" suggest that women are more or less immoral than men? I don't disagree that there is an inequality in dealing with cheating, by the courts. But, an entirely rational person would ta…
/r/MensRights08/04/11 04:52 PM
1

ok, that might make sense. Still, why would it change "later"? Why wouldn't the mod who registered it, be the mod who runs it?
/r/MensRights04/04/11 08:16 PM
2

Your opinion on this seems irrational and unfounded. Why are the moderator's actions with 85 subscribes not a valid exemplar of what s/he does as moderator?
/r/MensRights04/04/11 06:25 PM
12

When I was still married, my (now) ex started going to a women's support group. This was on the advice of her attorney, although I did not know it at the time. The "support group" was really a VAWA-funded Women's DV shelter. One day on the desk in the home office, I noticed a sheet of paper - it was similar to this list, but as I recall it was "signs of an abuser". At the bottom of the list was one of those lines like "if you said YES to 3 or more of these questions, you are with an abusive man.…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:45 PM
3

X and mating are strongly linked in men's minds.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:35 PM
1

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Of course I didn't know about your situation, but it sure sounds like you've been honest and fair. I do know people who think of themselves that way - honest and fair - but in actuality have not been. Maybe they are just sticking to the talking points and don't really believe their own PR. ps: When a lawyer - a mercenary - tells you that you are not fighting very hard, it is not a very high compliment. What he really means by it is "Gee, this attitude of yours is…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:11 PM
5

I'm not arguing for the justice behind the current arrangement. I'm stating that it is the current arrangement. I hope in the future we will come to a place where parenthood will be voluntary, and child support (financial and otherwise) will be voluntary. But that is a loooooong way off.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 08:05 PM
3

Yet she has the sole power to decide whether or not they're collectively responsible for raising it. Yes, I agree. You are correct in everything you say. That is the way it is now. Whether it should be changed and if so, to what, is a different issue. The OP, I thought, was asking, "is there a way for me to get myself out of this sticky situation?" and I believe the answer is "No."
/r/MensRights28/03/11 07:42 PM
15

he should have the same rights to the options that [girl] has available to her. it would be nice, but it's her uterus, so... no. It's a bummer for him. But he put himself in this position. He shares the responsibility for the child. It's her decision; he merely has a stake in it.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 06:43 PM
1

Without even an accuser, it's really just a "He said" and with chances of a conviction being so low, it's hard to justify the spend. I think one thing that hurt this is that a substantial number of domestic abuse claims over the past decade have later turned out to be faked by a woman looking for vengeance or punishment. That's embarrassing for the police and the CPS, and it's made them reluctant to touch this issue if they don't have a witness. All this covers the criminal aspect. But there is …
/r/MensRights28/03/11 06:36 PM
2

My ex basically abandoned his role as father to our kids years before I ended our marriage. The law insists he has to pay for them (he still hasn't, not one dime in two and a half years, though I'll own I haven't been pushy in that regard), but can't force him to see them or be a father to them. And while I'll concede that he has a responsibility to support his kids that did not cease just because the marriage had become unbearable to me, money isn't what my children need from him. What they nee…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 06:27 PM
3

if pushed into a custody battle, I would definitely try to win primary custody. "Try to win" ? You are a woman. If you are not a felon, and you live in the USA, You will always win 100% custody in any battle. As soon as the man gets aggressive, you need only allege that he beat the kids, and that you are afraid of him, and you will quickly receive 100% control over the situation. Your hypothetical scenario is entirely imaginary and impossible. If you are in a custody battle, an action which you …
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:47 PM
1

are now getting a child support check that doesn't actually cover half of what they're spending to house, clothe, feed and educate the kids. Check your biases and assumptions. Child support payments are not intended to be 100% funding of child rearing. That's why it's called "support". If the woman who has 100% custody of the child is spending more than her income (including child support payments) on the children, she needs to budget better.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:41 PM
4

Here's the problem with women in the work force... you immediately increase the supply of workers by 51% ah, 100%. Without commenting on the issue at hand (women in the work force), your math is wrong. I'll start by accepting this as a given: Women make up 51% of the adult population. (I don't know if it is strictly true, but it's close enough). If you compare "both women and men" in the workforce to the situation of "only men in the workforce", then the former is ~100% more workers than the lat…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:38 PM
2

Really? Jonas Salk - do you think he put his family first? Or maybe his career took precedence? What about Nelson Mandela? Was his career more important than his family? Martin Luther King. Think he was a dedicated family man, first and foremost? Or did he believe that he had a higher mission? How about Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Was he primarily concerned with his family? Everyone has their own value system. Who is to say whether "career" should be more important than "family", for a given pers…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:32 PM
8

Nice to see this stated in a mainstream venue like HuffPo. Also it was validating to see the comments posted to the article; on balance they tend to agree with the bias against fathers in divorce and "family law" courts. There are of course some skeptical women who suspect that men who want more time with their kids are simply changing their tunes to get out of paying financial support. Hackneyed objections, in my opinion. I personally hear lots of men complaining about support payments, but non…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 05:24 PM
1

Hmm,.... so she is a thoughtful skeptic and refuses to buy into gender hysteria. She advocates for standards of evidence to be applied even if the alleged crime is a man-on-woman crime of violence. This is not "feminism". In my book, this is is called being a rational human. How can any thoughtful, honest, moral person disagree with what she advocates?
/r/MensRights28/03/11 04:40 PM
1

I already pre-responded to your concern, before you posted it. It's the belief that "women are virtuous and men are criminal and violent" that leads to distortions in family law policy, for example. To fix the policies we need to have rational, non-myth based understandings of behavior. We need to arrive at: Bad people do bad things. It's not "bad men do bad things".
/r/MensRights28/03/11 12:01 PM
2

This is what used to be known as "marriage".
/r/MensRights28/03/11 03:42 AM
3

Great story. Here's my story for why I am an advocate for men's rights. My Mom was very smart - full merit scholarship to an excellent university, which she needed because she was dirt poor. She worked all the way through school, while maintaining an A average, because she had to. supported her mother as well. But she was a sucker for dark Italian men, married my Dad young, before graduating school. My Dad was a workhorse, driven, ambitious, charismatic, fun-loving, and energetic. My mom loved a…
/r/MensRights28/03/11 01:27 AM
-3

As always - these stories are posted not to suggest that all women are criminals, nor that all women are psychotic irrational beings. Only to illustrate that women commit crimes, too. I'm not demonizing women. I'm pointing out that heinous crimes are sometimes committed by women.
/r/MensRights28/03/11 12:59 AM
1

You're gay? that means the courts don't care. They only care when it's man-vs-woman.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 11:05 AM
1

I think you are justifying paternity fraud. You are parroting the "man up" attitude that causes all sorts of bullshit to roll on to the heads of men. Your suggested policy is logically indefensible. You think a man should pay for a child, because "a woman says so". You think "think of the children" means "ignore the rights of men." You are wrong. I should consider putting up with the injustice and loss of income to protect an innocent. ok, .... which innocent? There are children in Sudan that co…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 10:49 AM
1

here's the thing: It's going to keep happening. Once she digs in like this, it will keep happening. The only way out is to show her how unpleasant things can be for everyone, to convince her that being reasonable and respectful to the other parent, is the better path. "Showing her how unpleasant things can be" is another way of saying "get a lawyer and start legal maneuvers, injunctions, court orders, etc etc." At the same time you need a diplomatic arm, someone that can talk to her without aggr…
/r/MensRights25/03/11 10:42 AM
1

Coming Real Soon Now. You just stand by....
/r/MensRights25/03/11 03:10 AM
1

you forgot the asterisk: ** presumed guilty applies in divorce court and family court only. Ah, and only for men.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 03:09 AM
1

Whatever your opinion on the subject, it's not an easy situation. Well, if by "easy" you mean "pleasant", then I agree with you. On the other hand, it IS a very cut-and-dried, simple decision. Is the man the biological father, and was he responsible for bringing the child into the world? Then he is financially responsible. If he was not biologically responsible, then he is not, cannot be, financially responsible. Very simple. This is how it OUGHT TO BE, not how it actually is.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 03:04 AM
3

It's called "paternity fraud".
/r/MensRights25/03/11 03:01 AM
3

I feel for you brother. Sorry you have to go through this. Welcome to the world, as it is today.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 03:01 AM
1

ya. It was not right. But, that's what happens in divorce. Divorce is shitty for just about everyone involved. Anyone who says differently.... is justifying something.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 02:53 AM
1

mmm, ok, and the distinction?
/r/MensRights25/03/11 02:52 AM
2

What do you call it when mothers "invent" maladies that require constant attention? Is that Munchausen? My ex-wife diagnosed our son with allergies constantly. He was allergic to bee stings, but we got that treated and corrected. After I separated from her, the boy then got diagnosed with lactose intolerance, gluten allergies, and a bunch of other allergies. The kid was a walking ER case, except none of the allergies was real. One day he was at my house and he said he didn't drink milk anymore. …
/r/MensRights24/03/11 07:08 PM
3

Either father are less likely to kill their kids. huh?
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:47 PM
0

explain the distinction please?
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:46 PM
3

I've broken them in the act. I don't know how. I don't think I'm particularly rough. It happens.
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:45 PM
3

When it comes to child support Any man will do. No need to waste time splitting hairs about which man is the "actual father."
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:42 PM
7

I also have another anecdote, relevant to the discussion. My ex? father-in-law (I am divorced from his daughter) had the same scenario. He married my ex-wife's mother, they had children, then the mother was unfaithful. He asked her to mend her ways but she refused, and they divorced. The man went off to re-marry a much younger woman, with whom he started a family. In a tragic farm accident, their first child was killed. We can imagine the stress this would place on a marriage. At that time the n…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:40 PM
6

My sister (a physician with her own practice) was in this situation. She had an affair in the first 2 years of her marriage, got pregnant, and had the baby. Her husband, also a physician, was not the father of the child, though he thought he was. As the child grew, they had another baby, a girl. But my sister had other "indiscretions", and this led to the discovery that the first child was not the son of her husband. Her consistent dishonesty led directly to their divorce. The ex-husband was ass…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:33 PM
5

Yup, personal responsibility is a good thing. Devil's advocate: suppose a man meets up with a hottie at a wedding of a friend. They hit it off, have a grand old time, and then get carried away and share a hotel room. He uses protection, but the condom breaks, though he is completely unaware. The next day, they smilingly part ways. 3 months later the woman learns she is pregnant but does not inform the man. She goes on to have the baby, without the man's agreement or consent. It is her body after…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:24 PM
3

The problem is that in many cases the "falsely names a man as the father" is implicit. Many husbands do not explicitly ask the mother if they are the father, assuming that is the case. I know I made this assumption, though it turned out it was not a safe one to make, much to my surprise. Also, many mothers may not even be sure who the father is, and are just happy to have a man nearby to latch onto. Also, I don't believe it is "libelous" to allow a man to assume he is a father, but I am no lawye…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:19 PM
8

This would be a nice turnabout. I don't know how common it is, but if this were the law of the land, I bet we'll find out exactly how common it is in NC. Also, the PR value of getting this story out to the general population is very high. It's good to get men's issues and equality/equity issues in front of people. Many people are not aware of the abuses of the child support/family law systems across the USA and the rest of the world. It's good to publicize the inequities and the attempts good pe…
/r/MensRights24/03/11 06:15 PM
0

He can have his say, and THEN leave. That in itself is communication. It's non verbal, but it's a pretty clear statement.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 01:16 AM
2

Women kill more babies, end of story. cite?
/r/MensRights16/03/11 11:21 PM
2

I recommend you leave the house. Make different living arrangements. Seriously. It's bad for any man to live with a woman who behaves this way. Don't let your mind get polluted by this person. Also don't think you can just "handle it" and "it won't bother you." Living with people like this will slowly erode your manhood. I'm totally serious about this. It will be like breathing bad air, every day you are in that house. Why tolerate bad air when there is fresh air to be had elsewhere? Leave now. …
/r/MensRights16/03/11 11:19 PM
0

Your anecdote is so telling. My mom was a banker CEO and my father a self-made businessman, both had good heads for finances, both were high-achievers. I never perceived a difference in rationality between them, in the ability to do simple arithmetic. When I heard stereotypes of women having no financial sense, I dismissed it as throwback bias. The woman I married was smart, went to an elite school, graduated with strong marks with a degree in business management. She managed budgets at work of …
/r/MensRights16/03/11 12:59 AM
1

And, have you ever considered that you just had a really terrible case? Or married a "vengeful" woman? Not all women would ruthless hound a man for money or sacrifice their children's happiness for their own. That's not what love is. I did consider that, yes. But the point is, her allegations were accepted and acted upon (instantly) by the legal system. It's not just that she did something crazy. It's that she did something crazy and the "family law" system accepted it as truth, and there was no…
/r/MensRights16/03/11 12:49 AM
3

First, you're relying off your husband as your only means of income and with the rate of divorce...that's a bad gamble. ... Which is why the divorce industry has evolved into a giant welfare program for women. Across the US, women gain custody of the children in contested divorces 90% of the time, and this is used as a justification for massive transfers of wealth and income from men to women in the course of divorce, "in the interests of the children." The supposition is that the father is not …
/r/MensRights15/03/11 11:08 AM
8

"Johnson and Ferraro note that even in these cases (mutual violence), however, some gender differences remain. So you have read the study and found that gender differences remain. How does this support your point? To refresh your memory, you stated: the majority of domestic violence cases, when committed by women, are generally in self-defense This claim has been challenged, here, and your rebuttal did nothing to support your original point. Do you concede?
/r/MensRights15/03/11 10:59 AM
2

but they don't get to choose the situations they were placed into that influenced them to make those decisions. You mean like, if they have a womb, and are constantly bombarded with messages from our culture that the pinnacle of human moral achievement is motherhood and nurturing another human? That's a fair statement, but you cannot lay the responsibility for such cultural programming at the feet of men, solely. To do so is blatant sexism, and blamism. If this is what you would propose, you're …
/r/MensRights15/03/11 10:55 AM
1

ok, I'll play along: please explain exactly which rights I suggested people should "give up". I believe I made one suggestion: Stop peeing in public. Wait. I made another suggestion: Stop whining about being caught while peeing in public. 2 suggestions. I don't believe either of them amount to "surrender your rights." You may have a different view. I support men's rights, and I also support the "no whining" doctrine. Behave responsibly, and then if your rights are infringed, you have a legitimat…
/r/MensRights12/03/11 09:25 AM
0

Giving up some of one's rights to the cops like you suggest ... Giving up one's rights? You mean, like when I suggested to stop peeing in public? I guess the rights I was suggesting people should surrender are the "rights" to break the law, to urinate in public? Those rights? Seriously?
/r/MensRights12/03/11 03:28 AM
3

Yes, you're right. The cops were wrong to threaten him that way. Cops do that all the time - lodge empty threats (and that's all it was). They also lie and deceive people regularly, in the course of their official duties. In an interrogation, cops are allowed to lie to the person they interrogate; if the one interrogated lies, he commits a crime in doing so. I understand how unjust all of that is. Moving away from commiseration and toward a solution, the fact is the entire problem could have bee…
/r/MensRights11/03/11 12:42 PM
1

Vote Libertarian, this time, and every time.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 02:40 AM
-3

Stop peeing in public. Stop whining about being caught when you pee in public.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 02:36 AM
1

You don't need to "demand" it. You need only to argue it. Point out how she screwed your best friend, in your own bed, while neglecting the children. Pictures and PI statements will help here. Document how she absolutely destroyed the family finances. Document how she drank every night to the point of uselessness. Document her refusal to engage in conjugal relations - this is called abandonment. Document how she was intentionally cruel to you. This is the shitstorm that is modern divorce. Enjoy.
/r/MensRights11/03/11 02:34 AM
3

yah, but there's a man to pay in the straight couple.
/r/MensRights10/03/11 01:36 AM
6

Huh? How simple can you be? there's a MAN on the hook in straight couples. In lesbian couples, no man, ergo..... find the sperm donor!
/r/MensRights10/03/11 12:39 AM
6

Very insightful. It's hard to agree with fair treatment, regardless of gender. But when fair treatment means sacrificing some personal advantage, well.... fairness, it's been nice meeting you. Bye Now!
/r/MensRights27/02/11 01:44 PM
1

maybe you can ask the mods there (I forget what they're called) to restrict access to the edits. They have always been very helpful when I contacted them, on other topics.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 02:35 PM
8

even so, it's a fair question.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 11:49 AM
1

check the user names
/r/MensRights23/02/11 05:21 AM
1

Straight men are the generative aspect of a properly organized civilization, but gay men, by virtue of our lack of distraction by the responsibilities of raising families, make good visionaries and soldiers. that's a pretty interesting observation. I never thought of that, either.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 01:49 AM
1

I grew up in a mostly female household, so I was brainwashed for a long time. Brainwashed? What does that mean? can you elaborate on that a bit? My ex grew up in an all-female household. I never thought about it until she filed for divorce (I'm an idiot). She has no idea what it's like to live with an adult male. She had no idea what an adult male even looks like. I don't know if it qualifies as "brainwashing" but I'm convinced that it's a big reason she filed for divorce, and then behaved the w…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 01:47 AM
1

Hmm, I've never considered that, it's an interesting idea - that the alpha levels of society are pushing down the lower levels. I'd like to see it developed more thoroughly. Is there a book I could refer to? For my own part - I am a child of very poor parents. They worked hard, were honest, stressed good values, and stayed together. I went to a great school, and had an upper-class lifestyle, based on my career. It was the quintessential American Dream. But then the divorce and custody fight. I r…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 01:43 AM
11

The one thing I would like to see the Men's Rights movement do, is advance gay rights. It should no longer be acceptable to call people "gay" as an insult, in the same way it is no longer acceptable to say "Look at that nigger." If someone is gay, it should be fine to refer to them that way, if it's relevant. But otherwise, gay slurs should stop. Everyone who calls himself a men's rights advocate ought to have a good think about this, decide if they really support rights for gay men as well as s…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 11:41 PM
2

The Spearhead should be daily reading for anyone, man or woman, considering getting married in the USA..
/r/MensRights18/02/11 06:05 PM
1

Your concern is commendable. When I was going through my custody fight, my ex alleged I was beating the kids, bruises, etc etc. She even alleged that the 12-yr old's current problems at school were the result of me shaking him as an infant. Pure baloney. This was outright perjury, and immoral to boot. In addition, there was blatantly unethical behavior on the part of her attorney, falsely accusing me, forcing me to defend myself, then withdrawing those accusations only to accuse me of something …
/r/MensRights18/02/11 04:54 PM
1

sorry you had a bad experience. I disagree with your conclusion.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:44 AM
1

Let's suppose 80% of the 20,000 donate $20. This is wildly optimistic, but let's suppose. That gives you $360,000. That's enough for about 10 court cases that go to trial. It's not economical. For that money (again, supposing you could actually gather it) Hire a lobbyist for 2-3 years to fix the laws in ONE STATE. That would be a worthwhile use of the funds.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:43 AM
1

I am bankrupt, too, after a divorce and custody battle. I am also a deadbeat dad, and maybe will end up in jail for nonpayment. I believe a legal defense fund would not have helped me then. She spent $60,000 of my kids' college fund wrestling custody from me. There's no way to keep up with that. I also believe it would not help me now. I'm a lost cause. Honestly, I think the best approach is to fix the laws, instead of engaging in this one-by-one custody battles. The women have funds from VAWA-s…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 02:39 AM
0

I even recently saw a news story on TV about a molester who grabbed a grown woman's boob then ran off. The news station gave the story, did interviews, and then showed a drawing of him from the police report so we could find this Guy. Seriously, all that for a random groper? There is just a bias against men when it comes to perpetration and victimization in TV, news, and the actual courts. I agree that reality is distorted by the media. It may also be the case that "Most people have no idea that…
/r/MensRights17/02/11 01:18 PM
1

ps: I am watching the local newscast on TV. I rarely watch it. The top 3 stories are of heinous crimes committed by men, with female victims. The next two are male-on-male crimes. 1 - A schoolteacher sending sex emails to 13-year old students. He was suspended and is now facing trial. 2 - a 50-year old man was arrested for sexually molesting two 8-yr old girls. 3. A teenage boy arrested for killing a 70-something old lady and stealing her car. The next 2 were shootings, by men, on men. This is j…
/r/MensRights17/02/11 03:11 AM
1

Maybe I've just been lucky my entire life, but all the relationships I've had with women have been mutually respectful and satisfying. My parents have always had a great relationship as well; certainly, they don't take advantage or manipulate each other. And my relationship with my girlfriend is excellent. We can talk about anything, disagree about anything, without either of getting upset. I know she has my back in any situation, and she has my best interests at heart. This was me. Then we got …
/r/MensRights17/02/11 02:59 AM
2

Sure; I share the concern about how men are portrayed in the larger media. But... I don't know how it helps that we publicize horrendous woman-on-man crimes here. I guess I feel ambivalent about that, I don't see the benefit of it. If one is under the impression that all violence in the world is perpetrated by males, then I guess these posts would dispel that notion. But I don't believe that to be a commonly-held view, and certainly not here in this tiny corner of the internet, so I don't see th…
/r/MensRights17/02/11 12:41 AM
1

I can see your point. I haven't looked at the site and having reads your description, I don't believe I want to. I'll take your word for it. Based on your description, circlist sounds pretty creepy.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 04:50 PM
1

I think you're right about that; in the USA, suicide soars for divorced men. There's a reason for that.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 01:38 PM
2

I believe that in non-Western countries, discrimination against women is not uncommon.
/r/MensRights16/02/11 01:38 PM
4

Mothers showing daughters how to retract foreskins sounds fucking creepy as shit to me. There is such a thing as parenting. Time was, children learned from their parents, how to be parents. This included caring for infants, of both sexes. I learned from the doctor and the nurse how to clean my baby girl's genitals when changing a diaper. Turns out it's quite different than cleaning a baby boy. For my boys, I didn't need to learn the part about retracting a foreskin! Anyway, my point is, that adu…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 01:32 PM
7

I don't know what to think about these "Woman commits crime" posts. I can see the theoretical benefit in providing a counterpoint to the mass of crime stories, which involve men. Stories like this serve to remind us, women behave badly too. I guess that's useful, in case we forget. But I deplore the use of this kind of story to demonize women as a group, if that is the intended or actual effect. The fact is that there are all sorts of criminals, from both genders. To point out that women commit …
/r/MensRights16/02/11 01:29 PM
2

Bingo! If she is financially out-of-control before you meet her, she will continue to be financially out-of-control after you start paying for her.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 12:14 PM
3

Although there is risk for both people. If there is one breadwinner they will have a big risk financially but it doesn't have to be a man. No. You are talking about how you imagine it to be, or what it would look like if it were fair. But it is not this way. The risk is on the male side, period. I guess if you don't want to risk money then don't married... When I said "this introduces a large degree of risk to the man" I was not speaking only of money. I have been accused of violent acts and bec…
/r/MensRights14/02/11 12:13 PM
7

Find a woman who has income similar to yours, and has supported herself for a long time, and has no hangups about money, no big credit card debts. You'll have a better chance having a good relationship with someone who is financially independent and understands what it takes. You still don't need to be married, though.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 02:14 AM
3

It's better when women do the oppressing. silly.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 02:09 AM
2

Well, then, stop associating with misandrists who have created more problems for men than they've solved. exactly.
/r/MensRights14/02/11 02:08 AM
8

No, but... how many feminists will write into the magazine in outrage over the comment? how many will even detect how preposterous it is?
/r/MensRights14/02/11 02:07 AM
15

What are you talking about ? How many times has this "fact" been repeated? I don't know, but surely it has been repeated enough times that it is now true. what more do you want?
/r/MensRights14/02/11 02:07 AM
1

If I did not marry, I suppose I would have no rights whatsoever, unless I specifically fought for them and provided for them. I don't know if that is just policy. I do know that it is unjust to routinely remove children from their fathers, based only on requests from angry or vengeful women in cases of divorce.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 10:08 PM
3

It is not a wife that removes a father's rights, but the government. Technically correct, though it's my understanding that in most cases the government removes the parental rights of the father at the behest of the mother.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 09:14 PM
5

What I say to anyone else who participates here, is irrelevant to the point at hand. I am encouraging you specifically to participate constructively, or not at all. I consistently and regularly stress the need for reasoned, fair discussion here. You are no exception.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 09:05 PM
2

You're right. My personal experience I guess. In my experience, behavior in a marriage is negotiated daily, either explicitly or implicitly. "Take out the trash, will you, dear?" ...is one way this is done, but there are 1000 others. Two mature adults who bring good-will to the relationship will surely be able to navigate the ongoing negotiation. It is up to the individuals to treat each other with kindness and respect, and to be honest if they feel the other party is not keeping up their end of…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:33 PM
12

Really, does it matter? This is absolutely outrageous rhetoric. Yet coming from a woman, it passes for a reasonable opinion. Does it matter if we cheat one man out of his rightful relationship with his biological child, and cheat one man out of his money? They are all men, does it really matter if we treat them unfairly? Let's apply this to criminal courts: does it matter if we put the wrong guy in jail? As long as there's a body in the cell, and he's male, does it matter? McDonagh closes with t…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:23 PM
4

your attitude is not helpful. If you begin every post with the assumption, in some cases explicitly stated as you have done here, that all male participants in the discussion are angry, you are abusing your position and abusing the other participants in the discussion. We encourage honest, respectful participation in these discussions. Your attitude is not conducive to constructive conversation, and is therefore not welcome here.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:17 PM
3

To me marriage is more a symbol than anything else. Well, then it's not marriage you're after. You can do a co-joining ceremony (or whatever informal marriages are called) to publicly profess your love for your mate, without involving the state. Marriage is fine as long as it lasts, but when the marriage dissolves, the man - not by law, but statistically speaking here, it is very much biased toward the male - becomes financially obligated to his ex for large amounts of money and long periods of …
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:14 PM
0

Yes, this is the theory. But then the state got involved, and marriage became a 3-part contract between a man, a woman, and the state. This introduces a large degree of risk to the man, statistically speaking, in the event of the dissolution of the marriage.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:10 PM
7

I put my husband through school, and he repeatedly slept with a 17 year old, with no real consequences, other than I kicked him out, so he had to (theoretically) support himself. I'm sorry to hear things didn't go so well. Here's what the original question is referring to. I did this for my wife, as well. then when she slept around, did drugs, and basically abandoned her commitment to the marriage, I was forced to leave the house, I was banned from seeing my children, and she got all my possessi…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 08:08 PM
2

For anyone reading this, I have some suggestions. if you are a US citizen: Vote libertarian. Write your state representative to address the inequity in "family law" courts in your state. Custody law is done on a state-by-state basis. Specifically ask that the representative check on the statistics for fathers versus mothers who get full custody of children in the state. If there is a discrepancy, then it should be addressed. In all likelihood, the stats will show that fathers get full custody si…
/r/MensRights13/02/11 07:58 PM
1

Ok, that's fair. There's always another side to the story. "Profanity laced tirade" is not acceptable in school. I would be livid, though. I don't think I'd be dropping f-bombs, but I would be very very upset. Reading the article it sure seems more like "scary black man" syndrome on the part of the school staff, than "scary man" syndrome".
/r/MensRights12/02/11 10:57 PM
0

disorderly = male
/r/MensRights12/02/11 10:52 PM
11

That website, cafemom.com, is basically geared towards women. All of the comments on the original post there were from women. Many of them said the same thing as you did - you're damn right he's ticked off, any parent would be.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 11:49 AM
16

Some good news: the father was not actually arrested the piece on cafemom.com was empathetic with the father's action and condemned the school for its part in this event. Some bad news: the people at the school who tried to have the distraught father arrested have not been identified. What are the chances that the people trying to have the father arrested were female? The article said: as one school official told the Washington Post, "He [the father of the missing kids] acts in such a way that t…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:18 AM
1

You are correct. What I wrote there was not well thought out. I do not mean to advocate invalidation of the existing laws. What I should have said is that - in the future, a successful reform will state that when there is an allegation, custody should not automatically be given to the accuser. This is a primary basis for the abuse that is so prevalent today, with unfounded allegations.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 06:44 PM
8

I don't wish any further delay for the man. In fact the custody of the children should be restored to the father pending a valid investigation. That the world justifies taking children from men and giving 100% custody to women while "the investigation" occurs is just a clear illustration of the bias present in the system. If there is allegations of abuse, put the children in a foster home pending the outcome of the investigation. Removing de-facto custody awards to women when allegations are mad…
/r/MensRights11/02/11 03:44 PM
-1

You don't get to define Feminism. No one person gets to pick and choose. The record is clear. You DO get to choose whether you are a feminist or not. On the other hand, being a Scotsman is not a matter of choice. Either you are born in Scotland or not. No choice in the matter. Because feminism is a choice, and Scotsmanism is not, the parallel you draw fails. To say "I am a feminist" implies conscious and explicit support of the policies and laws that have been advocated and continue to be advoca…
/r/MensRights11/02/11 02:32 PM
9

I hope it's slow. I hope it takes agonizingly long, and it occupies the headlines for months. I hope it inspires conversations over millions of cafe tables in Vienna and all across Europe. I hope it lingers and the event educates millions of people about the state of "family law" in the world today. Thank you for posting this.
/r/MensRights11/02/11 01:33 PM
1

I don't really care how you do and don't define anything, I don't define feminism. I merely stated its principles for you. When confronted with that, you resorted to defensiveness. But the problem is, you cannot defend sexist policies or philosophies. No one can. They are not really defensible. Now you are in denial. A normal human reaction. But if you honestly continue to think about it and grapple with it over time, you will come to accept that feminism is the wrong idea. If you refuse to thin…
/r/MensRights11/02/11 01:13 PM
-1

If you believe in equity and gender-blind treatment of people, then you are no feminist. If you truly believed this, you would be writing your state representative right now to ask him or her to justify the persistent discrepancy in child custody in favor of one gender over another, in your state. Just as a person in favor of race-blind culture and policies is strongly against race-based discrimination by definition, a person in favor of gender-blind policies and laws is against discrimination b…
/r/MensRights11/02/11 12:53 PM
-1

If you don't think like this, then you're not a true feminist. Feminism is a philosophy that encourages and demands preferential treatment of women; if it were about equity or equality, it would not be called "Feminism". From its foundation, Feminism is philosophically and intellectually bankrupt. If the civil rights leaders took an analogous position, they would call themselves "Racists". They would espouse "Racism" and preferential treatment of particular races. This is something we as a count…
/r/MensRights11/02/11 12:38 PM
1

Well, "protect yourself" is a relative term. I naively trusted in the wisdom of the court, that they would see through the lies. But as soon as a woman pulls the "he beat me" card, it's game over. Based on her lies I was ordered away from my children (and her, which was beside the point). Then it was just a formality, to make the separation from my children permanent. She continued the lies though, and that resulted in me losing all my possessions, too. My brother told me to lie in kind. He said…
/r/MensRights11/02/11 12:28 AM
4

ok, yours is a reasonable opinion, and I agree with it, but he specifically asked for constructive criticism. "that's dumb" isn't constructive. Saying "you're not allowed" to any adult, especially a peer in a mutual relationship, such as a wife, gf, sister, or colleague, isn't respectful of their position as an adult, responsible for their own actions. The best you can do is offer your opinion of their views or statements - something like, "I don't care for your characterization that men can or …
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:32 PM
5

not really a spoiler? also, I've never heard a man refer to a woman this way.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:26 PM
2

That's not gonna fly with me. For example, I do (did) work around the house, DIY stuff, repairs, even additions. If someone were to comment that I am well-trained, I would not have stopped working around my own house. I enjoyed it, it was fulfilling, and just because someone else has a weird view of why men should behave certain ways ("training"), that doesn't mean I should stop doing things I do for myself. A simpler example. If I put the toilet seat down, and someone comments that I am well tr…
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:25 PM
12

Feminists seem to think that their opinions are gender-based, just as they believe their rights and privileges are gender-based, and that men's guilt is implicit and gender-based. They apparently implicitly believe that all women think alike, and find it difficult to imagine that women have differing opinions, especially on gender-related issues like abortion or custody law. The idea that opinions are gender-based, and thus universal across all women, is consistent with related fabrications, lik…
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:21 PM
1

you're right. That's being Catholic for you. Sometimes following one's principles doesn't lead to the best personal outcome in the near term. Accepting the outcome is the challenge. Also - my unwillingness to quit the marriage on principle is still not a reasonable justification to transfer ownership of all my things, and to rescind the custody of my children from me.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 11:01 PM
2

Well said. I applaud your position, sir.
/r/MensRights10/02/11 06:14 AM
1

the lack of dedication to ANY decision leads us to unhappieness. that is what I took away as well. Of course, I was happy in my marriage, and refused to ever reconsider it. I am Catholic, and though I'm sort of a buffet-style Catholic, I do subscribe to the one-marriage-per-person-and-it's-for-life view. I explained this and discussed it at length with my ex-wife, before our marriage. She agreed with it as well, but then, as it happens, she changed her mind. Turns out she "wasn't happy" and need…
/r/MensRights10/02/11 06:09 AM
1

When deciding if you want to "marry" in this day and age, you really need to decide if you want the state involved in your relationship. Bingo! This is the key point. Also remember that "the state" including the family court "system", is made up of many people you probably graduated ahead of in high school. This is a bad risk, no matter how you slice it. Any MBA grad would never recommend that his company enter into such an arrangement, ever. But men still do it, and often get screwed. Is every …
/r/MensRights10/02/11 06:06 AM
2

I dated my ex-wife for 9 yrs and then was married 14. She decided to start screwing my friend, which was bad enough, but apparently not bad enough for her. She agreed to go to marriage therapy, but continued seeing and screwing him through that. She left therapy, asking for a divorce. I did not agree, and dragged my feet. She saw an attorney, lodged accusations against me, "won" 100% custody, along with all the contents of the house. I am not a drunk, though I drink. I do not gamble. I did not s…
/r/MensRights10/02/11 06:03 AM
1

well within bounds of reason ah, now you've hit on the interesting bit. Just what are those bounds? I think it is unjustified to say "duh the more options generally the less happy people are."
/r/MensRights09/02/11 04:27 PM
10

not helpful. This is not what /r/mensrights is about, nor is it what "Men's Rights" is about. Maybe you have us confused with /r/IHateWomen .
/r/MensRights09/02/11 04:26 PM
13

That sounds like a reasonable, rational position. The problem with marriage is not that divorce is possible. In fact in a just society, there needs to be an escape clause. Bad marriages occur. Or, people change their minds. Divorce exists to handle those cases. The problem is that divorce is unjust. Somehow the family courts have taken upon themselves to reward women and penalize men in divorce cases. Why not let the two sides just split and be done with it? I'll tell you why: because of child c…
/r/MensRights09/02/11 04:09 PM
0

the more options generally the less happy people are This is why people inhabiting fascist dictatorship states are the happiest on the planet.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 03:53 PM
1

This happened to me, too. She pulled the trump card - "he beat the children" - and then augmented that charge liberally with other supporting allegations, "he threatened ALL of my friends", "he prevented me from seeing my family", "he is hiding money from me", "he has me under surveillance", and many others I've now forgotten. All of these were stated in sworn testimony in court. I disputed all of them categorically. No matter. No one corroborated her story. There was no evidence of beatings or …
/r/MensRights09/02/11 02:24 PM
1

You're wrong - in a civil trial (eg, divorce, custody fight) there is no lawyer. You could lose your family, your house, your income, your kids, but... no lawyer for you!
/r/MensRights06/02/11 12:26 AM
0

Are you kidding me? How can you prove someone doesnt have income of any kind? K A woman needs to prove no such thing. All she needs to do is allege that he is underemployed, and he will be put into jail.
/r/MensRights06/02/11 12:21 AM
1

Bullshit. I'm doing that, right now. No way I'm paying. She lied her way all the way through her trial. She lied about my income, and when I presented my w2, they discounted it, absolutely refused to look at it, because it disagreed with HER STATEMENT of what my income was. ???? Bafflement ensued. Then I realized I was in the family court system in the US, and this was how IT WAS SUPPOSED TO WORK. Fuck it. No matter what I say or do I am screwed. I don't have any reason to try anymore. If they w…
/r/MensRights06/02/11 12:20 AM
1

ok then, I understand.
/r/MensRights06/02/11 12:07 AM
2

Just keeping up with the times in America these days.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 09:39 PM
2

Nice work, Kloo. Thanks for doing this.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 09:32 PM
2

No, he didn't "settle out of court". The District Attorney is responsible for deciding whether to bring charges in criminal cases. In both cases no charges were filed. Does that mean he is an angel? No. It does not mean his behavior was commendable, or even acceptable. But it also means he was never charged with a crime. To call him a rapist shows your view: that when women talk, it's always the truth, and when men talk, it's always a lie. If you're a man, I hope you are never wrongly accused, b…
/r/MensRights05/02/11 09:27 PM
5

So true. A man with a relationship with children is dangerous and scary. A man who relates to his children through a woman is safe.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 07:47 PM
7

Yes! I feel like an old codger, because when I talk to my younger friends and acquaintances, as they are going through the effort of preparing for the ceremony and celebration, I tell them, remember that the important thing is not the wedding, but the marriage. All of them look at me like I am a spoil sport. Hey, party your azz off when you get married, just remember, it's a lot of work to stay married. It ain't all wine and roses.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 07:47 PM
1

I don't suffer any illusions that there will be retroactive justice. Honestly I would be happy if the injustice would just stop. This means: innocent until proven guilty. This means, no more handing out protection orders (and separating men from their children) like candy canes. This means, equitable settlements, and tossing out the antiquated idea that women need to be supported by men after divorce. This means, establishing a reasonable burden of proof for allegations of physical abuse, as wel…
/r/MensRights05/02/11 07:43 PM
4

Well, the idea sounds radical. But I think you are onto something. Actually I am libertarian in philosophy, so I am not interested in receiving any money from the system. Aside from being the wrong thing systematically, I think it's bad for me personally, to be on the dole. on the other hand the rest of what you said makes a lot of sense. Civil disobedience works. The rulings from judges are systematically unjust towards men. In criminal justice system, advocates for groups of people who are tre…
/r/MensRights05/02/11 03:42 PM
7

There ya go, that's the spirit. Join in the fun! He is accused, therefore guilty! everyone knows this !
/r/MensRights05/02/11 03:30 PM
4

when men do express feelings and desires (other than 'me horny & hungry'), feminists are quick to label it an embrace of feminine values. yah, no kidding. Everyone knows that "masculine feelings" are : I want to kill you I want you to be afraid of me I want to kill something in your presence ...whereas "feminine feelings" are the rest of the span of human emotion. No man could possibly be lonely, or hopeful, or hurt, or inspired, or anything other than evil and violent. Well ok maybe a man could…
/r/MensRights05/02/11 03:27 PM
17

They are the ones with a happy husband because he always gets what he wants and she doesn't seem to mind. But what he doesn't see are all of the collected hurts stored up in her emotional closet. Not because she doesn't ever get what she wants but because that lopsided equation makes her feel unloved. See what she did there? Turned it right around. Women leave their men, secretly and without explaining themselves, and ... nifty trick... it is the man's fault. See how that works? Bullshit feminis…
/r/MensRights05/02/11 12:58 PM
2

I don't understand why women think they are the alpha when it comes to parenting. because the law says they are the "primary" parent, 85% of the time.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 12:50 PM
2

True. The one indisputable fact is that one way or the other, the conflict between the parents IS damaging the child right now.
/r/MensRights05/02/11 12:42 PM
6

Your advice is sound, and reasonable, and exposes the complete bullshit that is custody today. A woman only needs to claim "I cannot parent with this man" and she is awarded full custody. She then has the power to yank him around for 12 years, while collecting money from him. The "wise advice" for men in this situation is to shut up, pay her, and do exactly what she says. This is not manhood. this is not personhood. This is dispossession and disenfranchisement, and the advice here is to "shut up…
/r/MensRights05/02/11 12:40 PM
2

Well, then, it's just an unfounded allegation in that case. We're gonna have to do better than that. We as MRAs need to do better. I'm not disputing that the actions documented seem to be in violation of the terms of the whoisprotector t's&c's already. (even in the absence of proof of encouragement of spam and abuse)
/r/MensRights05/02/11 03:42 AM
2

you're not answering the question. Where is the evidence of encouragement, as you alleged? Look, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to derail or discredit MRAs or /r/MensRights specifically. I'm asking you to back up your claims. You said that MH101 encourages breaking the policy. Is that true, if so, cite where and how they've done so. The links you provided previously show participants on /r/mensrights behaving badly. Those links don't show MH101 encouraging that behavior, which is what you cl…
/r/MensRights05/02/11 03:24 AM
1

Great. I like the findings and recommendations. Am I too pessimistic, though? It's a memo. Is this what remains for men? Issuing memos? This memo was issued 2 years ago. Then what? Did anything change? Did anything improve?
/r/MensRights03/02/11 06:17 AM
2

ok, you've convinced me that whoisprotector doesn't want their clients using its service to spam. Also that whoisprotecteor is the domain owner of record. But your headline alleged that manhood101.com actively encourages spamming this reddit. Where is the evidence of that ? Where is that encouragement? It may be enough to simply show lies and spamming; according to the t's&c's of whoisprotector, mh101 may be in violation of the service agreement. But you alleged something further.
/r/MensRights03/02/11 04:40 AM
8

Maybe I don't understand what you're really asking. It has nothing to do with being a man, except that it's culturally ok to abuse men. People never say "Man up" to a woman, when she is facing difficulty, or injustice. They might say "grin and bear it", which may be the same thing in some cases, but more often women will get empathy and support rather than "shut up and take it". In my opinion. If this doesn't address your question, I'm not trying to be obtuse.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:07 PM
2

ps: I've never heard the term "whipping girl".
/r/MensRights02/02/11 10:04 PM
9

What does that have to do with being a man? Culturally, it's acceptable to abuse men.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 09:47 PM
1

ah, thanks.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 09:34 PM
1

lazy I guess
/r/MensRights02/02/11 09:33 PM
23

"Man up" is modernese for "take the abuse and keep quiet."
/r/MensRights02/02/11 07:41 PM
3

Do I understand the headline correctly? One man sues another man, because of the actions of a woman?
/r/MensRights02/02/11 07:40 PM
1

Happens all the time. It happened to me in Seattle, in family court. Not only were no charges filed, she won full custody.
/r/MensRights02/02/11 12:39 AM
1

You can fix that.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:35 PM
0

Nah, I don't think it's christianity. I understand what you're saying about the psychosis, and I don't have an alternative explanation, but christianity doesn't seem like the root of it. Maybe something like religious fundamentalism.
/r/MensRights01/02/11 03:33 PM
0

My point has nothing to do with fast food. It was a straw man argument. The point is that different adults have different opinions, and the state should not be the one dictating which opinions - about food, education, religion, clothing, whatever - the state should not be making those choices.
/r/MensRights29/01/11 11:01 PM
1

it is the world's fourth-largest media conglomerate what? The New Jersey department of family services (aka DYFS) is who refused comment. Who is the media conglomerate here, that you are referring to? clearly this one is broken or it wouldn't have ended up in court. Whoops! that reasoning doesn't fly. There was a family that lost custody of their toddlers because they took bathtub photos and got the old-school film developed at a Walmart. Nude photos of underage kids = child porn, and that means…
/r/MensRights29/01/11 10:11 AM
-17

ok, we can stand back and criticize her actions. but the real question is, does her conduct cross the line where we want the state to step into her home. I still think the answer is No. Here's why: Fast food is poison. It's poison for the planet, and it's tantamount to poison for a young person. yet millions of families give their kids that poison every day. why? Because it's legal, and it's their choice, not mine. I don't want the state intervening and telling these families what they can and c…
/r/MensRights29/01/11 03:37 AM
-13

This is more of a "parents rights" issue, than one of men's rights per se. Most often, it is men who have their parental rights constrained by the state for specious reasons. In this case it is a woman, a mother, who is being dragged into court. As with the case of the NJ dad, the behavior of the parent in this case is not admirable. It's not something I would do to my child. On the other hand I think the state has no business interfering into the matters of parental discipline, when there is no…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 07:54 PM
3

here's another telling excerpt from the article: Lauren Kidd, a spokesperson for the Department of Children and Families, which oversees DYFS, declined comment, saying the department does not discuss litigation. Keep in mind that the case is OVER. It's not a situation of pending litigation. The Supreme Court just reprimanded DYFS for its actions, and DYFS has no comment. This is a public agency, funded by taxpayers, and they have nothing to say. The refusal to comment clearly demonstrates the hu…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 03:19 AM
0

A breath of fresh air. Slapping a kid is not admirable, but neither is it abuse that warrants the state taking custody of the child. Thank goodness for the wisdom in the New Jersey Supreme Court, and let's hope this story gets around. An excerpt from the news article: Richard Wexler, executive director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, said DYFS "made everything worse." "There was nothing wrong in this family that some concrete help to pay the heating bill and perhaps a litt…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 09:10 PM
3

Feeling guilty about their own behavior and realizing on some level the stupidity of their actions, they compensate and rationalize their choice by demonizing their former partner. yep, That is the only way I can figure why she did what she did. Self preservation, self-justification. She needed to tear me down in order to make herself look less bad. Like I said, that did not work out well, for anyone. It's one thing to have a personality tendency to blame others; when that tendency hooks up with…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 02:49 PM
10

Bingo. So you fight the restraining order - you contest its validity. You say there's nothing in your past to indicate any threat. But the judge is thinking "bullshit - If he attacks her 3 days from now, I don't want my name in the paper in the article describing how a restraining order was denied." So the order is upheld. The judge in my case actually said the words "She appears to be afraid of you." That was her (the judge's) justification to grant protection. And the order stretches to the ch…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 02:08 PM
5

Not gonna happen. I'm not a "punch her in the face" kinda guy. The earth is already scorched, though. We used to have college funds, nice house, 3 cars (all paid for), vacations every year. Now? I'm bankrupt, she's bankrupt, and the lawyers are shopping for new fishing boats. The lawyer's kids will get their college tuition paid for. Mine will have to work their way through it.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:48 PM
6

I want to be clear. She wasn't overt about begging. It wasn't a conflict at the time. It was simply that she was buying things she couldn't afford. We were in love, so of course I was happy to help her out with rent. What was the big deal? It was insidious. I never thought about it at the time. I never thought, "gee, why is she so irresponsible with money?" I just starting shelling out cash - it never occurred to me at the time, it did not rankle me, I was enjoying my time with her and felt happ…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:20 PM
3

But the urge to trade up is behind many of those irrational divorces. Actually, to me "trading up" is not irrational at all. It's completely rational and understandable. If a woman can reel in a .. what term did you use? ... "higher ranking male," then it is to her benefit to do so. I think that's a strange thing to do after promising "as long as we both shall live" and all that stuff... but it's rational if it works. What's not rational is trading away the current husband, then attacking him, s…
/r/MensRights26/01/11 01:17 PM
2

they want a higher ranking man. Divorce facilitates that. That assumes a rational actor. Many women pursue divorce irrationally, with revenge or who-knows-what in their heart. They divorce the provider with no backup plan. They do this because they read stories in the popular press about how their husbands are "impeding their development as individuals" and how divorce is a way a woman can "express her independence." Uh-huh. Divorce this way is a way for a woman to express her ignorance.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 03:40 AM
13

Women want out more, because more often they have no freekin idea what it takes to put them in the lifestyle they lead. They think it is just part of the air, it just flows to them, it's just what they deserve. They think the earth provides gasoline and vacations and car insurance and repairs, and college savings funds. When in reality somebody is working 5 days a week, fulltime, to make all that happen. So they petition for divorce, thinking that life is nice, but how much nicer it could be to …
/r/MensRights26/01/11 03:27 AM
2

it's not a lynch mob thing. The exact opposite in fact. It's a "keep them afraid" thing. "The wackos are everywhere. There's nothing you can do. Let the police handle it."
/r/MensRights26/01/11 03:05 AM
3

smart boy.
/r/MensRights26/01/11 03:04 AM
1

I hear it mostly from NFL Fans, who don't like the Steelers. Presumably most of those fans are male.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 09:39 PM
1

An interpretation, an opinion. You could have said "I'll see you tomorrow" to her friend with a devilish sneer and murder in your eyes and she could have called it a threat. you are an apologist. You will search for any alternative explanation, to preserve the idea that the family court system is fair and functional. You somehow cannot get your head around the fact that the system is corrupt and broken. An "interpretation" as you called it, is not sufficient, or should not be sufficient justific…
/r/MensRights15/01/11 02:44 AM
1

Staments like "He threatened all my friends." and "The children are all bruised" are easily checked. Nobody bothered. I denied it, and this disagreement is easy to check. The court doesn't care. She didn't stop there. It continued on and on. I hacked into her computer and installed spyware. I had her under surveillance. I was stealing money from her account. It was perjury very clearly. That law is not enforced. Instead of checking any of these things, or resolving this difference, the court cho…
/r/MensRights15/01/11 01:57 AM
1

The divorce system should result in parental jail time? That sounds like a recipe for disincentivizing abused men and women from using the system for fear that if they fail to prove their claims, that they'll be thrown in jail. Uh. There is already a law that states that perjury in family court can result in jail time. And when signing statements that are presented to the court, signers must acknowledge that fact, at least in the state where I was divorced. It's just that.. it's an empty threat.…
/r/MensRights15/01/11 01:24 AM
1

You can be a damn good parent and still not have custody of your children. I've been saying that over and over again: SOMEONE has to lose. Yes, and I've been saying that your approval of the "winner-take-all" philosophy is wrong. It leads to conflict, it leads to unfounded allegations, it leads to bad outcomes. It's wrong. I know that's how it works today. How it works today is wrong.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 01:19 PM
1

You just refuse to believe that it occurs. You are denying the reality I have explained to you. You didn't lose custody because she was bitter and difficult Yes, I did. You can say "No, no no no no" and hold your ears. The facts don't go away. Her attacks and the biased system lost my kids for me. In a just world I would have sole custody of the kids until she proved she is sober, sane, and stable. Instead the opposite occurred, I lost my kids through the rantings of a nutty woman, and the prima…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 01:17 PM
2

I used to tell my kids this.
/r/MensRights14/01/11 03:56 AM
1

ou expect me to believe after using words like "racket" that the court should say you have equal rights to decide things about your children? You'd be in court 3 times a month, asking the "racket" to resolve a dispute between you and your wife. ps: that statement is outrageous on its face. The court seized my rights, for no reason, other than the testimony of an unfaithful and angry spouse. That a parents rights can be taken away so easily is an outrage, plain and simple, yet you think it is jus…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 03:50 AM
1

Particularly since you say you deserve joint custody - when that means you'd have to agree with your wife, who you obviously don't like. Why would a court give an unreasonable person like you equal decision making power with your wife? Your response here (and this is just one example), is a clear illustration of the problem. My wife complained bitterly about me, lodged false accusations (I think you doubt my version of events, but play along for me, will you?), and basically said she could not c…
/r/MensRights14/01/11 03:08 AM
1

you sound like a divorce attorney, who has thought long and hard about how to justify her career. You put yourself on the side of "the good attorneys". Let me tell you, they ALL do that. All of you. All of you who participate in this charade of "justice", self-justify your actions in a thoroughly corrupt system. I got screwed, and in the end you blame it on ME! You blame me for what the system so viciously took from me. You suggest it is my emotional state that is to blame, for me not being able…
/r/MensRights13/01/11 12:38 PM
1

I don't agree with your view there. I understand what happens but don't agree with it. There are morally correct ways to fight; if my opponent resorts to dishonest dealings, it does not allow me to do the same, or justify my decision to commit a mortal crime. On the other hand, the legislative battle will be a long one - it will take generations. Anyone who loses custody today can hope to be vindicated, 40 years from now. That's too late. As for civil disobedience, I am in favor. Fathers who hav…
/r/MensRights13/01/11 12:18 PM
3

witch hunts continue to this day. They just take a different form. The most common one is to listen to a woman testify that her estranged husband is violent, and then that man loses all parental rights, and often loses rights to his property as well. He is put into a DV offender's "treatment group" where if he confesses to violent acts, he is deemed an offender and in recovery. If he does not confess, he is deemed an offender in denial. The antidote to witch hunts is rational thinking.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:08 PM
2

I thought he was going to jail.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:06 PM
3

Start by taking one simple step: Vote libertarian. Preserve your liberties. The next time some GOP or DEM politician stands up and says "I'm putting 1000 more cops on the street" VOTE AGAINST THEM. We don't need more police. We don't need more armed agents of the government peeking in our windows, interrogating our children. We just don't.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:05 PM
5

Why not? It costs the individual officers nothing. No one will lose their job. It's only taxpayer money, and someone else's famiy that gets destroyed. No cost to the actual perpetrators of the crime, the cops. Why wouldn't they do it again. The world really is rational. The only way to stop it is to limit the police. Police powers in the USA need to be greatly scaled back. Start by voting libertarian in every election you can.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:04 PM
3

Did you not know? The police are allowed to lie in interrogations. If you lie back to them, you have committed a crime. In case anyone needs a refresher course, Don't talk to the police .
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:02 PM
6

I have no problem when the police direct traffic, or ... well, gee. That's about it. When I started that sentence I thought there might be other services I was in favor of. But .. that's about it. Oh wait, maybe "enforce parking meters." Aside from that, the police have gotten waaaaay out of control in the USA. They own riot gear, batons, body armor. In the city where I live, they have long-range anti-personnel weapons, armored vehicles, machine guns. What, exactly, are they preparing for? Once …
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:01 PM
4

the question answers itself.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:56 PM
3

This is state intervention into the most intimate and private of personal space: one's family. That anyone condones this is a horrifying situation, yet it is common all over the country. In less egregious situations, instead of blowing everything up and dispersing the family everywhere, Police and CPS just eject the father from the family. That, too, is an abomination, but it is tolerated and supported in all 50 states.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 02:55 PM
1

A colleague of mine was in a marriage where both parents worked. He was a professional, worked at an office building, stable job, good job reviews, a well-known company with very family-friendly HR policies, regarding flexibility of schedule, daycare reimbursement, and so on. His wife, now ex-wife, was an attorney. He was what the legal people now call "the primary caregiver". He spent the most time with the kids, got them ready for school in the morning, picked them up in the afternoon. He cook…
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:59 PM
1

Sure. But what good is that? If the man vetoes joint custody, in most cases, he will lose custody. His is a power that cannot rationally be exercised. It is an empty threat to the other party. In most cases. Yes I know about women who have no custody. One I know quite well is a former stripper. She had a child with an employed man, without marrying him. She had no permanent residence. Clearly she was not thinking of the welfare of the child when she pursued this course of action, and the courts …
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:52 AM
2

Oh, if only! I asserted my intention to not stand in the way of my kids' relationship with their mother in any way. I did so verbally, explicitly, and I also did so in my actions, where I Was the exemplar of cooperation. For her part, she alleged that I beat them up, threatened her, threatened her friends, etc etc. No evidence. Because she was so against it, joint custody was therefore impossible, and because of the egregious nature of the allegations against me, where I had lodged none against …
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:23 AM
1

The judges and lawyers will often say, "there is no bias", but any man encountering false allegations of abuse during a custody conflict will tell a different story.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:20 AM
1

Good answer. That is why, in part, if one party to a divorce argues against joint custody it sort of sours the milk - since joint custody requires agreement between the two parties, if they can't even agree to have the right to agree together, then think of how tough the next decision will be. This is especially relevant. Joint custody must be a unanimous decision. Either party can veto. And, my corollary: when the woman vetoes it, she gets full custody. And more money, because she now has full …
/r/MensRights12/01/11 01:15 AM
0

"uptoke", eh? a freudian slip?
/r/MensRights11/01/11 04:02 AM
2

curious: how? How did you reach that conclusion? Or maybe you're just guessing?
/r/MensRights11/01/11 04:01 AM
1

whoops, that's wrong. Business is not free to do what they want. There are redlining investigations that fine banks for failing to loan money to people in particular neighborhoods. Universities have been sanctioned for not accepting applicants based on their skin color. Yes - a completely color-blind admissions policy has been rejected by the US courts. As with that case, a university is the business we are discussing here. Therefore your statement is not true, your point is not valid.
/r/MensRights03/01/11 06:07 PM
1

how is that relevant at all? DUI arrests are, to my knowledge, usually made after an investigation either in the field or with a blood-alcohol content device. There is also the officer's witness testimony. If he sees you weaving, then you are driving recklessly. I don't see the analogy, and I don't see the relevance to this discussion of your question.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 01:08 PM
1

No, that's not what he said. He said "for all we know, the events (sic) are a total lie". Implying, as he said earlier, we don't know. If you have a position to take, do so. Faulty logic won't fly here. Read both of those sentences again. you need to work on your reading comprehension.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 01:06 PM
1

yes.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 01:03 PM
0

being fired before an outcome is certainly something he has a right to be very upset about (possibly enough to file a lawsuit?). In this case, the outcome has actually occurred, at least from the perspective of Pitt. The outcome for the Pitt football program is distraction and that is a fire-able offense, whether Haywood is found guilty or not. If he is found guilty, it will be more distraction. I don't see a lawsuit in the offing.
/r/MensRights02/01/11 01:02 PM
1

please stop posting this crap
/r/MensRights28/12/10 11:47 PM
1

Regarding the incurrence of legal fees for defending against accusations that ultimately prove false: Life is risky. There is also the chance that your car will hit a water buffalo while you're driving in the middle of nowhere. This is why you pack a flashlight, and carry car insurance. Regarding making the loser pay legal fees - Sometimes the lack of proof does not mean proof of innocence. Just because there was no proof, does not mean a crime wasn't committed. There will always be problems wit…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 05:06 AM
1

that reasoning worked for my ex-wife.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 04:48 AM
1

"absolve" meaning... "eliminate"
/r/MensRights28/12/10 04:45 AM
1

she was cheating on my dad which caused their divorce. That is the correct phrasing. Your awareness of the cheating had nothing to do with the divorce. Even though you violated her privacy, you didn't cause the divorce. And - you illustrate the issue from the article very clearly. In cases where trust is soooo important, as in a family, what is fair and what is not fair? at the time of the incident, I'm sure you didn't feel that it was "unfair" of you to find out your mom was being unfaithful to…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 04:42 AM
1

I wanna know this, too.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 04:35 AM
6

I hate to see this happen to any man, but I am glad it is happening to someone famous. Selfishly, I hope that the issue of men's rights will be much more broadly publicized by these accusations and their resolution. I don't know what happened between these people, because I wasn't there. What I hope is concluded is that there was some sort of exchange, and it went well or didn't go well, and at some point the woman or women decided to lodge rape charges. I hope to see Assange completely exonerat…
/r/MensRights26/12/10 09:29 PM
0

Do not be confused: The association being drawn between murdurers and men's rights advocates is purposeful.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 09:07 PM
1

do you really believe there is a female conspiracy out to screw men? I really believe it was feminists and NOW who encouraged the US to pass laws like VAWA and get the state of Washington to revise their code so that any request for a protection order is a guilty verdict. Is that ALL women? certainly not. Some of the best people in the world are women. But also, the main people who distort the law against men, are women. If you want to call that a conspiracy, go ahead. I don't think it's a consp…
/r/MensRights25/12/10 04:07 AM
0

ok, and How did the law get to be the way it is, pray tell? NOW do you understand? NOW do you see it?
/r/MensRights24/12/10 06:13 AM
3

non-sequitir
/r/MensRights24/12/10 06:11 AM
2

I agree completely. I have never "worked the system" for anything. I worked hard, I played fair, paid my taxes, gave to charity, honored my parents, treated people well. I don't lie or cheat. Period. Then my wife decides she wants to fuck my friend. Well. So I ask her to reconcile, go to counseling, work this out, for the sake of the kids, you know. I am patient and willing to do the right thing. She "tries" but she's still fucking him while coming to marriage therapy. Ok, this doesn't work. She…
/r/MensRights24/12/10 01:04 AM
6

State of Washington code: RCW 26.050, which states that an order for protection will be granted when someone petitions, unless the court can state why it did not grant such protection. This is the first step in forcibly taking possession of children, and look at the stats, it is women who utilize this statute, to the great loss of many fathers. I had nothing to gain by attacking my ex-wife in the divorce, or so I thought. I was earning money, had a great relationship with my kids, and I had been…
/r/MensRights24/12/10 01:00 AM
3

ask you out? PUA? Passive women? Are you on the wrong thread? or ... it seems to me those are three red herrings in a single post.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 12:53 AM
3

ya, I was the same way.
/r/MensRights24/12/10 12:52 AM
5

Welcome. It's too bad it takes something like this occurring to someone you know in order to convince you that it's real. It happens. Often. It happens to lots of people. By the way, I converted for the same reasons you did. It happened to someone I love. A good father lost all custody of his kids and got a protection order. She alleged he was violent in order to cover her own misbehavior as a mother and spouse - drugs, fucking another man, drinking, absolute financial mismanagement. She lied an…
/r/MensRights24/12/10 12:51 AM
1

I'm glad it worked for you. I tried rational and polite, and it got me a protection order, zero custody, and the loss of all of my belongings to boot! (They were in the house, which, after the protection order, became "hers". Yes, the judge really awarded her "the entire contents of the house").
/r/MensRights23/12/10 08:31 PM
5

Every father should always file for full, because it's the only way to have enough negotiating room to have a fighting chance for 50/50. I asked for 50/50 custody, tried to be cooperative, was ontime for every exchange, and never once complained that she was late. In my court statements, I stated that I never once wanted to take the kids away from their mother, but that it is important for them to be with their father as well. High road all the way. In the end I got slapped with a protection ord…
/r/MensRights23/12/10 08:29 PM
2

Huh? there is such a thing as an asset. Support is income based, assets are not. In a divorce the father often loses on both counts. Assets are often given wholesale to the mother, and then the father is responsible for support payments as well. I don't agree with his strategy, but "don't bother - you'll still have to pay support" is an uninformed response.
/r/MensRights22/12/10 10:51 PM
3

Also, it's illegal. It's depletion of marital assets. you can be liable for punitive charges if you do this.
/r/MensRights22/12/10 10:49 PM
8

I don't even think it's "most". The problem is not with "all women" or "most women". The problem now is that "Some women" have altered the structure of family law and support precedent, so that it's fucked up for everyone. My mother was not like this. None of my sisters are like this. My aunts are not like this. I didn't know of any women that were like this, until my ex-wife decided to divorce me. There was a year there where, every day when I woke up in the morning, I would check to see if the…
/r/MensRights17/12/10 02:03 PM
6

huh? There's no investigation needed. The money goes to women, and to their lawyers. There's no secret. There's no need for an investigation.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 02:00 PM
5

That's exactly right. It's ridgid and set, at the time of the divorce, and forget about changing conditions. If that kind of rule applied to the marriage, she wouldn't be able to bail out in the middle of a marriage saying "I don't love him any more" and then be handed a no-decrease-in-standard-of-living support award.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 01:59 PM
2

Someone's gotta pay.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 01:56 PM
0

Absolutely - the law treats "rape" as a well-defined crime, as far as I am aware. Yet in general discourse, "rape" can mean "I regretted it later." America has such a weird attitude when it comes to sex. A kid 12 years old can go to a PG-13 movie and see bodies blown up, blood all over the screen, but if there is a female boob on the screen? oh, forget it, it's rated R and we can't let them see that. To me it sure seems like scenes of violent death and murder are much more potentially traumatic …
/r/MensRights17/12/10 02:15 AM
2

sort of a side topic...
/r/MensRights17/12/10 02:12 AM
1

Hard to be horrified because honestly we have no details beyond, "She told a story of being attacked, then she recanted it, and then she was charged with filing a false report." Honestly I hope she gets prosecuted and fined, and loses her job in a very public manner. Filing a false report with police is not really egregious; we don't know if she identified a specific man as her attacker, and we don't know if any man suffered any injury for her dishonesty. Lacking any such evidence, she's commite…
/r/MensRights17/12/10 02:10 AM
2

interesting background. To me that implies that the myth of "a woman's virtue" is the root of the dynamic, where we view men as violent offenders and women as pure victims. Convincing women through ubiquitous cultural programming that they need to be both chaste and ultra-sexy, is what leads to the possibility of them later thinking... "we had sex, which I now realize was a case of rape." Let me ask you this: How many times have you done something you later regretted? Don't confine yourself to s…
/r/MensRights17/12/10 02:02 AM
1

This case could have huge impact on the situation. If SCOTUS rules that indigent men are due public defender time, that will change the equation significantly in these sorts of cases. in particular: Where does the duty to provide a public defender begin and end? Is it consistent to rule that a PD is appropriate in cases where incarceration would result, while ruling that a PD is not appropriate in deciding the amount of child support? In my opinion that would be an impossible line to walk, so if…
/r/MensRights12/12/10 10:01 PM
3

it was a joke.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 12:29 AM
15

If you are polite, you are allowed basically anywhere, including here. Being impolite is about the only way to get banned. Beyond manners, if you are reasonable and thoughtful, then you are most welcome here. ps: men's rights is not solely about false rape allegations.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 01:07 PM
5

Um. no. There is no "allowed" and "not allowed" by gender.
/r/MensRights11/12/10 01:05 PM
2

Explaining that a male student who makes his own bed does it to reach his feminine side, seems nutty. Celebrating a woman's adulterous behavior as "independence" is cracked. Completely ignoring the issue of divorced men in a book ostensibly dealing with gender equality issues? How can she even publish such a book with a straight face? Reasonable people viewed (small-f) feminism, when it started, as a push for equity, something entirely appropriate and necessary. But (large F) Feminism is now use…
/r/MensRights09/12/10 11:39 AM
-1

huh? I missed something. ah, I get it. sex only with a contract. when I was in Stockholm, years ago, there were lots of ladies with pens, ready to sign.
/r/MensRights09/12/10 04:16 AM
-5

ya, but swedish women are hot!
/r/MensRights09/12/10 02:49 AM
2

need more of this please.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 04:52 AM
2

ok, but... the way you wrote it originally doesn't make sense. What you wrote just now is clear; the other is... sort of twisted logic. It's a privilege to be unaware of privilege? Not really. It may be common to be unaware of one's privilege. But it's not a privilege in itself. the way I see it.
/r/MensRights08/12/10 04:34 AM
1

Let me ask you this. . . If the man was accused of trying to "run over" the woman with a van, or one of his relatives uttered something about the woman "floating in the canal" - both things the woman is accused of in this case - would the man be banned for life from his children, on the basis that he is a dangerous abusive criminal? Death threats are a crime, I believe, and in the US, family courts treat them as evidence of belligerent attitude and potential for actual violence. (Whoops - I shou…
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:52 PM
1

Apparently it's a canadian paper; I don't know if you were referring to a canadian Supreme Court, or even if there is such a thing. Assuming you are from the US, the thing that is required now is to correct the history of precedents in the state courts. We don't need a supreme court justice. We need a bunch of case law from influential states - California, Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:44 PM
1

dead link. (as of now)
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:40 PM
2

it is a privilege to not realize you're privileged. huh?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:37 PM
2

because it's too safe? Not enough crime? There are good reasons to stay away from suburbia, but safety doesn't seem like a good one.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:31 PM
3

“We are a generation of men raised by women” Food for thought: What was it like in 19th century England? did men take care of kids or were they working in the factories or fields? I don't know the history very well, but I suspect that many generations of humans have been raised by women. And the women did a good job, too. Einstein was raised by a woman, and cared for by women all his life. John F. Kennedy was raised primarily by women. Jonas Salk? etc etc So.... what's changed today? It's not wh…
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:31 AM
2

it is always a crap shoot whether or not children will be safe when left in the care of men-even their own fathers. Come on, now. We all know it's a crapshoot whether or not a chinese guy you meet will be honest. We all know it's a crapshoot whether or not you can get a black man to actually work. We all know it's a crapshoot whether or not a woman will have the mental capacity to cast a valid vote. We all know .... wait, who knows those things?
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:20 AM
5

When I was still married, my family lived in a boring suburb where nothing ever happened. The major crime was adolescent "disturbing the peace" or things like that. There hadn't been a violent crime in about 10 years, and the one violent crime was a murder/suicide thing - all contained within a single house. Despite that my wife was fearful of going outside at night, fearful for the children playing outside during the day, fearful of encountering people she didn't know. It was weird. Totally unj…
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:15 AM
3

Maybe I'm old fashioned. When I was a kid, my father indoctrinated this idea in my head that lying was bad. It had nothing to do with the commandment, though we were regular churchgoers. But whatever I did, whatever mischief I got into as a kid, and it was not insignificant, it was always much MUCH worse if I lied to him about it afterwards. I got into fights, I stole stuff, I broke into a house once. It was all just kids' stuff, just mischief, unless I tried to lie about it. That was intolerabl…
/r/MensRights07/12/10 02:00 AM
1

you can register for free, use a mailinator.com address.
/r/MensRights06/12/10 01:22 AM
1

tl;dr: Let's just be honest about what divorce is - it's a financial transaction, a game. We don't really care about families when destroying them can cause lots of money to become available for the taking. For those who question how this relates to men's rights -- after all both men and women are involved in most divorces! -- the entry of external bettors into the divorce game will only raise the stakes, literally. It will do nothing but magnify the inequities that are already present in the sy…
/r/MensRights06/12/10 01:19 AM
1

the cold blooded shittiness of these women who deny fathers contact with their children. The astounding thing to me is not the cold-bloodedness. That happens. It's an extreme in human nature, but, ... it happens. The astounding thing to me, though, is that seemingly normal people can be transformed into these cold-blooded parasites. They get indoctrinated to believe that they are doing the right thing. They actually think what they do is good for children. How does it come about that someone who…
/r/MensRights06/12/10 01:07 AM
1

I agree. I also think that 10 or 15 minutes of sex sort of muddies the water a little. You can't have an intimate evening and then 20 minutes of sex, and then right at the moment of climax, demand a dismount, and cry rape if the person (man or woman) doesn't comply within 10 seconds. It's rude, it's not rape.
/r/MensRights05/12/10 11:32 PM
1

This is great to see. It looks to be a level-headed statement of the issues, with specific analysis of how VAWA has affected African-American communities. I don't believe it's enough to stop the VAWA juggernaut. But it's still worth making the statement.
/r/MensRights04/12/10 10:24 PM
1

Well if it's rape, then he goes to prison. If rape is when she doesn't get off him in 10 seconds, then she goes to prison. There is no grey area with rape. If you call it rape, it's a felony offense. I'm not an expert, but this article says that the US Federal minimum sentence for rape is 97 months in prison. That's 8+ years. I saw a separate citation that said that the average sentence for a convicted rapist is 6 years in prison. There are aggravating factors - like if the victim was abducted, …
/r/MensRights04/12/10 05:38 PM
1

Your point here is not clear.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 01:44 PM
1

Why should he be required to pay any child support if he doesn't want to? I understand she got pregnant against his will. On the other hand, common sense holds that he shares some of the responsibility. He was having unprotected sex with her; he put himself in the position of potentially becoming a father. He had plenty of opportunity to avoid that risk; he chose, repeatedly, not to. This is not "blame the victim." He's not a victim. I'm holding him responsible for his decisions that put him in …
/r/MensRights03/12/10 01:44 PM
1

my thoughts exactly. Is it rape or is it just rude?
/r/MensRights03/12/10 01:39 PM
2

No, I'm not. I'm saying, the surest way to withdraw consent is to withdraw, physically. He didn't. and in the act, he couldn't (apparently he was on the bottom?). He surrendered his own ability to withdraw. He abdicated responsibility for the situation and gave that responsibility to a woman. Then when she failed to meet his expectations, contrary to an explicit or implicit agreement they had, he blamed her. This can all be avoided by refusing the abdicate responsibility for the situation.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 09:30 PM
2

you're trying very hard to push for the guy being responsible... what role do you see the female taking here? Once he's in her bed he's hers until she's done? Seems like you and I are coming at the situation differently. You seem to be looking for someone to blame. I am looking to identify the person who had the opportunity to control the situation - the responsible party. I'm not interested in blame. I'm talking about learning what it means to be a responsible adult, and applying that learning.…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 08:28 PM
1

he probably should not have had sex with her anyway, or only with condoms. ok then. Common sense prevails.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 08:13 PM
1

your 3am at a bar analogy seems analogous to the 'if you dont want to get raped, dont dress slutty' argument. No, that's not what I said. That was not my analogy. Explain to me why you think they are equivalent, and therefore why they should be dismissed on the same grounds. I don't agree that they are equivalent; lacking any justification for the parallel you drew, I don't agree with it. Feel free to argue against the "don't dress slutty" position, but that was not something I put forward. It d…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 03:56 PM
7

if the woman makes a mistake, she can choose to have an abortion without the man's approval, but if the man makes a mistake in trusting his girlfriend, he has no such option. Well, there is a special circumstance that you seem to downplay - the fetus lives inside the woman. Ergo she has physical, natural control of it, and he does not. I'm not saying the father has no interest in the matter, or that legally he should have no input. The legal issue is not completely clear. I am saying that there …
/r/MensRights01/12/10 07:20 AM
12

No; he is not saying she forced him to have sex. He said she didn't get off in time. They both agreed to have sex. The disagreement came on whether she should dismount. This is where he could have avoided the problem: wearing a condom, it wouldn't matter if she got off of him or not. He owns that. I'm all for men's rights; her refusing to withdraw with there was a stated or implied agreement to do so is abusive. It may be theft of paternity. (I don't know). I know it is not rape. I am not in fav…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 05:00 AM
9

I'm with Lovecraft. By blaming her for where and when you had an orgasm, you are transferring responsibility. Don't. It's a bad habit. Real men do not blame their women for where their ejaculate ends up. Next time wear a condom and there is no chance of "she would not get off of me." At the very least you should take the blame for trusting her when she had already proven to be untrustworthy. I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm saying you're responsible for your own spooge, and evading that r…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 04:19 AM
13

I call bullshit on this. "She would not get off of me" is not something a responsible man would say. A responsible man, in control of himself and his actions, would use birth control, or would not have sex. I empathize with the original poster for all the hassle he is going through. I don't believe he is "to blame" for all these troubles; I do believe that if she were a better person things would be much simpler and more pleasant for him. On the other hand, blaming HER for him coming inside her,…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 04:15 AM
2

there's absolutely nothing else you can do. Nope! I don't want to pick on you, but, that is a dead-end viewpoint that is almost assuredly wrong. there is always an option. One option is to just chuck it! Walk away. Be done with the hassle. Another is to emigrate. Take the boys, find a job in a greek fishing village repairing fishnets, and start an entirely new life. Another option is to keep on grinding away at the "traditional" american dream. And so on. To believe there is no choice, is truly …
/r/MensRights01/12/10 04:11 AM
4

My brother's saying: you know why divorce is so expensive? Because it's worth it.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 04:08 AM
1

It's worth noting, as well, that the party asking for a TRO to be issued must show that there is a risk of "irreparable harm" if the order isn't issued. The thing is, if you read any of the cases on what constitutes irreparable harm, it's a really high standard. These orders do not go out willy-nilly. No. I'm telling you, they DO go out willy-nilly. In my case, there was never a standard of "irreparable harm." Read RCW 26.050 once again. You will see that there is no such phrase in the text. The…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 03:17 AM
1

Irreparable harm is a really high burden to meet (even getting your arm chopped off is "reparable" according to the SCOTUS). Nope. Not in my case. There was no standard of "irreparable harm". The judge said, "she appears to be afraid of you; I'm going to grant the petition." And that was that. The presumption was that the children were part of her, as her appendages. The children never testified that they were afraid; no expert testified that irreparable harm would result. This is QUITE how it w…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 03:16 AM
1

A signed affidavit (under penalty of perjury) After reading her signed affadavit, I asked my attorney if my soon-to-be-ex-wife would be in danger of imprisonment. You see, I worried about the children. She laughed at me (my attorney). she scoffed at my naivete. No one ever gets prosecuted for perjury in divorce cases, she assured me. "Everyone lies," was her statement. She had 14 years of experience in family law in the state. So, yes, "a signed affadavit under (NO) penalty of perjury" is effect…
/r/MensRights01/12/10 12:14 AM
5

See if you can move your exit from the state, up 10 days, so you are gone when she emerges. never speak to her again. The blamestorm just skimmed you, and you "would like" to keep on communicating with her? No. Just don't.
/r/MensRights30/11/10 04:39 AM
4

Ya. Well if they speak to a pro-bono attorney in the King County Regional Judicial Center, they'll learn otherwise. How's this for irony: King County, the county that contains Seattle and the surroundings, is named for Dr Martin Luther King, civil rights crusader, champion of equal rights, and the activist who called us all to judge people on the content of their character. But in this county named after King, fathers are judged on the content of their accusers' statements. Here's the thing - wh…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 06:09 PM
6

The way the law reads, if a person asks for an order for protection, it must be granted unless the court finds reason to NOT grant it. This is the exact reversal of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" that is applied in US criminal courts; the stated rationale behind the reversal is that people's safety are at risk. Forget for a moment that the safety of people is at risk in any trial of a person accused of a violent crime. Somehow we as a society are able to balance the rights of th…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:45 PM
5

You can also lose your passport. I suppose the argument there is to prevent the scofflaw from fleeing justice.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:32 PM
15

Gender equality is not a zero sum game, I'll agree with that. But in situations that put people in an apparently zero-sum game, for example divorce, where there is only 1 pie and it needs to be divided (and far be it from me to characterize children as "pies" but you know what I mean), and when the people involved are of opposite genders, then gender equality becomes a zero sum game. I say apparently above because I think it's shortsighted to view division of assets and arrangement of child cust…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 01:24 PM
0

rather than tell us what you dislike, maybe you could elaborate on WHY you disagree, especially since that point in particular was pretty well supported by the article.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 07:30 AM
0

Which part do you dispute as "crazy"? Do you dispute that there are communities where fatherlessness is ubiquitous, and where the government is enforcing child support payments, supporting women with welfare, providing education and healthcare? Do you dispute that those functions - paying for families, educating kids, and keeping them healthy - were once part of the role of the father? What part is crazy, to you?
/r/MensRights29/11/10 07:29 AM
-1

I don't think so. If more people who hold anti-gay marriage views were to read and understand this article, more people would question their stances. The problem with discourse in the US today, and on some reddits (/r/politics for one) is that people magnify and focus on the small differences, and disqualify everything else. this prevents actual dialogue and understanding. Every discussion turns into a playground shouting match. Fact is, we've (humans) had het-marriage for thousands of generatio…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 07:25 AM
1

Ya, in my experience, the ability to control one's work hours is a matter of personal discipline and "managing the manager." It's easy to fall into the trap where you want to do a better job, so you spend extra time. Then it becomes a habit, and pretty soon you're doing 50 hours every week, or 60 hours, or whatever. It's easy to get carried away. It doesn't sound like anyone is forcing the men to work extra hours. It's a matter of personal discipline.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 03:46 PM
0

Supply and demand, baby! I gotta believe that's a temporary thing that will sort itself out. In my prior job, women were very valuable. There were tons of resources aimed at encouraging women to take on and remain in technical roles, tons of resources for women in leadership positions. I have no idea what they were paid, but the company went out of its way to open doors for women. I didn't really have a problem with it, because I still perceived the system to be a strict meritocracy. You had to …
/r/MensRights27/11/10 02:46 PM
1

Don't confuse Family law judges with Federal Court judges. Very important point.
/r/MensRights27/11/10 12:01 PM
5

I was married to a sociopath. Didn't realize it at the time of course. It didn't show up until the going got tough. I remember talking with her, about this friend of ours - his odd lack of empathy and concern for other people, in all sorts of situations. He had this ability to just completely ignore the other person's point of view. He'd steal things from people, expensive things, apparently without regret. And he had plenty of money. He'd damage property, purposefully, and never show the slight…
/r/MensRights27/11/10 06:00 AM
1

Take the good with the bad. The judge ruled that the country Children and Youth Services (CYS)agency abused their power by automatically terminating all contact between a father and his 3 children, after an allegation that the father was having a consensual sexual relationship with a 16 year old. But the 31-page opinion by a federal judge, finding in favor of the man who had been separated from his children for nearly a year, came about two weeks too late. The plaintiff died November 18 after be…
/r/MensRights27/11/10 05:01 AM
16

Welcome to the Twilight Zone. I'm a little further down the road of bankrupt and unable to see the children than you are. Bad news: it doesn't get any easier with time. More bad news: The clowns who tell you to "think positively" in order to solve this problem, will keep on coming. The fact is that when the state comes down on you, there is no winning. There is survival, or death. You choose. The only hope for a normal life is if she relents. If she doesn't.... well. one tip: if you get $5000 be…
/r/MensRights25/11/10 07:11 PM
1

My bet is that the father is no prize, either. But I agree that the relevance of this story to men's rights organizations is... low. Unles.... the point is to challenge the idea of "threatening person = male".
/r/MensRights24/11/10 07:10 PM
3

sounds like he was pretty damn guilty to me really? guilty of what? a crime? any crime? Why was he not prosecuted then? A prosecutor and DA would LOVE to have the head of an NFL SuperBowl-winning quarterback on their mantle. They would charge him if they could. If you mean guilty of boorish behavior, I agree. But I don't know of a law against that.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 01:07 PM
3

I really like this line of reasoning, though. I think I'll try it next time someone alleges that I beat them. "I was frustrated and exasperated, your honor!" Ya think it'll work?
/r/MensRights24/11/10 12:19 PM
0

Out from under the bridge, you! Yeah, it would be like if men's rights activists were all creepy misogynists who kept whining about how rape laws are too strict... Don't think so. First you define a group as creepy, because... you don't agree with them? Then, you make stuff up. Show me one serious post that takes the position that "rape laws are too strict", from the last year on this reddit. One. Go ahead, I'll wait. What, no results yet? Hmmm, could it be that you made that part up? Men's righ…
/r/MensRights24/11/10 12:15 PM
2

The idea the author mentions that men are violent to impose their power on their spouses and women are just frustrated is so half-baked it's incredible. Yes. How does this stuff get into print originally? How did it pass the editor's sniff test? Hmmm, I have a guess on that...
/r/MensRights24/11/10 12:05 PM
6

This part is beee-yoo-tee-ful in its unintended, and apparently undetected irony. Another fallacy, says Chesney-Lind: the presumption that violent women are a new post-feminist breed, hitting because being "empowered" makes them more like men. In reality, male and female domestic violence tend to emerge from different places, and with different intentions. In the context of heterosexual domestic abuse, she says, "male violence is an expression of power and control over women; men are hitting to …
/r/MensRights24/11/10 12:03 PM
3

Damn! I forgot! Women give birth. You've won the debate. I now see that all that other stuff about equality and equity in law is nonsense.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 11:34 AM
10

Residual cultural and legal bias. Time was, it made sense for moms to gain custody in a split. Moms didn't have career opportunities, and prior to no-fault divorce laws, a petition for divorce was almost always well founded. At the same time men traditionally did not care for young children, relying on the security of the marriage bond and the trust of his spouse to do this. It didn't mean he wasn't a father; it meant he deferred while the children were young. But then no-fault divorce came in, …
/r/MensRights23/11/10 04:24 PM
5

Are you guys kidding me? This isn't about religion or religious practice. It isn't. Park your religious or anti-religious indignation and think about it. The father would have lost his kids regardless. It's just a made-up reason, and if she/he/they didn't make up this reason they would have made up another one. "Father loses custody for being _________". ...agnostic ...abusive ...a workaholic ....an alcoholic ....a philanderer .... a bad example ...etc The point is, if the mother wants sole cust…
/r/MensRights23/11/10 04:13 PM
3

Well they probably had good reason to suspect your father as a perpetrator. For example, at that time, was he significantly larger than you? Was he male? Well, then...
/r/MensRights19/11/10 05:11 PM
1

I agree. this is not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 02:24 AM
2

Thanks for the commiseration. Actually, I kinda agree with the stated policy that marital misconduct is not the same as parental misconduct. In other words, just because she screws some other guy, doesn't mean she should lose her parenting rights, including... if appropriate, child support. On the other hand, allegations of abuse trump everything, with no proof necessary. all you need is the chutzpah to make the allegations and stick by your story.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 10:27 PM
3

Thanks for the sympathy. I'm hoping to live a somewhat normal life away from her and her nutty allegations, until the kids are old enough to judge for themselves.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 06:52 PM
6

I wanted 50/50, argued that I had been a good father to my four children for the 13 years of marriage. I bathed them, dressed them, played with them, taught them, changed 8 years of diapers. My ex alleged that I was abusing her, and therefore 50/50 would be a continuation of the abuse. Guess who's argument was viewed as more persuasive by the court... I suspect the Aussie govt has been caught saying what other western governments merely think.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 06:35 PM
2

I second this. I did all the pre-marital counseling stuff. I did all the conversations and planning. We had a shared vision, I thought. At some point she decided she wanted a different dick inside her, which I guess is her prerogative. But because we jointly decided that she could be a stay-at-home mom, I was on the hook to support her, despite the fact that it was her choice to abandon the marriage. If I had it to do over again, I would insist that she WORK for a living. 30 years ago, maybe mar…
/r/MensRights13/11/10 06:01 PM
2

no. The only protection is, verification of her sanity and stability. If she shows any sign of instability, don't move in. If her mother divorced her father, don't move in. If her mother does not currently speak to her father, don't move in. If she does not currently speak to her father, don't move in. If she has no uncles she is close to, don't move in. If she does not respect families or couples, don't move in. All these point to likelihood that at some point she will blame you (the male in he…
/r/MensRights13/11/10 06:04 AM
6

No. There is no way a man can really protect himself. If she wants to allege that he beat her, he will lose. He will lose money paying for an attorney. The attorney's efforts will seem helpful but in the end will be fruitless, if she keeps up her allegations. He will lose custody of his children, lose his money in settlements, and lose his freedoms in restraining orders. Regardless what he does, if she alleges, he will lose. The only real protection is to move away from women. I'm not making thi…
/r/MensRights13/11/10 05:57 AM
1

He does however admit that he doesn't want his kids seeing their dad get the cops called on him for everything by their mom, and so has backed off himself and given up hope. For his legal standing as of right now he told me, 'I've got full visitation with them, as far as legal things I'm tired of paying for an attorney, and I'm legally allowed to see them yes but every time I have tried to see them she leaves or calls the police so I'm kinda just hoping that someday they will want to know who I …
/r/MensRights13/11/10 05:47 AM
1

I'm presuming it is what we in the USA call a "protection order", a "restraining order", or a "protection from abuse" order.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:32 AM
2

This happened to me too. My payments were higher than my income. I showed my W2, but somehow that evidence wasn't compelling? The ex "stated" that my income was higher, no documentation or evidence, so that is what the court accepted. The realization that I will NEVER be able to catch up strikes me, and then I think, "Why even try?" This is a sure-fire way to create a deadbeat dad. Set an impossible goal.
/r/MensRights21/10/10 07:18 PM
1

I am not alone.
/r/MensRights19/10/10 03:22 PM
1

Basically, what you're calling a "relationship" is actually a case of "fuck buddies". I'm not interested in an discussion or argument about definitions of terms. And he has every right to know her behavior is opening him up to diseases that could kill him or poison him in any future relationship. I agree that partners in a relationship generally have the right to know about additional relationships or current sexual partners. I disagree that the way to learn this is to spy or violate the space o…
/r/MensRights19/10/10 03:57 AM
1

probably true. . .
/r/MensRights19/10/10 03:37 AM
3

I have friends, but none of them are racist, or they don't admit it or show it around me, anyway. Which kinda goes with the territory, because if you are a racist, you're not my friend. I will never say "I have this racist friend...." I do have a racist brother in law, but he is no friend of mine. In situations, I have told people I don't appreciate their humor, and if they continue, then I don't hang with them. Mostly they stop, because they respect me and my opinion. For the ones that don't st…
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:52 AM
1

The pink sneakers are an awareness-raising thing. And for fund-raising purposes, awareness about breast cancer among men is just as important as awareness in women.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:24 AM
1

Bullshit. A Protection Order? You don't need the state to protect you. Use common sense, take proactive action. Move away, learn self-defense, etc etc. Don't rely on the nanny state to keep you safe. The stats bear this out - women who hold a protection order are just as likely to be injured or killed by a nutball stalker, as those who do not (citation lacking. But I promise I heard this somewhere). The entire issue of Men's Rights is here because the nanny state has run amok. A subgroup has ask…
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:18 AM
1

Very clear. But what happens is the court can place the welfare of children above those of either of the parents. In particular, this is very common with fathers. It is emotionally traumatic for a man to lose all custody of his children, but a court will often do so, without regard for the impact on the man. Why is this ok? Why do children's interests always trump those of the father? The parents are (typically) legal adults and able to make decisions for themselves. Right, and I decided a long …
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:12 AM
2

To each his own. I won't question your approach. On the other hand, in my opinion, some things require confrontation and condemnation. In the nicest possible way, I'm sure. If after all that, the racist-joke-teller thinks I am "an asshole", then the world is A-OK.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:05 AM
3

I don't have a ton of sympathy for a man who enforces court-ordered child support on men, but ducks out of it himself. On the other hand, I myself am currently building an arrears in support payments that I will never clear. I was ordered to pay more than I could afford, after being repeatedly railroaded in the court. Rather than appeal, I just gave up. I have no job. No assets. No car. No contact with the kids. She accused me of domestic violence, beating her, beating the kids, threatening her,…
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:48 AM
2

We have good weeks, but most weeks are fighting about something... Why would you continue with this? Who wants to hang with someone when a fight is GUARANTEED to be just around the corner? What makes you stay with her? There are lots of people who have relationships... I know this is gonna sound strange to you... where there are no routine "fights". Where a bona-fide argument is a rare exception, and most discourse is a fair, calm give-and-take.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:36 AM
3

I disagree with "NO WOMAN wants to ask for an "open relationship" unless she's trying to cover her ass over what she's already done." Some women want open relationships, and want them honestly. That doesn't change the fact that he should leave. Checking her cell phone seems inappropriate, too. If there is already this level of mistrust and lack of respect in the relationship, spying on her is not going to "fix" anything, regardless of what he finds or doesn't find when he spies.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:33 AM
2

true, and irrelevant for the current discussion. We as a society have criminalized a whole spectrum of normal human behavior, including smoking particular kinds of plants, and all undesired physical contact, even with the expression of lack of desire is made after the fact. That there is a legal double standard doesn't change the fact that she is mistreating him, and he needs to leave, for his own mental health and development.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:31 AM
2

The time frame doesn't matter. If it's easier for you, and if it feels right to you, accept half the responsibility for the disfunctional relationship you have with her. Doesn't matter "whose fault it is". Bottom line: It's not working. It aint gonna get better. It's time to leave. Learn from it, move on, and try to do better next time.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:29 AM
2

No need to wait a month. No one who is respectful would treat you the way she did, even tipsy or drunk. Being Drunk is not an excuse for terrible behavior. You need to end the relationship now. Some psychologists say that showing up drunk, itself, is an abusive behavior.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:25 AM
13

Joke back? No. Let me ask you this: If someone tells you a racist joke, do you tell them a racist joke to illustrate "backhandedly" how completely unacceptable it is to tell nigger jokes to you? No. You tell them you don't think it's funny. You tell them their language and attitude is unacceptable to you. And the same goes here. You can tell her: That's not funny. It's not a joke. Many men are damaged by false rape accusations. Sounds like that's what you did.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 05:04 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter