TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Beltox Archive

View 2 posts and 136 comments by Beltox on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

Left foot braking is kinda dangerous even for automatic cars..
/r/MensRights18/09/13 11:16 PM
2

The old females are stereotyped and objectified in games. I guess every man is chiesled and can lift enormous weights, jump 15feet while side winding and keeping a perfect cluster with a fully automatted weapon. Sorry the female has good tits and tight clothes tho, that's totally absurd /s
/r/MensRights02/09/13 09:50 AM
7

As a Man of legal age, is there a place to view the evidence?, For science of course.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:45 AM
2

Seeing as sports as a whole is funded by viewers the more viewers the more pay should be the one and only reason someone is paid more or less (Yes gambling is a big part of sport but if a company came out saying they're paying certain people more to reap more benefits from gambling they'd be shamed into receivership. )
/r/MensRights07/07/13 02:48 AM
3

The article info graph that I saw was that Wimbledon tickets for mens was $3900 amd womens $900 with men playing a minimum of 21 sets and women a minimum of 14. So yes this a case of straight forward double standard. It came to the conclusion that per set men are paid 44k and women 62k on average of that particular tornament.
/r/MensRights06/07/13 11:21 PM
2

You have a point, but from what I have come to believe. The earning potential for men through sponsorships and advertisments severely out weighs the measly 1.6mil so no one is really worried. My 2c
/r/MensRights06/07/13 01:58 PM
1

I didn't say he had to stay with them because they ticked most boxes, I was merely pointing out he got the examples from different women in his life then portrayed it as a list of problems all women had.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 11:23 PM
5

Harshly stereotypical and heavily slanted by personal situation. While most "reasons" were provided with a different woman to match the criteria, essentially meaning he had 10/11 reasons to stay with each different woman. Mainly associated with a relationship and nothing really extends to marriage. To each their own.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 01:02 AM
2

Cheers for this, won't open on mobile. Some promising options especially the shots!
/r/MensRights20/06/13 11:47 AM
1

It's rather Funny that most of the comments (besides the horrible one) have 3 or so down votes, really looks like 3 specific people had their panties in a bunch.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 07:45 AM
2

From what I remember his number was a lot higher, 17 or so. Not that it changes how fucked up this is, just a difference in level of spreading
/r/MensRights16/06/13 04:41 AM
1

Pretty sure every single leader of australia has been heckled and joked about, but what does it say when she's the first to make a big deal about it? And ever so quickly uses the gender card.
/r/MensRights15/06/13 02:24 PM
5

Really moving. Also extremely scary that it truly can happen to anyone at a moments notice. The worst feeling is leaving your kids, be it work a weekend away from them or sending them off to school. I can't even begin to imagine the feeling of not knowing whether you'll see them again.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:00 AM
0

I feel you'd be rather disappointed in young men and women these days.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:18 AM
0

Of course, that's reasonable. Yet in this circumstance, one could easily just say no thanks and move on, additional measures are definitely over kill. While the reverse situation would result in shaming of the man for spreading her image.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 09:09 AM
-2

It's says it's a dating app. so if she was using it, then she wasn't exactly not open to being "talked to"
/r/MensRights11/06/13 08:58 AM
-1

This situation is wracked with bad decisions, But the main issue I have with this, is that she took this photo which was reciprocated through a dating app as stated, and instead of saying " no thanks not interested" Blocking him and moving on, she choose to insult him on a personal level and actively seek to embarrass him to his mother. While also saying that he is supporting rape culture.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 08:38 AM
2

Seems to comment more on Black / White Inequality but still a very strong point on the perceptions people have when it comes to something so simple.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 09:34 AM
3

Which is the complete wrong attitude to have. Anf if you want to do that you're quite welcome, but as with all things in life actions have consequences.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 06:27 AM
5

then she's screwed on all accounts! literally.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 10:40 AM
8

The australian legal age is set at 16, but as most males know, that only applies to partners within 5 years of age... Side note as an australian, this being in tasmania is not surprising! /s
/r/MensRights21/05/13 07:50 AM
1

Defence? No i was merely explaining a situation where the picture could have been taken out of context. And I dunno if you pay child support but that doesn't stop either. A normal parent in this situation would have money aside for the child and some for themselves, the two may have crossed one week/month when her Ex couldn't afford support on time or whatever. I never said that is what happened, only that if a situation like that occurred then that "support" money was already spent by the mothe…
/r/MensRights13/05/13 09:07 AM
1

In the situation i described. And providing the Support payment isn't late again, then she shouldn't need to use her own saving money.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 05:15 AM
1

In that situation. once she uses "her" money instead of the support money then the support payment is merely replacing Her money. She's not taking away from the child at all.
/r/MensRights13/05/13 04:39 AM
1

The situational, she is saving for those nice things. The support payment was late so she used her savings to make sure the child didn't go without, then just replaced the money after being paid. Not saying this is what happened but its a posssible scenario
/r/MensRights12/05/13 12:04 PM
1

Even tho it seems wrong and it reads wrong, perhaps she spent money she had been saving for those things on her child instead and went without untill she got the support payment. But with the limiyed information it's hard to really tell.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 05:15 AM
18

To go along with the 75% of divorves are intiatated by the female, I saw somewhere ( yes hearsay ) that the male chooses it less than 5%. The remainder being joint desicion.
/r/MensRights09/05/13 09:45 AM
2

I'm not of the point. Please enlighten me
/r/MensRights14/04/13 12:55 PM
1

I had to stop reading after they compared someone not ruining someones career (possibly) to wearing a short skirt. What the hell. That is some fucked up logic.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 11:58 AM
2

If I was a conspiracy theorist. I'd say she's a plant made by feminists to enforce their argument about men brain washing women or something like that. But in reality she's just bat shit crazy weirdo thats not doing anyone any good.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 12:40 PM
1

Women are more likely to be in an accident, men do more damage per crash. Also. Do you pay less for health insurance when statistically women use 1200% more?
/r/MensRights17/03/13 12:01 AM
0

None of those are "reasons he shouldn't be PM" they are just mostly his opinions on subject, all conjecture all with limited effect on his role if elected. You seriously need to look closer at the media and sift through the bias against him. Sure he isnt best. She isn't any better.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 03:50 AM
1

The materialistic world killed it, where people want everything straight away and don't get to know people well enough before jumping into marriage and children, where people as a whole are told "there's plenty of fish in the sea" Instead of hard work and commitment pays off, people expect it to be easy and quit when it's hard. This is not a men's rights issue. It's a generational defect that will continue to worsen as ease of life increases.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 05:18 AM
-1

Fucking hilarious. Albeit in comedy form so hardly anyone would take any of it seriously...
/r/MensRights18/02/13 09:34 PM
1

You mean the same place people are still forced to marry particular people and where oppression actually exists. There men's rights is a non issue, so we are applying it to our society.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 07:52 PM
1

By law you need to convey the fact you are a martial arts expert. Because as a trained person you technically are using a weapon.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 06:56 PM
1

In that case she and her father should be charged with excessive force pertaining to physical assault. Unless the men were of equal discipline and training.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:58 PM
3

Seems as tho she challenged him to fight her and her father. That would make more sense.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 09:00 AM
1

It would probably allude to the fact that whilst carrying a gun you would, in theory use it to protect yourself but end up being retaliated against either equal force.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 12:34 PM
2

Why not just flat out refuse entry for men. Much simpler and is not discriminatory like this is.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 06:26 AM
3

I wonder if there is anyway he will get a years worth of child support back paid. Hah, yea right.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 05:21 AM
4

It also includes police and security personnel. But I guess we, as men should carry around a law book and tape recorder incase we are falsely accused of rape. The same logic applies.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 05:12 AM
1

I read somewhere you are more likely to be shot if you are carrying a gun. Does the same thing apply here I wonder.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 04:31 AM
0

Girls can start menstruating as early as 8. That alone would cause more health issues in young children. It's probably more a advertisement ploy as opposed to discriminating against boys. But its still an odd mind set
/r/MensRights14/02/13 09:03 PM
8

Could it be something to do with physical differences pertaining to survivability in 3rd world areas?
/r/MensRights14/02/13 08:11 PM
1

Links to "playmen" wiki... not sure if intended?
/r/MensRights04/02/13 12:43 AM
0

You're horrible at reading.
/r/MensRights25/01/13 12:13 AM
0

you are mistaken. you have said numerous times about some bullshit general gender roles jobs... if you actually read what I have written. a number of times I said Same pay for the same job, to which you declined to agree.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 04:25 AM
1

I feel you are severely misreading everything I have written.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 03:19 AM
0

I have no knowledge of selective service. If you read what i have wrote, about 5 times now. SAME JOB SAME PAY.
/r/MensRights24/01/13 02:49 AM
1

What exactly are you on about $250, 000 fine for voting? What is that? ?? Why do you deem it fair that if two people are doing the same job one is paid differently because of career paths in a general sense?
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:23 AM
0

I stumped my toe on a table once. Burn all tables!!!! /s
/r/MensRights24/01/13 01:17 AM
1

You have trouble with this equality thing don't you. How in Any way is a man not on equal footing when voting does his vote point for.less? No it doesn't. I said equal pay for the same job. A boy and a girl should be paid the same to deliver newspapers as with Every single job. I'm not sure if you are just heavily biased towards women or have no clue at all.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:55 PM
0

As you said military vote circumstance. So it wasn't nessassery a woman's rights issue. Although their ideal pushed towards a more overall voting system. And just because women and men have different career paths in a general sense doesn't mean there should be a pay difference for either that choose to follow a certain career.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 07:03 PM
0

How is it. It's well documented that women in the 50's were receiving less pay for the same workload. And weren't able to vote. Although that can be portrayed a different way.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:20 AM
0

I never said there was a concrete reason. I said there was a perceived reason which must have been prevalent enough for it to take hold and gain support.
/r/MensRights22/01/13 05:58 AM
0

Actually no. There was a movement and therefore a reason or perceived reason for it to be there. And such you are the one that needs to provide a reason for it not to be the way it was.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:18 AM
0

You're the one that is making the claim that the woman's movement was not needed. You in the spotlight for sources and reason. Not I.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:08 AM
0

You are very dense, aren't you? Go and Live in the early 1900's or even just read what it was like back then. you obviously have no idea about why the womans movement was created and thus if you don't understand our oppositions roots you are in no place to discuss this topic.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 07:01 AM
0

You seem to be coming across as though you think because women weren't disadvantaged in all aspects that they were not discriminated against at all. I am merely saying if two people don't access to the same quality of life / career etc than there is discrimination. Not if one can do something while the has another thing that could be done.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 06:11 AM
0

The first two posts are saying Thayer if you believe that women weren't discriminated against in certain areas solely because they were given privilege in others doesn't make it right or fair.
/r/MensRights21/01/13 02:58 AM
0

I fail to see how you could think that in areas females weren't discriminated against, you could "justify" it perhaps. but in no way is that Fair or Equal. Just because you have one thing and another has a different thing if either doesn't have access to each others item /job /career /life style then it is not Equal.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 03:28 AM
0

Or wait for the lengthy comments about how mistreated they because they read the "facts" and nothing else.
/r/MensRights18/01/13 02:04 AM
1

Please note "needed" By which I mean whether or not the exact movement that happened was indeed needed, there was a place for affirmative female action and that is the path it took. The transition into the industrial age was brought with traditions from the past that were no longer needed and gender roles needed to be revalued.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 08:52 PM
1

Update these posts. They are helping us.
/r/MensRights16/01/13 11:56 PM
1

I have already stated that it isn't nessassery in the current time. All I said was at one stage it was "needed".
/r/MensRights16/01/13 07:35 PM
3

Treat others as you wish to be treated. Unless you're a woman then take chivalry as a good gesture and not as common human decency.
/r/MensRights15/01/13 10:23 PM
1

Because in this current age there is none. Well in western world anyway. Feminism these days is relying on other countries that still oppress women and think that validates their stand in the western world.
/r/MensRights14/01/13 05:09 AM
1

Because this sub is geared towards mens rights? perhaps. And its good that the information is easily available.
/r/MensRights13/01/13 11:57 PM
2

Ladies and gentleman this is what irony looks like!
/r/MensRights12/01/13 11:06 AM
1

Do more research.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 12:52 AM
13

By his account it was two months after he found out she was 14.. I think he'll be in trouble.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 12:28 AM
1

You are denying their disadvantage by claiming there wasn't a time when feminism was needed. You can't look at the situation now and compare the two times to say whether it was right. They wanted / needed action and that is the path they took.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 12:19 AM
2

Gonna make it real fucking easy for you guys same reply to all three comments. You deny that women were ever disadvantaged yet expect people to believe you about male disadvantage that is ignorant and extremely hypocritical.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 12:13 AM
1

Gonna make it real fucking easy for you guys same reply to all three comments. You deny that women were ever disadvantaged yet expect people to believe you about male disadvantage that is ignorant and extremely hypocritical.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 12:13 AM
2

Gonna make it real fucking easy for you guys same reply to all three comments. You deny that women were ever disadvantaged yet expect people to believe you about male disadvantage that is ignorant and extremely hypocritical.
/r/MensRights12/01/13 12:12 AM
2

It was more the social standing in the community ie not getting a say and not bring taken seriously. Or as you might know some of the concerns that men are facing now. Equal pay should never have been the issue it was. Pretty cut and dry logic applies to that aspect.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 06:51 AM
2

Equality has nothing to do having to work with a baby on their hip.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 04:27 AM
1

Please enlighten me! I am seriously curious how you believe it would harm them...
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:47 AM
-1

It is like that now. The starting of feminism was more. Likely intellectuals that felt discriminated against and not the radical man haters that are running it today
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:16 AM
2

Feminism was started for women's rights. In the days of old there was discrimination based on them being women. Albeit some of that discrimination benefited them greatly, it still wasn't right.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:13 AM
-1

And thats what feminism simple roots were. And then they discovered they could get more.
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:11 AM
1

And you base the credibility of yourself how?
/r/MensRights11/01/13 03:11 AM
4

Link has 404'd (Unless it's not viewable on mobile devices)
/r/MensRights10/01/13 11:23 PM
-1

I don't think anyone can credibly say at one point feminism wasn't needed. But they still think there is a problem, force their opinion on society to make others believe there is still problems and is now a cash cow.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 10:51 PM
0

Forcing that sarcasm a little too much...
/r/MensRights10/01/13 07:40 PM
1

Means she thought she had a good enough reason. Doesn't mean it was logical or allowed.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 07:05 AM
-1

Haha. Nice insult, heathen. People usually have a reason to kill another person, considering they had been known to each other already.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 05:57 AM
1

Two years is a long time, guess she's holding up that stereotype. My opinion was based solely from the article originally posted. Didn't see the other parts linked when I made my comment. So all in all, crazy bitches be crazy.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 02:10 AM
-3

So she didn't accuse him.?
/r/MensRights10/01/13 01:10 AM
-8

Murder is always unjustified. Unless provided by the state, doesn't mean she didn't Think she had a reason.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 11:37 PM
-12

Anyone saying that "it's false because the accusation were dropped" take a second to think that she dropped them because she was going to get her own revenge. Perhaps he didn't rape her or perhaps he did, he still gave her a reason commit murder. So this isn't a cut and dry false accusation story. The story itself didn't cite many facts to do with the rape accusation, and consider the murder was the more important aspect I'm sure you can see why.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 10:57 PM
1

Do you have a source for thwarting 41% claim? Just more info would be great!
/r/MensRights09/01/13 02:01 AM
1

Oh you've been abused? Better post that shit on a public forum so the evidence is useless in court! Congratulations you "feel better" meanwhile an abuser stays free...
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:55 PM
34

If it doesn't represent TRUE facts and figures it is just as misleading and incorrect as the first one that was posted. So while this is subjective humour based from an ignorant infograph it's not we should be portraying to the outside community.
/r/MensRights08/01/13 07:58 AM
7

As I said. In the first trimester. That is typically 6weeks into the pregnancy until 12 weeks. This would give both parties a chance to openly express their opinion. Why should a man be forced to pay for a child he had no intention of having and only through a fault in the contraception used is forced to. The idea here is to give both parties an equal choice in the matter. And not to force a decision for either of them. In no way does a woman have to abort if the man doesn't want to have a child…
/r/MensRights07/01/13 03:37 AM
12

No, not the right to force an abortion. But before the first trimester is over if the parents aren't in a relationship and the man states he does not want the child, the woman needs to be accountable for the choice to keep it and raise it on her own.
/r/MensRights07/01/13 02:24 AM
1

Good read. Made me smile at the self destruction.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 11:48 PM
1

Hah regular people. Good one :D
/r/MensRights05/01/13 07:09 AM
1

Not exactly sure what you mean by that. If using it as a metaphor or literal.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 06:57 AM
1

I was unaware of those bold statements. If she was completely serious when she said that, I don't believe she is deserving of her position. But on the other hand her statements will put more pressure on them to perform better, so when all is settled and done and they do the same exact thing as men have done in their position we will see true progress.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 06:40 AM
1

I was unaware of those bold statements. If she was completely serious when she said that, I don't believe she is deserving of her position. But on the other hand her statements will put more pressure on them to perform better, so when all is settled and done and they do the same exact thing as men have done in their position we will see true progress.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 06:39 AM
1

So while you say they are different you also say that someone saying too much testeroesone being a bad thing, so too much of a singular Hormone is a bad thing to use when saying that the congress is not diverse. Because hormones don't change a person behaviour one way or the other¡ Good work, you made a scientific fact a basis for discrimination. This still remains to not be a men's rights issue unless equally or more suitable men are passed up purely to make it more diverse.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 05:40 AM
0

In the same statement you say that men and women have conflict of ideas and also different ideologies. And then say it won't make a difference? Also still not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 05:17 AM
1

I still haven't seen this stated as men's pay pay is the higher one, anyone with a link or source.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 03:12 AM
1

Having a more balanced view in the parliament is always a good thing. Not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:06 AM
2

"Logic and reason" First comment on the blog and I think it is something we should remember and try hard to continue to exhibit.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 02:04 AM
2

You would continue that by saying, tom cruise said he would totally hit that piece of ass. She is overwhelmed with lust and is flattered. An average man says the same, it's evidence of country wide misogynistic behaviour and the objectification of women.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 01:03 AM
3

Wife : I feel trapped at home and you never do any house work or look after the kids after you come home. Husband : I just worked 60 hours in a week I'm pretty tired relax and bed tonight is a good idea. I'm sorry it's gonna be harsh bit if a man works and a woman stays home to care for kids (even reverse) they have no right at all to complain I've been in the position of caring from a child and a household while my partner worked. Easiest fucking job ever. Maybe an hour or 2 of actual work a da…
/r/MensRights05/01/13 12:55 AM
7

You don't have to yell.
/r/MensRights05/01/13 12:32 AM
5

I was actually sent here by a female from girlgamers sub. Ironically because she said check your priviledge, you belong here "links Mensrights"
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:53 PM
8

Personally I don't like being called a rapist if for the sheer reason I couldn't watch porn.I don't believe it would skyrocket as you suggest. It would however impede on freedoms of which we are allowed.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 11:30 PM
3

I find it unsettling that if this woman had been married he would have no recourse into seeing his child or having any form of custody, could in this situation he still be forced to pay child support, even with the presumed paternity of the child to be her husband? But still small victories are victories so we'll take what we can and hope this helps build a better precedent for joint custody.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 08:22 PM
1

Coming from Australia where legal consent is 16. The only problem with this is the broken trust of teacher / student. But if she wasn't teaching him directing or they met outside school for the first time. There is nothing wrong with this. Also as "non predatory" one can assume that the affair was mutual.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 04:33 AM
6

Got what he deserved. But reversed roles. Without an admittion of guilt such as which he displayed. It would so extremely hard to prove, especially when the only contraception was condoms (90% effective) Although a likely occurrence may include where she says she's on birth control and then proceeds to get pregnant. I can only hope that would he portrayed as assault. I unfortunately doubt it though.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 03:25 AM
1

As the wise Jim Carey once said, And is a great response to all of your racist preference. STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE.
/r/MensRights04/01/13 02:09 AM
6

If male testosterone can be stereotyped into saying that we tackle problems without thinking one can only assume estrogen fueled senators will take the emotional route and some issues that need a strong hand/tough decision will end up costing a lot more.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 09:30 PM
2

The article is about single mothers and occasional single parents. With current laws having a 50% custody is very rare, especially when so much money is involved. If 50% was more common much of these problems wouldn't exist.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 04:47 AM
4

Because mothers excluding fathers from the lives of their children is hurting the children more than they know. So it's a men's rights because it brings to light the need for two stable parents even when they are divorced. I feel the aim of this article is to provide insight so people make better decisions when deciding to have children with someone and also to highlight the need for two parents in a child's life.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 03:19 AM
1

I meant as a sound device. Perhaps they need to tighten the innocent untill proven guilty laws..
/r/MensRights03/01/13 01:45 AM
1

I've never heard of rape resulting in death sentence. Ever. That doesn't make logical sense. So men need to take a take recorder wherever they go. Like women take pepper spray.
/r/MensRights02/01/13 09:00 AM
1

So worse case scenario ever he spends a year in jail. Yet you want the woman to spend 15years in jail. I don't think you have a good understanding of fairness. And people get falsely convicted of many things. Police don't have the resources to spend millions of hours to investigate each and every false rape accusation. The scenario you describe would everyday? I highly doubt it. Sounds more like a complete one off extreme bad luck. All the man had to do providing it was found to be a false claim…
/r/MensRights02/01/13 07:04 AM
1

If you peruse the Australian sub any political posts bagging tony Abbott are filled worth agreement and others bagging Gillard are filled with disagreement. Even if either or neither is factual they are blindly bias. I'm no fan of Abbott but it doesn't mean he only does bad things and she only good. Case in point when he said her father died of shame, horrible choice of words from him and very disrespectful to the dead. But not a week later when the evidence of her helping her ex partner steal $…
/r/MensRights01/01/13 02:00 PM
4

I see no difference if gender was reversed she was arrested and posted bail. They are investigating... meaning they need to find witnesses and evidence. Nothing would be different if it was a male. (Aside from him not having bail money cos an ex wife takes it all¡)
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:18 PM
10

I find it funny that she would claim something like that. It's practically saying she earns to much. Cut her wage by 90% and see how much longer she works for her money. Seems like she already doing such a fine job for $6k a week¡ As an Austrian myself I am disappointed with thwarting Australian reddit regarding politics and their refusal to admit Gillard can do wrong. She is a horrible person and in my opinion has done nothing with her novelty prime ministerial appointment.
/r/MensRights01/01/13 01:14 PM
-4

To people saying that false acusations should be penalised the same as the crime itself, you seriously need to rethink your stance while falsely claiming to have Been raped is immoral thing to do, it is no where as bad as actually raping someone. Now if you were to say that the people that are named and shamed before finding out it was a false claim have right to sue for defamation, you would be correct. But in no scenario should a woman or man that accuses another of raping them be put in jail …
/r/MensRights01/01/13 09:08 AM
-3

I'm not really seeing the issue concerning men's rights here. They were together and had two children together it is his obligation to pay child support. $995 a week is triple what it costs to raise children surely. But that is dependant on his income and is duly justified.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 08:41 PM
1

It was in this sub. But I can't search at the moment as I am on my phone. They also get hidden after I up/down vote.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:43 PM
1

Considering this individuals grasp of the English language, I don't think we need to worry.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:30 PM
3

Not 3 days ago there was the story that a girl was raped by some school boys and the newspaper shamed them and told of guilt. The story was about her misleading police. So from evidence I have seen, when a man is alledged they seem to exaggerate. While this still reads with a lot of skepticism.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 06:16 PM
2

Reminds me of the simple statement. "True equality will be achieved when a man can hit a woman back"
/r/MensRights31/12/12 05:52 PM
5

Justice obviously served. Still says allegedly, for if it was reversed there would be no doubt. Off topic. But 100 bottles of semen. . WTF.
/r/MensRights31/12/12 12:32 PM
2

Well obviously, when all these single mothers are out there getting 20% of each of their baby daddies wage and maybe some alimony on top. Men don't have anything to spend anymore¡
/r/MensRights27/12/12 01:35 AM
16

In the first sentence. " she has three daughters none of which have the same father" completely threw me from any decent point they were trying to make. 3 kids 3 dads. That is definitely her problem. Also with the wild claims that the "blacks" have a major problem comes across as heavily racist to me. Even if African Americans face higher rates of single mother hood, they also face higher poverty and increased jail rates. Which feed each other and increase together. So to say that "blacks" have …
/r/MensRights26/12/12 09:20 PM
5

Can you imagine what would happen if.you did say something about it? I would say that she'd go off her nut at you accusing you of lying and saying how misogynistic you are for accusing her of being a gold digger. Wouldn't stop me from saying something, but I can't see it changing much from his perspective.
/r/MensRights23/12/12 04:58 AM
1

It's easy to simply reply. If a key opens many locks it is labeled a master key. If a lock can be opened by many keys the lock is surely devalued.
/r/MensRights21/12/12 01:05 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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