TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Dr_Faustus Archive

View 1 posts and 88 comments by Dr_Faustus 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)
2

Marriage/DivorceDr_Faustus/r/MensRights12/05/15 09:34 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

What also needs to be talked about is the idea that threats of suicide are rooted in mental illness. To me, it sounds like he's using a threat of suicide as a form of political protest. This is totally legitimate. What is a hunger strike - for instance - then a threat of slow suicide? That his current wife would leave him, and the state lock him up, for threatening to end his life because he doesn't want support his children to the degree the community expects him to is dangerous and oppressive.…
/r/MensRights26/09/15 09:27 PM
3

The federal grants are not tied to the size of the award. You mentioned this in your link. And I agree. The thing is, I haven't been arguing otherwise. Can we put this one to bed? The state loses money... I have heard that some states lose money. Here's the thing: the standard of outrage shouldn't be whether the state "flips a profit." Rather, it should be whether the state is intruding on liberty interests in order to protect itself financially. Moreover, the opportunity to collect interest and…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 03:59 PM
2

Thanks for the link. I chalk people blaming "judges" for high support awards is an everyday way of saying "the state." It's a quibbling point in my opinion. Regardless if the federal grant is tied to the size of the award the state is pursuing a financial incentive for a judgment. Interest penalties make up for any difference - like an interest only loan - and present the opportunity for the state to collect an income stream indefinitley. The seizure of close to 1/3 of the pre-tax income of perh…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 12:50 PM
2

The state wouldn't be making those payments in the first place if the support had been made as they were supposed to. But how do you know that? I'll double-check because I could be wrong but I think child support is not counted as income for the custodial parent. I believe - and please correct me with some sources - but this includes welfare assessments. The inherent violation of current child support regimes is a belief by the state that it can appropriately assess the "adequacy" of support. Do…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:55 AM
3

I don't want to speak for MRMRISING, but I think that the state receives 1) federal funds for every successful judgement, and 2) expects to collect interest on arrears and judgments. Some evidence that supports this argument include the refusal of courts and legislators to credit non-custodial parents with non-ordered payments. Typically they interpret these payments as "gifts." So, effectively, two parents acting in their child's best interest agree to a private amount of support. But this priv…
/r/MensRights19/09/15 02:37 AM
10

Now he has to register as a sex offender - forever. His life is effectively over, for doing what 18 y/o's and 15 y/o's have been doing for the whole of human history. If he were several years older, or in a position of authority, I might consider this a proportional sentence. But a three year age difference? A sex registrant forever because of consensual sex? Is there no way off of this planet?
/r/MensRights28/08/15 07:21 PM
2

This. American legislatures have waived nearly every legal principle for women in the context of family law. Where they haven't expressly waived these principles courts routinely mitigate consequences and penalties for the female gender. In the family law context women are: Not beholden to the natural and probable consequences of their acts Laches has been waived (CA) Women are not beholden to the reliance induced in either the child or the father by a thier promises Are not beholden to express …
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:25 AM
1

This is well articulated. Thank you. Also, presenting outliers as the mean.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 01:13 AM
3

Eh. Are we really surprised? Men are always vulnerable to the "you're angry because you don't get laid" nonsense; just another way of saying "you are worthless to your species." It's just man-shaming. It says that to be a "real man" you have to get laid and be in a relationship.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 12:55 AM
10

Wait, men commit suicide because the state forces them to pay for children they don't want, can't have, or don't see? That doesn't happen in a free country sir.
/r/MensRights28/08/15 12:33 AM
2

I like how they made a nuisance of themselves, got pushed out of the way, and then complained it was because of patriarchy. Of course it couldn't have been because they were attempting to crush freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas or breaking the law. Because apparently the free exchange of ideas is "patriarchy." Terrifying. What we need to worry about is when these students graduate and take professions in law and public policy.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 03:47 AM
1

Except when those women are working minimum wage jobs.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 05:36 PM
1

Set up Skype visitations and record the interactions - if that's possible.
/r/MensRights22/08/15 05:35 PM
1

Interesting that she dismisses biology as a relevant factor only to (presumably) evoke biology as a reason men should be forced to pay for a woman's decision to keep a baby. The basic flaw of third-wave feminism is its complete and unapologetic lack of equity. Without equity you cannot have equality. Therefor, feminism is not about equality. CONTINUED: I also like how she evokes social contract theory as a justification to annihilate a male's basic substantive due process liberties. If her argum…
/r/MensRights18/08/15 06:12 PM
3

Yes. Agreed. When society responds to our solutions as "patriarchy" or "privilege" it makes us relatively useless. Women are completely capable of providing solutions, obviously. But their solutions typically involve making bigger men force smaller less affluent men do what they say because biology.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 02:02 AM
3

Precisely.
/r/MensRights11/08/15 01:58 AM
2

This is a legal tactic. She is effectively attacking the Monoco order collaterally thereby forcing her husband to consent to New York jurisdiction. It's quite shrewd really. EDIT: grammar/style
/r/MensRights10/08/15 10:59 PM
4

You're right of course. But it's such a tepid phrase in light of the damage these forces cause. American courts loath the phrase "human rights" but I think that's precisely what we're talking about - for unmarried fathers especially. Not even a minimum substantive due process guarantee? Suing the mother for custody is really no greater of a "right" than anyone else has. The difference is that the declaration of paternity is like a stipulation that neither party will contest parentage. But that's…
/r/MensRights10/08/15 10:25 PM
21

This isn't true. Men complain. It's just their complaints are often denigrated, dismissed, and ignored. The author is right, it's likely due to social conditioning. Men, regardless of culture, have been the disposable resources of Civilization since the dawn of time. We work, we fight, and we die for women, children, and wealthy men. In the male sphere to complain is to rebel. Rebellion is met with swift and decisive retribution - typically social expulsion (dead beat; malingerer; coward; impris…
/r/MensRights10/08/15 10:19 PM
24

There are pros and cons to lifetime judicial appointments. But I think this petition highlights the value of lifetime appointments when it comes to constitutional issues such as sexual autonomy, family law, and custody. I don't like the idea of my fundamental liberties being subjected to a vote. Most of the "reasons" given for signing the petition are the inflammatory "save-the-children!" tripe favored by scoundrels everywhere.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 10:09 PM
7

Yes, but when the state and the custodial parent gains a financial benefit for a lower percentage of custody it raises some legitimate and reasonable suspicions, no?
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:46 PM
16

This can be accomplished without violence. I've often considered that when the day comes, and I cannot legitimately feed, clothe, and shelter myself that I will just quit supporting this society altogether. Stop working, stop paying support, and let them put me in jail. I am no one's martyr. This society tends to be emotionally and psychically violent - toward men especially - and it's all stick and no carrot. Does it really deserve our loyalty?
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:44 PM
13

Have you ever wondered what social, economic, and political issues are at play that has led to his arrears? Thousands of parents are in arrears to the tune of billions of dollars (USA/CA) and there is little-to-no inquiry over the ability of parents to pay. Child support and child custody are two different things Ostensibly this is true. But the amount the non-custodial parent (NCP) pays is proportional to the percentage of custodial time. The argument goes that this provides incentive to both t…
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:37 PM
8

Facially neutral but effectively discriminatory.
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:28 PM
1

It's not the role of an oppressed class to make sure their complaints are raised in the "right" way. While I acknowledge the jowly and stern objections to the idea men are an oppressed class I would like to point out that oppression can be context specific. Rich, often "white" males, do have a significant amount of power over women as well as over all other males irrespective of their race or national origin. But all males, regardless of race or socioeconomic status, are oppressed in very specif…
/r/MensRights10/08/15 06:25 PM
1

You put New York before California? Really?
/r/MensRights04/08/15 02:04 AM
2

8: "which is why your gender has had every advantage over women since the dawn of time." She's right. Early deaths by disease, injury, and warfare. Dying early is a clear advantage in life. Yes, men started the wars but why did we start them? Resources. And how come we need so many resources? To take care of women and children of course. Being a community resource for the survival of the species is such a significant advantage. Who doesn't want to be a martyr!? Obviously death by black-lung dise…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 05:54 PM
1

Generally statutory rape laws are are so-called "strict liability" crimes. They are per se indefensible. Though some jurisdictions have created law which affords a defendant the affirmative defense presented in this article - "she told me she was 18" or the constructive legal equivalent (they met in a bar; she had tattoos; she was smoking a cigarette; she was driving her own car; she told me she was 21; her fake driver's license said she was 21) i.e. factors that would lead a reasonable person i…
/r/MensRights03/08/15 02:14 AM
3

No. Firstly "gender" isn't a community resource. What I mean by that is gender identity isn't something the community gets to deconstruct, analyze, and then reconstruct in ways suitable to its goals. In other words I, as a male, do not appreciate feminists, women, comm. studies professors, women's shelters, and the like defining what "male" is and is not. That, naturally, is for each individual male to decide for themselves - and for men more generally - to decide for the gender. Secondly, I'm n…
/r/MensRights28/07/15 12:01 AM
5

This is just anecdotal, but every minimum wage job I've ever had also employed women. And since an employer can't legally pay a woman less than the minimum wage - and I wasn't being paid more than minimum wage - then it stands to reason that nearly every women occupied in minimum wage work isn't earning less than a male doing the equivalent job. Since most low-wage is in retail, food service, and hospitality, it's a safe bet most women are being paid the same as men in these industries. That's a…
/r/MensRights27/07/15 11:23 PM
2

Also, can we ever talk about how pathetic the weekly earnings are many of these jobs and for both men and women? We're pinching pennies while dollars slip through our fingers.
/r/MensRights25/07/15 06:16 PM
1

Well, clearly not "across the board." Women cannot legally be paid 77 cents less then the state's minimum wage. Therefor, women in this strata are likely earning the same as a man doing the same job. Generally a vassal intent on paying peon wages isn't going to gift a .77 cent to men for no reason. Basically, the wage-myth misrepresents the plight of some women as a problem for all women. The way I see it, rich white women are upset they're not as rich as white man doing the same job. It's easie…
/r/MensRights25/07/15 06:05 PM
3

"I gave her my heart but she wanted my soul."
/r/MensRights22/07/15 08:10 PM
16

The root of that delusion rests in the fact that women are only able to "leave men behind" because men are essentially subsidizing womens' freedom with our own impoverishment. Women can only enjoy their upward mobility so long as men continue to sacrifice themselves as some kind of community resource. It is absurd that women even feel entitled to define what masculinity means, and what it should be. I think that's for men to decide and we should remind ourselves of that.
/r/MensRights22/07/15 08:05 PM
26

I think what disturbs me about this article is the implied attitude that men are somehow a community resource - the value of our existence as men is directly proportional to our willingness to protect and support the female class. Furthermore, why do women have any say in what defines a man? It should come as no surprise that decades of educational support for women has created a stilted generation of men. Why should men contribute to and support this society anyway? What exactly is the benefit?…
/r/MensRights22/07/15 04:25 PM
1

You raise excellent points. The existence of a child is a powerful and substantial argument. If the woman is financially incapable of providing for a child she unilaterally chose to have the putative father can be required to order a minimal amount of child support - on par with half of a child's basic food and clothing needs. Personally, I would also attach the requirement that a mother account for her spending of child support. None of this "the household gets to benefit too!" nonsense. Which …
/r/MensRights21/07/15 11:14 PM
1

I think the "biology" argument is a red herring. Firstly the law has no problems making a distinction between factual impossibilities and legal impossibilities. Second, the negative inferences of this logic are equally oppressive. In essence, the "biology" argument says that men have less of a say because they were born without a womb. Men can't help that reality any more than an African American can change the color of his or her skin. We decided, not so long ago, that genetic accidents are not…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 11:06 PM
1

This is perhaps one of the greatest civil rights issues of our era. Women like to act as if they're free in the reproductive realm, and they are. But this is true only because the cost of their freedom is borne by the sever limitation on the male's reproductive choices. In other words, male reproductive oppression essentially subsidizes female freedoms in this arena. And, once again, society has asserted "women and children (and the state) first" when it comes to the male's place in our social h…
/r/MensRights21/07/15 10:54 PM
6

They would reply: "absolutely." Imagine a world where you could randomly kick the crap out of, say, Mike Tyson and then sue him when he popped you on the nose in self-defense.
/r/MensRights07/07/15 07:00 PM
19

I don't understand this. At common law that woman committed assault and battery. She 1) created the reasonable apprehension or fear of an imminent battery; and 2) applied an unlawful application of force. She also committed tortious assault and battery by 1) creation of a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery; and 2) applied a harmful or offensive touching. These are dignitary torts and damages, I believe, are presumed. If that guy was a cop he would have body-slammed her into the dirt.…
/r/MensRights07/07/15 05:32 PM
1

According to the facts you've presented your friend is probably liable for the common law torts of conversion and trespass to chattel. Damages vary in either theory. In a finding of conversion, you would be entitled to the full market value of the tent and your friend would technically take ownership of your old tent. It's like a forced sale. In the latter, you would keep the tent and could recover the the costs of its repair but not its full value. I think a action for conversion would stand in…
/r/MensRights06/07/15 06:32 PM
1

I'm in firm agreement regarding suffrage. 55% is a big number. I'd like to know your source so I can use it later. In a democratic republic, holding a franchised majority is the very definition of power. Men will be required to subsidize their freedom as long as women...continue to vote to take This is an excellent point really. I'm not in total disagreement with your views. Personally, I think a good tack is to patiently continue to highlight the inequities of spending, agency, and responsibili…
/r/MensRights01/07/15 12:00 AM
3

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. We need to respect human agency. I agree that men were rewarded for their sacrifices; they certainly weren't mocked for those sacrifices even as they were expected to make them - much like today. But women had to sacrifice a significant amount of their personal agency to make that system work. That was unacceptable. The ethical choice is to respect female agency to its maximum. That means respecting their choices to pursue personal ambitions. This also …
/r/MensRights30/06/15 06:27 AM
6

"offering a positive vision of a man's role..." 90% of the time, a "positive vision" of the male role in our culture is exactly what men have always been pressured to be - a chivalrous martyr for everyone but themselves.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 01:10 AM
1

That's pretty much what they all do. I've heard single moms rant and whine about the difficulties of single parenthood but then throw a tantrum at the suggestion they share custody - over and over and over. All things being equal, we know that the loss of child support payments is a clearly a motivating factor in that hypocrisy. Women like to pretend they're free but they're not. Men support their freedom by way of child support, alimony, and social privileges. Legal speaking, women are infants.
/r/MensRights30/06/15 01:03 AM
8

Bizarre. "Get out of parenting free card?" So...wait, she makes a choice to leave - assuming there's no physical abuse - and gets to rag on the father because he parents less? All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights29/06/15 01:45 AM
1

But to be fair, what was the proportion of men to women playing video games in the 90's and 00's?
/r/MensRights04/06/15 11:05 PM
3

Well no, obviously. Thousands of laws are passed every year so I'm probably wrong with what I'm about to say: but I doubt that one female legislator has ever sponsored a law benefiting men as a class. I'm not talking about law which benefit minorities - some of whom happen to be men. I mean men-specific legislation. Laws that promote, support, or positively impact men as a class regardless of race or sexual orientation. That's positively impact men. Not finding yet another way of criminalizing o…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 10:54 PM
6

Why do we need a new law for this? I thought many jurisdictions already consider online threats criminal activity? Another example that all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
/r/MensRights04/06/15 05:52 PM
1

Although I agree with your sentiments a line must be drawn somewhere. Using your logic men will never get anywhere. I call your line of thought "the whip of moral duty." Children will always need their fathers. But men should not allow themselves to be whipped by this reality into degrading or humiliating circumstances - big or small. OP is right, she is playing on his sense of moral duty and affections to get labor for access. The real problem with his ex-wife is that she feels entitled to make…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 05:46 PM
6

Where's the equity here? This is precisely why courts of equity have the defense of laches - where there has been an unreasonable delay by the plaintiff to bring about the claim. The bio-mom didn't know about the CSA? She didn't know she could collect child support? She avoided bringing a claim and now gets to enjoy a windfall for her personal choices. Let's review the legal principles both the USA and GB have absolved for single mothers: Laches (equity) "Unclean hands" (equity) Women do not end…
/r/MensRights04/06/15 05:02 PM
8

Firstly, there is no single MRM movement. There are several movements and each is supported by their own ideology. Every "group" is subject to the tendency to fracture. Every movement attracts unstable personalities. It's an old trick to represent a movement's outliers as its mean. I wonder if you haven't fallen for this trick? F. I agree with this assessment. But I think it's also worth mentioning that, as far as I'm aware, women enjoy a slight political majority (USA). Holding a simple majorit…
/r/MensRights02/06/15 05:06 PM
2

Confirmation bias in essay form.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 08:38 AM
1

You raise a good point and speak truth. The same can be said of MRAs. Unfortunately, most men have neither the time nor clairvoyant ability to discern the kind of feminist they are interacting with on a day-to-day basis. Therefor, the safest course of action to is proceed as above. EDIT: added "clairvoyant" before "ability."
/r/MensRights22/05/15 05:45 PM
1

Your response is ambiguous to me. I don't read subtle sarcasm well on the internet. Are you being sarcastic? Yes, it is rather "unfair" for men. For example child custody - ostensibly one of the most profound of all human rights - is awarded to fathers a scant 18.3% of the time. But it's really unfair to everyone. And I have a hard time understanding family law apologists when the common consensus - from both men and women - is that modern family law is a pathetic attempt at equity. EDIT: Additi…
/r/MensRights22/05/15 12:14 AM
1

There are very narrow circumstances which justify violence or homicide. Certainly a bad divorce is not one of them. But I am also not surprised when these things occur in the context of family law. There is perhaps no other realm of American law which has provoked as much horrific bloodshed than domestic court. Family courts are supposed to be courts of equity and maybe that's the problem. Maybe there is a huge problem with the state making equitable determinations about who gets what, and when,…
/r/MensRights21/05/15 11:12 PM
3

But that's not the fact-pattern presented here. The post clearly said "the country has decided to go to war." But for fun, I'll continue the argument: Once again, low probabilities of occurrence is not tantamount to non-occurrence - obviously. That's not "misogyny," it's math. I will reiterate that the rational supporting the draft is the raising of armies quickly and often in the presence of emergency. By definition, an emergency requiring conscription is not predictable and therefor it is imma…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 03:18 PM
2

There is no one MRA movement. Like any religious, political, or social movement there are many factions under one umbrella. Some have formed as a "backlash," others represent a counter-revolution, and still others seek the independent liberation of men from the oppression of their traditional roles. It is likely there are hundreds of others. This same principle applies to feminism. Patriarchal Feminism is but one theory among many. Unfortunately, it happens to the dominant one at the moment and …
/r/MensRights14/05/15 05:42 AM
1

This is fucking genius.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 04:56 AM
1

Like all soldiers are virgins? I'm struggling to grasp your point through all the sarcasm.
/r/MensRights14/05/15 04:52 AM
3

It doesn't matter if zero men have been drafted since 1973. There is nothing "illusory" about it. Most men have registered and the purpose of the registry is to draft men into service. Whether or not that event is likely to occur is not tantamount to the risk being non-existent. The entire point of a military draft is the sudden and immediate raising of conscripts to exercise war. Simply because a draft has not occurred since 1973 is not a prediction of future outcomes. In short, you are not cla…
/r/MensRights14/05/15 04:51 AM
3

The fact that men get to vote to deny access But men don't. As a fundamental liberty abortion is not subject to a vote. All regulations affecting fundamental rights are subject to judicial review. There is no reason abortion should be an exception. as a reason to deny voting rights to women Under the OPs scant fact-pattern the denial is justified. It is also not a complete denial of a woman's right to vote. The denial is applied in extremely narrow circumstances and is not tantamount to a comple…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 11:35 PM
2

ABORTION: This analogy is false. A woman may remain abstinent whereas a conscript may not. A woman places herself in the situation of risking pregnancy. She has exercised a fundamental right. A conscript is ordered to report. Assuming we believe that fundamental rights should be left to a popular vote - which I do not - then all persons should have a right to vote on the matter as all persons are affected by the decision.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:46 PM
1

But in the OPs alternate universe, they should have a vote. It's obvious all underage males will eventually be eligible for the draft. Therefor, they should have a say. Further, this all assumes that the age of the males would not, or could not, be changed to suit the needs of the military. Wasn't Hitler trotting out 12 year-olds in the final months of WWII?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:26 PM
2

DRAFT: But men and women are not similarly situated when it comes to being drafted. Exceptions can be made for most men when it comes to compulsory military service. But in order for the male to be considered "ineligible" they must first be drafted or evaluated. The evaluation is specific to the needs of the military and are not immutable. For instance the age of the male is immaterial. All such males will eventually be eligible for the draft. Therefor, they should also have a say. By contrast, …
/r/MensRights13/05/15 10:24 PM
2

Ohhh.....sorry. I totally misunderstood you. Agreed.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:28 PM
1

I've argued for this myself. Our opponents would have us believe that because biology is immutable; and woman are only ones to get pregnant; and men can have sex then "walk away"; the woman alone decides what to do with the result. Therefor men are stuck with the woman's decision because, sex. I don't have time to work through the logic, but basically the argument equates abortion with a man's right to "walk away" or remain abstinent. Distilled to its basic essence the argument is a non-sequitur…
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:20 PM
1

Well said. As I commented below it appears most modern women wants all the benefits of marriage - children, support, time-off from child rearing, tax advantages, etc. - they just want that marriage without the man. Having children means you never really get to divorce.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:03 PM
1

I agree. It's never enough. A non-custodial man can never give enough time, money, attention, or support. Basically, 90% of women want the benefits of marriage but without the man. *Slight edit.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 09:00 PM
1

I encourage you to do so. You will remain far happier in the long run.
/r/MensRights13/05/15 08:59 PM
1

So, I take it you disagree?
/r/MensRights13/05/15 08:58 PM
2

That's a good point. When your children think you're a deadbeat, or lives with a parent who thinks you're a deadbeat, there comes a point of diminishing returns. It really comes down to the sexist expectation that men are to be absolute martyrs irrespective of how abusive, shaming, or degrading the cause.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 11:06 PM
2

For the sake of argument, what rights does an unmarried father have? I understand the biological argument but doesn't that cut both ways? In essence a male is being discriminated against because he doesn't have a womb.
/r/MensRights12/05/15 09:53 PM
25

"The couple shake hands and agree to work together for the sake of the children." That concept irritates me. It creates a paradigm by which a divorced or unmarried male is caught between the rod of the law and the whip of moral duty. No rights, no cooperation. It sounds harsh but what is the legal sense of engaging, negotiating, or cooperating with a person when there is no right or remedy for a breach?
/r/MensRights12/05/15 09:17 PM
2

Thank you.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:13 AM
1

Also...don't listen to the mother's "agreements." She can't agree to a contract which is contrary to law. It is the state, not the mother, who determines what your obligations are, which ones you will pay, and how much support you are required to provide.
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:09 AM
1

Your first and principle obligation is the support of your minor child according to your station in life. Read the first sentence carefully. It literally means your first and principle obligation is child support. You shall pay it before you pay any other obligation. That includes your stomach, your shelter, or your very life. Which is why nearly all states take it directly from your check. Almost every rational human being will attempt to feed and shelter themselves before they pay support, and…
/r/MensRights29/04/15 08:00 AM
2

In essence, you're describing the doctrine of Corpus Delicti
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:33 AM
1

That anyone has to defend the basic concept of due process boggles the mind.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 05:26 AM
10

One of the reasons I didn't continue in Comm. Studies at SF State.
/r/MensRights08/03/15 04:51 AM
1

I don't think "if" should have anything to do with it. To legally mirror a woman's fundamental right to an abortion a man shouldn't have to prove anything. If in an allotted time the man decides he no longer wishes to be a father he should be able to simply stop being one. I would set this time period from the moment of conception up to a year after legal notification of the child's birth. If in the instance the child is born to impoverished circumstances, the father may be order to pay a nomina…
/r/MensRights08/03/15 04:31 AM
1

It's not about the statistical makeup of the movement; it's about who is in control. Upvote
/r/MensRights05/03/15 08:43 PM
3

Every political movement has a 'radical' faction - the "outliers." Presenting an outlier as the mean is, in my opinion, academically and politically dishonest. Although it is an extremely effective smear technique. Certainly some supporters of Men's Rights are "misogynistic," or racist. Just as it is statistically likely some feminists are "misandrists." I consider myself to be a practical feminist. I support women being drafted, allowed to pursue combat roles, to choose to keep or abort her pre…
/r/MensRights04/03/15 11:56 PM
1

...because a common cold stays with you for life! In a way it does. You catch different strains of the common cold for life. What's the difference if you catch it once forever, or forever catch it? edit 2
/r/seduction27/11/10 03:30 AM
1

It's something that can't be cured, is not a pre-existing condition, and is something you infect to others. Right. Like the common cold.
/r/seduction25/11/10 05:42 AM
1

These are only relevant You're splitting hairs here. Many of these strains are transmitted human to human every day. Some can and do cause sickness. Like the common cold, herpes can be: Sexually transmitted Reoccur over a lifetime. All other distinctions are purely academic.
/r/seduction25/11/10 04:55 AM
1

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-bacteria-live-in-our-bodies.htm http://liberationwellnessblog.com/2010/08/31/bacteria-our-capricious-allies/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_flora#Skin_flora
/r/seduction24/11/10 06:25 PM
2

There are perhaps thousands of strains of bacteria that stay with your body for life too. Nobody seems bothered by them.
/r/seduction24/11/10 02:15 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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