TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Hodor_Frey Archive

View 1 post and 116 comments by Hodor_Frey 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)
0

Hodor_Frey/r/MensRights09/08/13 08:09 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-2

Nope. Your generalization does not follow from my lackluster rejoinder to the grandparent. It is a non sequitur. Even going upthread, it is inapt. A more plain reading is that if you want to help, use your words first.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:23 PM
-2

That is not clear from the OP's post. All the OP said was that his coworker could not find the code. While we can assume she told him this, which might be construed as a request for help, it is equally plausible that she mentioned it to someone else or it was mentioned during a meeting. Even if she did complain, all of his later problems could have been prevented by first asking if she'd like his help.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:18 PM
-4

Teamwork is not trying to one-up your coworkers. It is a difference of degree, not kind.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:14 PM
-3

No, I did not. The OP clearly asked for help on what he could do in the future. I told him not to do what he had just done and why. Therefore it is not unsolicited. Moreover, I explained to the grandparent, who challenged my advice, why, in this instance, my conclusions appear to be correct by distinguishing the OP's behavior from a mere offer of help. As a boss, as a manager, if I saw one subordinate dropping his work to help another subordinate without asking or being invited, I would take him…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:12 PM
-17

If I thought you could read, I might. But clearly you missed the import of my statement that I also learned this lesson the hard way. Not only can't you read, but I am admittedly not flawless.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:55 AM
-14

People can help each other. People can request help. People can offer help, which can be refused. That's polite society, but that's not what the OP describes. The OP didn't make a mere unwanted, helpful suggestion, (which, honestly, could have led to the same place). He didn't ask her if she wanted help. What he did goes far beyond an offer of help. He dropped what he was doing to look into her task and then proceeded to try to tell her where to find the code to edit. If it was me in his coworke…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:13 AM
7

Esto. Seems like a doxxing honeypot.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 04:25 AM
-17

Are you her boss? Is it your job to do your coworker's tasks? Did she ask for your help? If you can't answer "Yes" to any of these questions, you're in the wrong. Some people find unsolicited help, especially when it is not the offeror's responsibility, to be very patronizing. If the offeree is a woman, she might construe it as sexism.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 04:20 AM
1

It's only legal for roommates. If you see apartments being rented out for women only, you need to find a civil rights lawyer and try to cash in on a 1983 lawsuit.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 04:10 AM
2

Nothing. They never met before the crucifixion.
/r/MensRights29/08/13 05:45 PM
1

Look at the first name? Edit: I mean, the grandparent is wrong, but it's an obvious mistake.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 11:07 PM
1

The recent recession was worse for men because: 1) it more heavily affected male-dominated trades like construction and 2) it fell more heavily on workers that lack a college degree, whom tend to be men.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:40 PM
1

It's been far worse for men.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 10:39 PM
1

If it cuts into the population growth rate, it probably won't be seen as a bad thing by India's elites.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 10:19 PM
1

No, not when you're in good standing, I think. I can't vouch for that everywhere and all the time, but not generally as far as I know. But most people wouldn't consider fleeing until they have trouble.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 10:56 PM
3

Alimony is tax deductible by the payor and taxable to the payee. Child support is not tax deductible by the payor and is not includible in the gross income of the payee. Unfortunately, alimony must meet certain requirements to be considered "alimony" for tax purposes. Unfortunately, most family law attorneys know nothing about taxes. It's not even a required course at most law schools.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 10:17 PM
2

Because they take away your passport.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 10:15 PM
2

Alimony. Except in cases of permanent, total spousal disability, limit alimony to no more than five years and to the lesser of a certain percentage of income or a set dollar amount. Only provide alimony in cases where it is agreed to in a valid, antenuptial or postnuptial contract. (The reason to do this is so that one parent cannot force the other to support them via alimony after reneging on a promise to go back to work after a child is born.) Further restrict the alimony on a statutory basis …
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:48 PM
1

Google the coed shower scene in the movie Starship Troopers. It captures the libertine nature of many of Heinlein's later works (though it does not appear in the original novel). And you're evading. You are British, right? Is this level of sexual contact with your coworkers seen as normal or tolerated? I'd imagine that, if the genders were reversed, the man would be summarily dismissed if this type of behavior were discovered.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:58 AM
2

When the great-grandparent in this thread said that "we need to break gender roles and show little girls they can share the same roles as boys and become successful without being a stay at home mom or secretary", the obvious reading is that this is a current problem. If it had been qualified by a statement that we don't need to turn back the clock, it would be fine and I wouldn't disagree. But that's not what it says. It says that we should break gender roles by showing little girls that they ca…
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:07 AM
1

The more you post, the more you remind me of a female heroine from old Robert Heinlein SF novels. While I am willing to consider that the US is sufficiently puritanical to make any conversation pointless because the cultural gap is too large, surely this is not seen as acceptable behavior in Britain?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:57 PM
4

Are you posting from the 1960s? Women are very successful and share the same roles as men in most companies. That happened. That had already happened 20 years ago, though it was not readily apparent due to a mix of the cohort effect and women's different life choices causing their professional careers to play out differently. The problem today is that the educational establishment is trying to ignore the consequences of sexual dimorphism in favor of a new model where only females are seen as app…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:54 PM
1

Agree, but don't care. This whole process is hauntingly, disturbingly beautiful, just as it is appalling.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 11:30 PM
1

You would have to consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction to know how best to approach the issue. In most American states, for instance, common law marriage does not exist. In those few states where it does exist, it usually involves (1) cohabitation for a set period of time (usually two years), (2) living as married persons, and (3) holding yourselves out as married to others. I've heard that in some places, like certain Canadian provinces, only the first element (cohabitation) is n…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 04:40 AM
2

The more you say, the more it sounds like you are trading on your sex for career advancement. In the absence of nepotism or breach of fiduciary duty, I'm cool with it. I don't like it, but it is a time-honored tradition among both men and women. Many successful careers have been built this way. As a man, I don't think I would like to be in a place where I am comfortable with the relationships you've described.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 09:09 PM
2

Do you date men, learn that they have a desired skill, and then string them along long enough for you to acquire it? I think this might be the more important question in your situation.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 07:17 PM
2

People learn things from their significant others. My father and his ex-wife both make tea like my maternal grandmother. He learned it from my mom and later taught it to his second wife. I learned how to fold fitted sheets from my current SO. My ex-wife picked up lots of habits from me. It's just natural. Having said that, I don't think much of how you've described your behavior. At first blush, I would tend to agree with your co-worker. Assuming you are not learning proprietary info from compet…
/r/MensRights17/08/13 07:02 PM
1

Properly tailored suits are designed to accentuate the male figure. The tie points down to your penis. The shoulders are designed to accentuate your own while not making your head look enormous or tiny. The presence of cuffs on the pants, pleats, and the pattern can accentuate or diminish the length of your legs. You can even have the pants tailored incorrectly to reveal your bulge.
/r/MensRights17/08/13 05:06 PM
1

Irrelevant. Arrests have nothing to do with an accuser badmouthing the alleged assailant. It has nothing to do with gossips spreading hearsay. It has little to do with police investigating the incident, which may include interviewing neighbors, associates, and family. IOW, the reputational damage can be done before any arrest. On this sub, we frequently hear of men subject to ostracism for rape allegations even though the woman never went to the police. While rape is recognized, alongside murder…
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:33 PM
1

In Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, the President's marriage is described as having started with, IIRC, a two-year contract. So the basic idea is at least 50 years old. It's a neat idea, but people do not have that much loyalty to contract law.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 07:07 AM
1

So the falsely accused will be arrested at a time convenient to him, he won't have to miss work, he won't have police looking for him, talking to family, associates, and neighbors, and he won't have an accuser bad-mouthing him to everyone they know? It's a nice idea, but it would not work well in practice.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:56 AM
7

Yeah, but the flip side is that, even as vicious as women and girls can be towards each other over body image, women and girls still receive more support if they fail to conform to physical archetypes.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 11:32 PM
2

It sounds like he and you both need to seek professional couples counseling and individual counseling. But I do understand even though I've never been through anything that bad. We've all got scars. For example, I have a hard time dealing with my SO going out without me, especially if it is a spur of the moment decision or she stays out later than she intended. I am not possessive and controlling. Rather, it puts me back into the frame of mind before I was divorced, when my (then) four-year old …
/r/MensRights10/08/13 11:23 PM
2

That's a complicated issue, because not all jurisdictions use the same terminology. In my state, "rape" was deprecated as a legal term in favor of "sexual assault". I seem to recall that this is a modern trend in legal terminology.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 06:46 AM
5

That's why you should always have a buddy taping the encounter.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 06:05 AM
1

Texas. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1jufvi/nj_student_suffers_cruel_horrible_ordeal_sleeping/cbim1rj Edit: Add link
/r/MensRights09/08/13 05:48 AM
8

Good job, but you're misunderstanding how dictionaries work. They document the language as it exists. You need to search for (the earliest possible) mentions of "rape" that refer to the forcible rape of a man or boy by a woman or girl. Add'l clarification: If anyone has access to Westlaw or Lexis (or a law library), you could probably help out the MRA cause by finding this type of mention in criminal cases. I'd offer to help, but my Lexis account only includes tax law.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:38 AM
2

If you're talking about statistical purposes, then you are correct. As I mentioned in another thread, some states/nations, like where I live, use gender-neutral language for rape (or sexual assault, which is the modern term) and include within the definition "forced to penetrate". Edit: word
/r/MensRights09/08/13 03:08 AM
2

The large urban district where I live has a limited number of single sex schools. It's a growing trend from what I understand since it seems to help students, especially at the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:58 AM
9

I believed I was special until I became a statistic. For me, it did not involve crime. After I divorced, I read a scholarly paper on divorce and how it is influenced by socioeconomic factors and geography. I'm a smart man, but I never realized just how doomed to failure my first marriage was. I had something like a 5% chance of having a successful marriage when I got married. It was very dehumanizing. I understand why you would want to set yourself apart, but statistics can be useful. I'll give …
/r/MensRights07/08/13 06:53 AM
1

Sure, but it's really old. And, while I'm not young, even I'm not so old that I can remember a time when YMMV wasn't in common use.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 05:56 AM
1

Texas is part of America last time I checked. Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) intentionally or knowingly: (C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; Edit: I should clarify that Texas switched from "rape" to "sexual assault" some years ago. I don't have an annotated copy of the Criminal Code anymore, but gender neutrali…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 05:54 AM
3

I mean the babysitter initiated an unwanted, offensive touching of the kid's penis using her mouth, hands, or genitalia. That's rape where I come from. YMMV.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:13 AM
2

They're just people, same as anybody else, just with more problems of a certain kind (societal acceptance) than most.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:11 AM
2

My opinions? Pity. Some peoples' crosses are heavier than others.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 12:30 AM
1

I've run across guys who slept with their teachers, both hot teachers and ones that...were not. All of the men were willing participants, though some will concede it unfavorably affected later relationships. However, I have run into men who were raped as kids, usually by female babysitters. Regardless of my feelings on the matter, the law is generally quite clear on the matter of statutory rape.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 12:29 AM
3

I don't know. In my family, casual nudity is not normal. So my son has never really noticed and the issue hasn't come up. If he's looked while in the men's room at the urinals, he's never said anything.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:42 PM
4

I live in DFW also. Your son wouldn't be a guinea pig. When my son was born ten years ago, US circumcision rates were around 69% (based on the then-current stats, which were a couple of years out of date). It's dropped past the mid-50s now. Unless your SO is expecting now, it'll probably be below 50% by the time you have a son. While a lot of the other posters will go on about bodily integrity and the like, I'll make this simpler. I've been around on various men's health forums online for years.…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 07:10 AM
2

I did not need to tell people that. My ex-wife and I looked up info on the care of intact penises when my son was born. Maybe she told her mom and maybe my mom just knew or didn't want to mess with it, but no one ever tried to forcibly retract his foreskin during a bath. However, in talking with some of my older relatives, they would have done so. That was normal back in their day.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 06:42 AM
6

It never really bothered me until I realized I suffer from a slight case of turkey neck. It is what it is. It's just what was done back when I was an infant. We have the internet now. We're better informed and much more civilized. So I didn't have my son circumcised and he's had no problems. Many of the problems with infections in the past apparently were caused by parents and other caretakers prematurely retracting the foreskin. My son has avoided that problem more by luck than by good planning…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:05 PM
1

Unless your kids are with someone else, (e.g. grandparents), more than two months a year, OR you have a signed Form 8332 from your ex, you are probably out of luck.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 04:07 AM
1

I'll sometimes wear a pink tie when meeting clients. Usually, it's matched up with a royal blue shirt and a black suit, but I've never heard any comments.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 07:48 PM
1

I never caught her cheating with a man. Despite her denials, I suspect she cheated due to her changed behavior overall and especially in the bedroom. (She admitted to making out with a woman once.) After I learned about the woman, I was really down. I couldn't even really think about divorce. I was haunted by the feeling that I'd be stuck in a sexless marriage, or worse, in a bizarre cuckold role. I was almost relieved when she left me for a man. She was no longer in love with me and had never b…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 07:43 PM
3

I've never done it and have never seen it happen in real life.
/r/MensRights03/08/13 07:36 PM
3

Why did you wait so long? The first thing you should have done was to hire an attorney in Washington to file a custody suit. (I'm assuming the divorce was somewhere in Washington.) If you call first thing in the morning, you might be able to get an attorney to file some sort of emergency motion tomorrow. Good luck with that. Seriously. With your facts, you should win, but...
/r/MensRights02/08/13 02:25 AM
2

No legal reason absent a court order or risk to your life (or your children's lives). When my then-wife said we were getting divorced, I went to stay with my grandmother for three or four days. During that time, I arranged for my son to stay at my MIL's house for the summer, due to my ex's increasing alcoholism. As luck would have it, my ex followed my son out of town to her mother's. I moved back in and never left. (As a renter in an area of town inconvenient to my ex, who lived in our house wa…
/r/MensRights01/08/13 09:15 PM
1

I've seen no evidence that most of the members here are particularly knowledgeable in any legal area. This is not surprising, since family law differs greatly from state-to-state and country-to-country. (Even within a single state, judicial precedents and local customs can substantially affect family law.) The more knowledgeable members do tend to dismiss prenups because too many younger posters (often without substantial assets) appear to view prenups as a magic elixir of preemptive vengeance. …
/r/MensRights31/07/13 01:23 AM
2

No. After my divorce, some rare inherited traits became obvious in my son. Nothing bad, just multiple inherited traits that do not run in my ex's family and that would be rare to find in another individual. And his resemblance to me has become much stronger as the years have passed.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 03:30 AM
1

We don't need to redefine it. Punch back. If you talk with feminists, refuse to talk about the patriarchy and insist on talking about the kyriarchy. And just remember the number one rule: Conceptualizing everything as a system (or systems) of subordination and oppression ensures that is all it will ever be. It is just as ludicrous as economists treating everyone all the time as utility-maximizers with well-ordered preferences, but without the predictive power.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 07:51 PM
2

Would it be worse than if he had snuck around to order the test and you caught him? The issue of paternity testing strikes at the heart of the oldest male problem: uncertain paternity. Until DNA testing, we were never sure. Let's say you are faithful to your husband. But, somewhere down the road, you two have problems. He looks over at your kid(s) and they just don't seem like him. They don't look like him and they don't act like him. He becomes paranoid and see hints of infidelity everywhere. H…
/r/MensRights28/07/13 07:38 PM
8

Not necessary. All we need is a system where false paternal identification is an absolute defense against child support. That's not going to happen. The state has almost no interest in legislating the private sexual conduct of its citizens. The state isn't going to leave money on the table by having numerous unidentified fathers not on the hook for child support when there's a perfectly good husband or boyfriend they can go after. I never trusted my ex-wife (with good reason). However, if I had …
/r/MensRights28/07/13 06:52 PM
1

Shoving someone's face in something to which they will have a visceral, negative reaction is a poor rhetorical technique. Personally, I'd try introducing her to the concept of the kyriarchy first. It's not that I believe in it, it just opens up the dialogue when the other person conceives of society as a series of overlapping and competing hierarchies of subordination and oppression instead of just the one, patriarchy. From there it's not a far hop to see that, while these formulations have expl…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 03:57 AM
3

Reminds me of my ex-wife. I wanted to pay for relationship counseling as we divorced, to make the break-up as amicable as possible. She couldn't be bothered.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 03:48 AM
5

My best advice is that you're not just marrying a person, you're marrying into a family. Get to know her family. Listen to their stories about how they reacted to different life events. Most importantly, don't rely on yourself to know whether she is the one. Rely on your friends and family. This can be tough if either she or you are estranged from your respective families. Also, don't get married young. Don't marry someone of a different social class (who has different class behaviors). If it's …
/r/MensRights25/07/13 02:31 AM
6

Buy an around-the-neck lanyard for your phone. Have the video recording before you pick up your kids. Always identify the time and date orally on the tape before you pick them up. This avoids problems involved with questions of baiting her off video. I'm going to play devil's advocate for the DA. You already won in civil court. You're getting her wages garnished. A criminal case does nothing to further justice since you're getting your recovery. All it does is help you with your custody battle a…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 01:43 AM
7

There's a big difference between equality before the law and on the street. I'm fair complected and live in a very safe suburb. I'm average height and fat. And yet I'll still give wide berth to anyone coming up behind me or even if they're in front of me and they don't look like a jogger and doubly so if they're a young male. We're still human and some biases are appropriate. How far that goes is a matter for all of us.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 12:50 AM
2

On many occasions in my adult life, I have found myself alone in random places with time to kill. Sometimes it is at a socially acceptable place, e.g. in a bookstore or coffee shop with wifi. Other times it is in places that aren't as socially acceptable, e.g. a residential park or in my car in a parking lot. In both situations, I am aware of the scrutiny I may face. Part of me is concerned that I will be falsely identified as a LEO, PI, or a criminal enforcer and be subjected to assault from ne…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 10:06 PM
3

I've given this some thought. If two people both are sufficiently incapacitated so that they cannot consent and this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it should be a mutual misdemeanor. Maybe call it nonconsensual, misdemeanor sex? But would it not make more sense to treat it as an affirmative defense to alleged rape? If we do that the only problem is that a drunk can rape a sober person and I see no principle to distinguish between the two. Should we treat that the same as sexsomnia…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 01:02 AM
3

You're misreading what I wrote. You originally posted about being seduced into a relationship, albeit only when one is attractive. After rejecting your assertion about attractiveness, I then said that treating men as lacking volition to participate freely in a relationship is not part of MRA. While I do not dispute that men can be seduced, I take issue with characterizing men as lacking the ability to choose to participate in a relationship. I am not calling you a "clod", rather, I am saying tha…
/r/MensRights22/07/13 12:14 AM
4

You can be seduced into a relationship regardless of whether you're attractive. In my experience, it is easier to be seduced when you are not attractive. This, however, is not a men's right issue. Treating ourselves as clods that lack the volition to participate freely in a relationship runs counter to MRA. Similarly, treating all women as gold diggers is contrary to the egalitarianism at the heart of MRA.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 11:34 PM
11

It's simple. Don't go to clubs. Don't patronize bars with lines. Don't play their game.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 08:25 PM
10

I see it as advertising. Sexist and wrong? Perhaps, but that's advertising.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 10:00 PM
7

Best guess is that if any passing men see a line, it will be of only women waiting to get into the club.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:38 PM
1

TIL Both MRAs and Brits don't know the difference between grilling and barbeque.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 05:23 PM
31

Three years you say? You need to retain a family law attorney in Jen's state of residence immediately. I'll put it this way: Normally a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the husband's. However, in some states, there is still a time period during which the real father can be identified and sued for child support. IANAL and I don't know where she lives and I definitely don't know the law there, but three years is awfully suspicious, because that time period is often four years. So you have t…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 02:54 AM
0

Listen to vandredd. The only carveout for advertising along sexist lines is for roommates, which, IIRC, was a common-law (judicially created) exclusion.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 04:48 PM
2

It depends on which part. If you're talking about the biology of prenatal testosterone exposure and women, here's a decent source from the top of the google results: http://www2.nau.edu/~bio372-c/class/behavior/sexdif1.htm And yeah, I did get some details wrong. If you're talking about specific pedagogical recommendations, there's no single source. Maybe a Mathematician's Lament (?) would cover some of the issues, but nothing would cover them all.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 04:56 PM
-3

STEM abilities are strongly correlated with prenatal exposure to male hormones, both in men and women. In other words, it appears to be largely an artifact of sexual dimorphism. I say largely because there are clearly other factors at work. For example, the only pretense of actual analytical math in secondary education (in the US at least) is geometry, which relies heavily on spatial reasoning, a generally male trait (and also the trait heavily correlated with that in utero exposure). If set the…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 03:59 AM
1

The first page of the survey was incoherent. After listing various possible political affiliations, you then resort to the false dichotomy of "conservative" and "liberal", which, without context, are meaningless. I can understand the desire to be lazy and copy other's work use questions from published scales, but I cannot honestly complete the questionnaire as written. It is too annoying, too amateurish.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 10:03 PM
0

But a lanyard for your phone that goes around your neck. Record audio and video (if legal there).
/r/MensRights12/07/13 09:42 PM
-1

I've never heard of a case like you describe. In my ideal world, there would be a charge of misdemeanor rape to handle this situation. Where both parties are demonstrably intoxicated, they would both be charged.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:33 PM
4

Why? Most on this sub seem to take issue with health insurance costs falling disproportionately on men.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 06:13 PM
7

Last I heard, in the US at least, young women had surpassed young men for poor driving. This was around ten years ago.
/r/MensRights12/07/13 04:24 PM
1

It's easy to say,"No," but, outside of some occasional bitching, I didn't have any trouble with my ex during or after the divorce, until her boyfriend moved in months down the road. And that's the most important point, it isn't whether you can trust your (soon-to-be-) ex, but rather will you still be able to trust her down the road after your lives change? The answer to that is a definite,"I don't know," so it's safer to say "no".
/r/MensRights10/07/13 03:55 AM
1

It depends. Does the mother make the child refer to her actual father by his given name? Does the mother in other ways try to replace the actual father with the ex-boyfriend, e.g. telling the child that the father does not love her, etc? On further reflection, this could be a totally innocent situation precipitated by the ex-boyfriend's role in the mother's life during the birth and early childhood. As such, it is an object lesson for men: If you want to avoid this situation, find a way to be wi…
/r/MensRights08/07/13 04:18 PM
1

Where I live, the courts take parental alienation quite seriously. If I had been so advised by my attorneys, (yes, plural), during my last custody go-round, I would have probably won in short order instead of having it drawn out until I ran out of money.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 03:46 PM
9

I worked for a female partner at an international professional services firm. I would frequently ask my subordinates, (all salaried, exempt professionals), if they could work a couple of hours on the weekend either to complete work they failed to finish the week before, to get ahead on work for the next week, or to arrange training time when we would not be interrupted. (To clarify, the training was done over the phone since we were all over the world.) I never insisted any of them work on the w…
/r/MensRights29/06/13 08:41 PM
2

Where I live, it is illegal not to report child or elder abuse. Done and done. Let the cards fall where they may.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 05:23 PM
-3

Yes and honesty and respect would probably subsume "no guns", "no drugs", and "no stealing". But clearly someone at Louisville thought that the football players needed it spelled out for them. There are probably issues here that need to be addressed, but merely saying it is sexist is the tip of the iceberg.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 01:12 AM
-3

I was expecting something totally different. My alma mater's stadium has a women's only locker room for (female) refs. After looking at those core values, I don't see the problem. They address issues commonly encountered by football players at big programs.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:32 PM
2

While I cannot say whether it is widely accepted, it is contradicted by the historical evidence.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 10:28 PM
3

I believe in simple, egalitarian laws that apply to both men and women for the benefit of the children. I believe people should be able to depart from these laws using contracts. I don't believe men should be able to walk away from child support except in cases where the man is raped, (statutory or otherwise). But I also believe both the mother and father should be required to pay into a trust fund account that can be accessed by both parents to pay for the child(ren)'s needs and for which an ac…
/r/MensRights19/06/13 08:19 PM
3

Why didn't you use Walmart's internal procedures to complain anonymously that this manager was creating a hostile work environment?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:20 PM
1

I've personally known two teachers who went down for sleeping with students, one a man, the other a woman. I went to college with the woman, we were the same age, shared a major, and had classes together. There were a flurry of stories when she was arrested and another flurry when she was convicted. As I recall, she got probation and is paying for the kid's college. The male teacher has not been convicted and I haven't checked to see if his case has been dismissed. (Since he's a close friend's b…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 06:14 PM
1

I'm willing to consider the possibility that some form of attachment parenting (e.g. "African babies don't cry") might fix that problem. I really don't know. Next time I have children, I'll look into it more extensively since I mucked it up the first time around.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 12:59 AM
4

Personally, I'm all for women carrying infants in a sling at work, whipping out a breast to suckle the child as necessary. But I've only worked in professional environments where that wouldn't be a major impediment. I think it would be cool if my son learned to read by parsing the tax code and learned math with Excel. Sort of like getting back to our hunter-gatherer roots. (This is just an alternative vision of the future.)
/r/MensRights11/06/13 10:46 PM
12

Try a different approach. Talk to her about the need for estate planning before marriage. Don't talk to her about a prenup when you're talking to her about estate planning. If she is "too sweet" to think about one or both of you dying, she probably is not mature enough for marriage. If she's willing to address estate planning, she might be willing to address certain aspects related to prenuptial planning, e.g. divorce in the case of permanent disability. If you can get her that far, you can try …
/r/MensRights09/06/13 04:54 PM
0

If you're young enough to say that you've been bullied by your peers and that you're worried about losing friends due to your advocacy, you might consider changing how you advocate for men's rights. Due to indoctrination and youthful naivete, the young tend to trend mainstream liberal. If you go against that, you're going to lose friends, especially if you are outspoken. So you can either pipe down and let your commitment to men's rights inform your advocacy without being overt or you can walk d…
/r/MensRights09/06/13 06:55 AM
1

No, that's not what I said. But you do not appear to know what "accountant" means or realize there are more kinds of tax practitioners than accountants.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 02:49 PM
3

Spoilers. And the answer is no, but that a negative response doesn't mean what you think it might.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:46 AM
1

Unfortunately, the IRS probably won't go after her for tax fraud. Small potatoes. Even worse, neither of you may be able to claim your child. If the child resided with both of you for 183 days, then the child is not a qualifying child with respect to either of you because he did not reside with either of you for more than one-half of the taxable year.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 01:06 AM
2

Show me the provision of the Tax Code she violated. The Tax Code very specifically provides the rules for releasing a dependency exemption, which the OP did not meet. The ex-wife met the default residency requirements, so where's the tax fraud? It is very dishonest, but perfectly legal as far as the IRS is concerned.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 12:01 AM
14

Unfortunately, it's not really tax fraud because she hasn't violated any of the provisions of the Tax Code.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:17 PM
2

I got good news and bad news. You need to go back to court to get the judge to enforce the court order. Now IANAL and definitely not in your state, but you may have a claim against your attorney for malpractice for failing to make sure that the divorce decree specified that your ex-wife must provide you with Form 8332 so that you can claim the dependency exemption. (Every 10-20 years, the tax bar has to launch a massive education program for the family law bar to let them know just how often the…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:09 PM
1

Sorry, I'm not going to drag a retired judge's name into it and incidentally identify where I went to school. I will note that my annotated student copy of the Texas Family Code mentions in a note that, prior to the best interests test, a mother or father would be automatically awarded custody under certain circumstances. Since it is concerned with the then-present law and not history, it does not identify those circumstances. In Texas, women were extremely limited in their property rights and e…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 03:10 AM
1

It all depends on the state. Women were generally not competent to enter into contracts in Texas until the 1960s and I'm willing to trust a lawyer/judge who had been practicing that long.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 02:17 AM
1

I was taught family law by an old family court judge. He said that up until the 1950s, due to the disparate employment situations of men and women, if a man wanted his children, he would usually get them. I don't remember the rest of the story (or much about family law), but it had completely swung around to the heavily biased system by the 1980s and has been slowly moderating since then.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 01:45 AM
4

My understanding of oral cancer is that, up until 15-20 years ago, it primarily presented among smokers, dippers, and gay men. Within the last two decades, however, straight men have seen a huge uptick in this type of cancer with cunnilingus being the leading cause of infection. Edit: When the news about increasing HPV infections causing increased oral cancer broke, doctors also reported an uptick in oral cancer among lesbians. This isn't just a male issue.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 09:13 PM
2

It depends on where you live, but, AFAIK, that won't work in the United States.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 04:49 AM
1

That's a different situation from the one the OP described. I'll try my best to answer it, but I can't promise much. Maybe I'm too old (early 30s) or a cultural gulf separates us, but if you're , at most, intrigued by someone and you invite him or her for a drink or a meal, historically we would have called that a date. As I understand it and depending on how it is done, you may be describing what many now call a Schrodinger date. In many settings, older people recognize the coffee date, the bar…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 11:48 PM
1

The OP's post is nowhere near so clear to me. I would like to read into it a problem with stepping out of the "friendzone" into a romantic relationship. But this is belied by him stating that his intent is to fuck the woman he befriends. By phrasing it so, it appears that sex is more than incidental to the intended relationship, that the primary goal is, in fact, to have sex. Since flirting and being friendly differ only in degree, not in kind, I see no reason to dissemble and not make one's rom…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 05:46 PM
2

Now. Men have lost a great deal compared to where we were fifty years ago. As a group, we have worse employment opportunities, the educational system has largely flipped around to favor girls and women, and progressive reforms over the last half century have heavily favored women in family law issues. Even so, I'll take the present day. Even though our employment opportunities are not what they once were, the rise of the dual-earner family has its benefits. It's not all on me as a man. If you ca…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 08:27 AM
1

Why waste time befriending a woman you only want to fuck? If that's not your goal, why not flirt initially? If the problem is that you befriend women and then try to sexualize the relationship without ever having previously expressed romantic interest, then I can't blame the women for being upset. Before asking if she is DTF, you need to have an intermediary step where you try to move the relationship beyond the friendzone. Are you upset that you get rejected at the intermediary step?
/r/MensRights03/06/13 08:02 AM
1

Where's the inflection point? Twenty-five years of age? Thirty-five? I'm not sure, but the last time I checked, I think it was closer to the former. In most cases, 25 is still relatively fertile. I think the problem is that I'm really talking about a very limited subset of men for whom it is rational to get married: College-educated, but without great career prospects in terms of earning power. People like teachers.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:37 PM
1

I didn't say it makes sense for poor men to get married. In fact, I said that marriage as an institution is usually DOA in that demographic. What I said was that it makes sense for people too poor to contract around the default legal structure of marriage. A two wage-earner family grossing $100k/yr fits within my definition of too poor to contract around the marriage default. By "marriage default" I mean treating marriage as the default statutory arrangement creating the legal rights and respons…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 08:29 PM
4

If you are wealthy, have a high income, or own your own business, getting married does not make much sense. I'll phrase this in American terms so I can be specific: If you live and will always live in the "right" state; If both your potential spouse and you are currently, and will likely always be, under the income phase-outs for federal income tax benefits; If you are both college-educated and old enough to significantly lower the odds of divorce; If you both are compatible in terms of relation…
/r/MensRights30/05/13 04:52 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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