TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Mooshiga Archive

View 1 posts and 270 comments by Mooshiga 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)
19

Mooshiga/r/MensRights21/06/11 01:34 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

No it isn't. Read the law. Tell me how it's meant to lean towards one gender over the other. It isn't. It was reformed explicitly to not favor one gender over the other, and in fact in many states explicitly states that neither gender is favored over the other. The factors are things like: -Who is the primary caregiver -Who is more likely to support a relationship with the other parent -Interest and attitude towards the child
/r/MensRights18/10/12 07:32 AM
3

No, if you read what I wrote above, first of all, all things clearly are not equal. There is still strong societal pressure for women to stay home with children, or if not stay home be the primary caregiver. Second, individual judges are still sexist, especially in rural areas. It is obviously true that the law is gender neutral, you can look it up in each state's statute code if you like.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 07:11 AM
3

Do you know where those stats came from? I've seen that before and wonder what they counted as "possession." That can mean different things in family law.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 06:33 AM
1

There aren't any states in the US that still have non-gender neutral custody laws on the books. In fact, many states have laws specifically instructing judges not to consider gender. That doesn't mean that judges don't, and like I said, there are still sexist judges, especially in rural areas. Edit: As to Abbie I can tell you as a divorce attorney that there are at least two sides to every story.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 05:50 AM
-4

That isn't true. The tender years doctrine evolved to be more egalitarian until the 1970s, and then reform in the 1980s and 1990s followed to make the law gender neutral. Custody law (edit: by which I mean statutory law) is now gender neutral in all states. Men continue to make up the minority of custodial parents, primarily because men continue to make up the minority of primary caregivers. There is still strong social pressure for women to be primary caregivers and for men to take a secondary …
/r/MensRights18/10/12 05:20 AM
2

Yes, that is the equivalent, and that is exactly how we look for racial bias. We ask "what percentage of crimes are actually committed by blacks, and is that percent being arrested?" Similar policies have been proposed for race, and in fact make good since. While black people commit more crimes than white people, they are still disproportionally arrested.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 04:46 PM
3

No, if less than 15% of women are arrested, or more than 85% of men. Also you don't get sanctioned. Remember, this isn't state policy, this is just recommended application of the research. In reality police departments do little or nothing to correct gender or racial bias.
/r/MensRights27/03/12 03:38 PM
-1

Yes. The grants are nearly all also available to programs that address DV in general, even though many have "women" in the title. I work in this industry and see VAWA at work every day. Edit: There are no battered men's shetlers because there are not enough battered men who need them. However, nearly every DV program offers hotel vouchers to battered men.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 07:11 PM
-3

If by "their" you mean the authors of this paper. Note this is not state policy, this is suggested implications of the research. And it does work in both directions.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:18 PM
-3

I'm saying it took that long to create a federal law to address the problem. And yes. (In fact, surprise, some areas still have this problem)
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:08 PM
0

That's not a quota. That's addressing bias. They have the same thing for race. Neither is really that effective and the trainings rarely actually happen. Edit: And it works in both directions. If they're not arresting enough women, they address the possibility of gender bias.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:05 PM
-1

Yes, alert to gender bias is NOT the same thing as a quota. Departments should be alert to gender bias.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 06:01 PM
-1

Police are sexist, they are also racist. The law is not discriminatory. There may have been laws about wife beating, but through the 1970's police would not respond when a man beat his wife, even if he severely injured her. Primary aggressor laws do not have gender quotas. Your campaign of misinformation is disgusting.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 05:42 PM
-3

It does. And it also addresses response to violence against men in the home, the same arrest laws apply to men and women. Edit: Here is how it defines domestic violence and dating partner: 6) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.—The term ‘domestic violence’ includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person…
/r/MensRights26/03/12 05:19 PM
0

It applies to women and men. It's called VAWA because it was born out of time when police did not respond to violence against women.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 04:13 PM
0

I know it's really stupid. Especially with a name like "Painbringer." "I bring the pain of fear that I will cannibalize you!" He needs to try harder.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 05:57 PM
0

Haha, he pm'ed me and asked me to comment on this. "You guys! Why aren't enough people paying attention to me and my hilarious trolls!"
/r/MensRights20/03/12 04:09 PM
38

What about banning for trolling? Painbringer, for example, after having a brief and frankly civil discussion with me yeseterday, followed me to another subreddit to post this: http://www.reddit.com/r/TryingForABaby/comments/qmi86/my_mind_is_trolling_me_my_mind_is_trolling_me/c3yymqe I think he's a subtle troll. It's things like this that damage the MR movement.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 02:12 AM
1

No, saying that I claim what the court can do is the same as what it does is a strawman. That is not what I am saying. Raising the point that the Court must find that the payor has the inability to pay is not a strong man. Raising points you do not like is not the same thing as a strawman.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 01:07 AM
0

No. All I am saying is that inability to pay is a defense to contempt. So if someone was found in contempt, the court found, after hearing all the evidence, that the person has the ability to pay. Are courts infallible? Of course not. And of course I believe there are miscarriages of justice. You are not amusing. Not at all.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 01:05 AM
2

Wrong, that is not why men do not contest custody. I sit with men every day as they make this decision.
/r/MensRights16/10/11 04:34 AM
2

What do you mean? You mean what was the system doing? What do you want to know about the ex-wife?
/r/MensRights14/10/11 10:14 PM
2

As their symptoms of mental illness increased, their spouse realized they were dangerous and that he/she had to seek safety. Thus the argument that the stress of the divorce caused the mental break. But most often the situation was already dangerous, leaving the spouse with little choice. The mistake is that the spouse does not take the situation seriously enough, does not realize the full extent of the danger. This is an understandable mistake since in the vast majority of cases, after being "p…
/r/MensRights14/10/11 10:03 PM
2

Divorce. We can prove that he had 50/50 custody and was trying to limit her access. It is not the narrative people like to tell about the deprived dad whose only solution is to shoot his ex-wife. Who was just "pushed too far." People like that weren't "pushed too far." They were pushed away because they were dangerous. They weren't pushed far enough away.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 09:31 PM
1

Me too. This is my industry.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:58 PM
3

That isn't the usual lead up, your world view is skewed. Usually the lead up is simple. One parent has a psychological illness (usually not PTSD, usually borderline personality disorder, sociopath, narcissist) . The illness gets worse. Someone dies.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:47 PM
2

When you say "we don't know but we can imagine . . ." you open yourself up even more to confirmation bias. Even cases that don't fit the facts of your world view become cases that support your world view.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 08:33 PM
3

He had 50/50 custody.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 06:56 PM
6

He had equal shared custody and was fighting for her to have less time than him.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 06:56 PM
2

Actually, we have very few custody "battles" in america because the vast majority (around 90%) of couples agree to parenting plans.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 06:55 PM
1

We know that they had an equally shared custody agreement and he was fighting to limit her access to the child when he decided to kill her.
/r/MensRights14/10/11 06:54 PM
2

No, that is not true.
/r/MensRights16/09/11 02:28 AM
1

If you were a citizen.
/r/MensRights09/09/11 03:27 AM
6

It's Switzerland. They don't believe in long sentences.
/r/MensRights08/09/11 07:36 PM
1

Yeah but you can create hysteria with or without a gender balance, and a gender imbalance does not justify hysteria, so either way I don't see how it goes towards Kuonji's claim.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 07:51 PM
2

That includes males raped in prison, and men raped by other men in general. But I don't really see why it matters which gender is raped more.
/r/MensRights24/08/11 05:51 AM
3

False analogy. There is no absolute right to autonomy over all the money you earn (the state collects taxes, it makes you pay your debts, and it makes you support your children). There is such a right to autonomy over your body (edit: also with certain limits, but the right is far more absolute than the right to your money. You are prohibited from certain acts of self harm, and from using your body in a way that harms others). Child support is not slavery or indentured servitude and claiming it …
/r/MensRights18/08/11 12:28 AM
2

I was just saying what the law is. I don't understand what you think I was saying.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 01:02 AM
-7

Right, even if you are rape-raped you still have to pay support for your child. Say mom is raped and the state takes custody of the kid temporarily. She still has to pay child support.
/r/MensRights01/08/11 12:10 AM
3

That was posted under 2x as "this is insane." Not as in "this is awesome."
/r/MensRights22/07/11 06:25 PM
2

This is illegal in some states.
/r/MensRights05/03/11 07:34 AM
3

That's how it is right now in most states. You can ask for a paternity test, the woman cannot deny it.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 03:52 PM
2

As a family law attorney I can tell you that a lot of men do not want to know. They don't care, they want rights to the child, they want to raise it, they want the presumption of paternity in tact. Edit: And all things considered, I'm actually for testing at birth because genetics is so tied to parenthood in the united states (there are cultures where it is less important). But you cannot deny that this will infringe on people's rights by insisting no one wants the infringed upon right.
/r/MensRights02/03/11 03:51 PM
6

Also imagine the outrage of the coyote were to pummel the road runner.
/r/MensRights18/02/11 08:42 PM
2

I'm a lawyer. Yes, you are in violation of the court order even if you have the other person's permission to be near them. This happens all the time and is usually not malicious. Most people do not understand that after they get an order, only the court has the power to dismiss it. Usually the orders are written so that both parties can go to court.
/r/MensRights21/11/10 02:46 AM
5

It would depend on the states involved and the language in the pre-nup. You should consult an attorney. A simple consult over this issue or even drafting of the appropriate language will in all likelihood be affordable. -Divorce attorney
/r/MensRights15/11/10 08:42 PM
7

As a divorce attorney I have long said that women who keep men out of the childcare role (and men also keep themselves out of this role). The reason, from my experience, is that women are under tremendous pressure to be the primary caregiver. A woman who is the secondary caregiver is seen as a "bad mom." Therefore, even when the woman isn't especially thrilled about being primary caregiver, and the man wants this role, the woman will take the role on herself and grin and bear it. The man will ge…
/r/MensRights15/11/10 07:01 AM
4

The state will not allow the parents to give up the child unless it is in the child's best interests. Edit: To clarify: voluntary relinquishment of a new born where both parents consent is always in the child's best interests. However many states do not allow voluntary relinquishment of older children. Still, even in the case of a newborn, the best interests requirement is not done away with by consent.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 02:22 PM
5

That is correct. That state also has a duty to try to find the father, and if it does not fulfill that duty the father can later disrupt the adoption.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 05:41 AM
10

That's not true, the state conducts an investigation of the new home and will only place the child if the new home is in the child's best interests. The state will also only allow a child to be placed into foster care if it is in the child's best interests.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 05:40 AM
0

Sexual oppression seems more related to your outrage over his proud description of his child's genitals.
/r/MensRights08/08/10 09:38 PM
0

Because he was speaking about the pride of having a son after two daughters, and that pride was related to the arch of this story of tragedy.
/r/MensRights08/08/10 09:04 PM
2

There are two warning signs of dv mentioned in this article alone: the large age gap between the spouses and the short period of dating before marriage. If someone you know enters a relationship like this, especially if it is combined with other warning signs: -Isolation from friends and family -Control of assets -Control of transportation -A change in job -A change in residence, especially to another state recognize that the friend could be in a life threatening situation. Provide the friend wi…
/r/MensRights20/07/10 06:12 AM
1

I do not know if this is the cause of the disparity but: A good friend of mine killed himself recently. No one knew he was thinking of suicide. No one knew he was in trouble. No one knew anything was wrong. I feel like the ideal of masculinity betrayed him: that men are supposed to be strong and independent, and never ask for help or even show emotion. Perhaps there is some biological difference that causes such resistance to expressing emotion, perhaps it is simply drilled into boys from a youn…
/r/MensRights08/07/10 08:27 AM
2

Well, he just successfully got a restraining order and custody of their infant daughter against her based on domestic violence, so number one isn't likely to work. She has one of the best defense lawyers in Portland, though, Stephen Houze. He tends to go for straight forward reasonable doubt, however, rather than anything loop-hole-like.
/r/MensRights05/07/10 09:16 AM
9

No, if you do a second parent adoption you don't have to pay child support anymore. Some states allow you to keep a few limited rights: the right to receive photos, send letters, make a certain amount of phone calls. I do not believe NY is one of them but he should certainly check with a NY attorney. A word to the wise: When a law firm says, "We represent men, because the system hates men", it is nothing more than firm advertising. These firms generally do not have any special interest (other th…
/r/MensRights28/06/10 06:06 AM
5

As someone who was raised by a dad two things struck me about this blog post. First, awww : "They must always be about the little ones who give us their trust that we’ll behave like adults, and so, bring grace into our lives." Second my father had a different social experience with being a single dad. For whatever reason, he seamlessly stepped in to the mom social world, and his close friends became women who were also raising children. My father credits this to the fact that he is short and ugl…
/r/MensRights14/06/10 04:53 AM
3

Both parents have to fill this out once a case is filed. It's so the court can have a start on all the information it needs to make a decision.
/r/MensRights18/05/10 07:56 PM
1

Jeeze, no need to get pissy. All I said was that still doesn't tell us where the number came from. As you pointed out, it does not tell us where the number came from. Finding out where the number came from will require further work. Also in my profession we have to cite the full citation of a case and give a page number when we use it.
/r/MensRights11/05/10 09:59 PM
1

Ah, so that still doesn't tell us where the number came from.
/r/MensRights11/05/10 07:09 PM
1

Where? Edit: I just like to keep track of where these numbers come from, I don't mean that like "What?!?! Where?!?!"
/r/MensRights11/05/10 03:03 PM
1

Yes I've seen a more recent one that came up with 60% with a spike of 70% after the start of no fault, but I don't have a cite to that and I could be remembering wrong. Where is this 75%?
/r/MensRights11/05/10 02:43 PM
2

By using the collapsed data an a chi square test. Note I said for the data we have, that is that the final result was 66% and we would expect 50% if there was no difference. Collapsing the data doesn't effect the result too much here because "who files first" is a yes/no question, so we aren't throwing out any variance or data by collapsing it into a final result of 66%, the only thing we're throwing out is the sample size. To know the true statistical significance we would need the raw data, bu…
/r/MensRights10/05/10 04:39 PM
2

Oh, sorry, I did not mean to suggest it's not significant. It is.The p value given the data that we have (it is 66%, we would expect 50% if there was no difference) is .0014, showing our result is statistically significant with only a .14% of occurring by chance. This tells us there is a real difference between how many men and women with children filed for divorce in the 1980's. Standard deviations isn't the right way to look at this data.
/r/MensRights10/05/10 03:27 PM
2

I have an arguing problem. That's why I reddit. It makes my real life personal relationships run much smoother (not to mention my professional relationships. There's a place for relentless arguing in the law, and the place is not "eveywhere"). I'm getting something out of this (fulfilling my urge to argue). He probably is too. Sorry for cluttering up the thread, though. I promise I'll drop it. Dropping it right now . .. .for real .. . Edit: Also often when I tell people I have an arguing problem…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:54 PM
1

You continue to rely on a stat you think you remember without further evidence that it exists, and refuse to look at evidence that you're belief is wrong (because you are bored?). That is crazy.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:47 PM
2

Haha, it's not hearsay, I gave you a link to google results where the study is cited, and here's the study: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Child+Custody+Policies+and+Divorce+Rates+in+the+US&btnG=Search&as_sdt=100000000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Instead of looking at this evidence you continue to hold tight to your belief that 98% of divorces are filed by women, a false belief. Crazy. You also have this view of a "typical chick" which shows not just anger towards but disrespect for women.…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:38 PM
2

You are, you make up your reality and then will not listen to contrary evidence. Edit: Haha, typical chick. Wow. You are really crazy.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:27 PM
1

I do not believe you. Find some evidence of this ghost statistic and maybe I will, but it's out of line with every other study on this topic, which isn't exactly difficult to quantify. Maybe you're the type that just invents stats, or maybe you just misremembered. Edit: I googled "98% divorces filed by women"
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:25 PM
2

Ok, you are insane.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:18 PM
1

You did not read that statistic on netscape, because that statistic does not exist. Here's some evidence, if you google it you get references to the 66%/ two-thirds number but not this ghost number you read on netscape. http://www.google.com/search?q=98%25+divorces+filed+by+women&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a You can blame all the facts that you don't like on spinning females if you like, or trust your own observations over the facts, but this will keep y…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:16 PM
2

It just isn't true that 98% of divorces are filed by women and saying you read it on netscape does not make it true.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 10:07 PM
1

That's an old number from the 80's, and it was only for families with children. Also the number was two thirds, not 98%, which is 66%, not outrageously above the expected 50% if it was even. Other studies found that the number of divorces filed by women is around 60%, with a spike of 70% with the introduction of no fault divorce. Also the majority of divorced men remarry.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 09:28 PM
-1

Actually, I am the high earner in my marriage, a divorce lawyer, and I believe divorce laws are fair.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 05:30 PM
2

Yeah, they don't say what evidence was brought against him at trial, but something that happens quite commonly with child rape victims is a variation on false memory. People think of false memory as the child imagining the entire event, but often when someone close to a child harms the child, the child remembers instead that it was a stranger or acquaintance who harmed him. In this way the child protects himself from further trauma. The sad reality is that child testimony should be considered un…
/r/MensRights09/05/10 02:11 AM
4

If anything this is a glimpse into the nature of Sally Hergistad. This sort of generalization of the character of all women based on the statements of one woman do this subreddit a disservice. This is no more a glimpse into the TRUE nature of the female then Glenn Beck is a glimpse into the TRUE nature of the male.
/r/MensRights09/05/10 01:54 AM
1

The state does care, it cannot convict a person of contempt if it cannot show the person could pay. The state pursues charges for non payment, not the custodial payment, in cases where a child is receiving support from the state. The state may subpoena or otherwise require the custodial parent's cooperation.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 03:53 AM
1

In order for him to be convicted the state had to show that he was able to pay but would not.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 10:44 PM
1

You cannot be jailed for being poor. The state has to show you are not paying for reasons other than being unable to pay to have you convicted.
/r/MensRights20/03/10 03:55 AM
11

Huh, strange that no one seems to find this funny when it is reversed.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 07:48 AM
2

Exactly, this isn't her "defense" it's the statement that she made. Psychotic men make similar statements when they commit violent acts (Jesus told me to, God told me to, a dream told me to, the FBI told me to, etc.) Also, it doesn't say she was in a "dream state" but that something in a dream drove or told her to do it, a typical statement from a psychotic person.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 10:10 PM
6

I think a sneaking lying cunt is actually someone who calls people sneaking lying cunts behind their backs for disagreeing with him in reasonable discussion and asking him to post citations to studies he cites.
/r/MensRights31/01/10 08:15 PM
6

I decided to unban the post, as I explained to the pics people: After discussing the matter with posters in this thread, I have unbanned the post. The equality rules state that there is to be no use of obscenities, implying that the tone is to be kept civil. Magdelyn's post contains some interesting points, and it is unfortunate that these points are tainted by the insult at the end, which lowers the quality of the discussion. Banning the whole post does not best serve the discussion or the comm…
/r/MensRights31/01/10 06:30 AM
4

I'm glad you calmed down. I am sorry I threatened to ban you instead of asking nicely. Re-reading my email, I can see were it sounded mean. Not as mean as the Nazis, though. I would be very happy to see your post back up minus the offending sentence, and hope that you have not given up on the forum. Finally, I do not have a feminist stand point. I believe in many men's rights causes including but not limited to: -I believe men and women should have equal opportunity to parent -I believe male dv …
/r/MensRights31/01/10 05:40 AM
-4

I know, I thought it was a good solution for him to remove the off topic part. He disagreed.
/r/MensRights31/01/10 03:15 AM
-5

Insults are off topic. We were not discussing whether someone would coerce a user into pregnancy or want to have sex with that user.
/r/MensRights31/01/10 03:08 AM
-4

Moderators also do other things to encourage the quality of the forum, like remove posts that are not on topic.
/r/MensRights31/01/10 03:03 AM
-5

Mods remove spammers because they harm the quality of the forum.
/r/MensRights31/01/10 03:01 AM
-4

Insults cause the quality of the discussion to deteriorate. That's why we have moderators, to maintain the quality of the forum.
/r/MensRights31/01/10 02:58 AM
2

The insult "But, don't worry, I doubt anybody will be coercing you into having sex, let alone kids" Was directed at another user. I do not think that's clear from the context. I would not ban an insult against me, they have been posted in the past.
/r/MensRights31/01/10 02:20 AM
0

Summary: The court tried through 6 months of counseling to get the girls to accept their father. The efforts failed, the girls threaten to harm themselves if they are placed with father. An private party hired to evaluate the girls says he believes the younger girl is copying the older girl's behavior in regards to the threats, but that both vehemently and genuinely wish to live with their mother despite the counseling intervention. The court sees it as a tragedy. Mother has repented, and the co…
/r/MensRights25/01/10 02:50 AM
6

Another interesting data point is that 9% of female inmates are victimized by another inmate while 2% of male inmates are victimized by another inmate. This is even more severe than the difference between male and female in mates victimized by staff: 10.8% vs. 4.7%. Here we see the cultural idea that women are not sexual predators hurting female as well as male youths.
/r/MensRights09/01/10 09:09 PM
1

If you deliberately disobey an order of the court, you may be jailed. However, the vast majority of those found guilty of contempt, including contempt resulting from a child support order, are not jailed. If the mother had deliberately disobeyed a court order, she may have been jailed.
/r/MensRights12/12/09 09:22 AM
9

No, that is her understanding of how moderating a forum works. Not everyone views every action through one narrow prism. I could see how this would be difficult for you to understand.
/r/MensRights19/11/09 08:29 AM
1

It's really not that surprising that women hate women and men hate men. Otherwise sexism would not be so oppressive, as it would only come from half the population.
/r/MensRights16/11/09 01:33 AM
3

I can't find these alimony stats on the census bureau site. Is anyone else able to?
/r/MensRights02/11/09 07:21 AM
3

The lawyers didn't write the law. If you don't like the law, you need some political activism. Not hiring a lawyer isn't going to change the law. It's just going to get you fucked.
/r/MensRights02/11/09 07:20 AM
3

That's how spousal support works in just about every state. Some states have caps that are less than five years. Most states take length of the marriage into account when awarding spousal support, so a spouse will not get support after a short marriage.
/r/MensRights02/11/09 07:18 AM
2

This is true. I'm a divorce lawyer and whether or not a client will be able to get spousal support depends on many factors: the age of the parties, the length of the marriage, how work was divided in the marriage, the income of the parties, etc. However, it does not depend on gender.
/r/MensRights02/11/09 07:00 AM
1

A lot of women hate women all the time, not just when someone handsome and powerful is hating on women. Misogyny isn't just a male thing. Just like hatred of men isn't just a female thing. But more to the point, enjoying a drama does not mean you endorse all of the views of its protagonist. I'm sure the majority of sopranos fans are against murder.
/r/MensRights31/10/09 08:02 PM
1

I don't see any evidence of abuse here. He said he was "tired of arguing with her." The trip to the police station could just as well be a dramatic gesture than a run for safety, especially given what he told the police when he got there. He never said he was afraid to go home, he said he didn't want to.
/r/MensRights24/10/09 12:36 AM
7

Emotional abuse is deliberately wounding your partner with words. It is going for the emotional jugular. It often comes in the form of name calling, for example "You are so stupid, you can't do anything right", especially if the victim is insecure about his intelligence. It is not nagging, bossing, yelling, expressing anger or frustration. It is certainly not being difficult, strong willed, emotional, or irritable. It is not simply any behavior that makes the other partner feel bad.
/r/MensRights21/10/09 04:02 AM
0

I do not think there is a male equivalent of cunt. While both men and women are capable of being cunts, cunt is a feminine* strain of evil. I think the only equivalent would be "a fucking asshole" (as opposed to just an asshole), only unlike the "fucking asshole", a cunt is passive aggressive. *as in traditional gender role feminine.
/r/MensRights20/10/09 04:46 PM
1

Dick is on par with pussy, not cunt.
/r/MensRights20/10/09 07:16 AM
1

I know you didn't ask for advice, but you could try floating your case at your local family law clinic. Catholic Charities runs one in many cities. You might be able to get someone to take your case as a pro bono project. Custody orders can be modified.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 04:39 AM
1

Thank you for believing me, it's refreshing. I'm sorry you had such a horrible experience.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 04:32 AM
1

Not true, parties do not decide based on legal climate. No lawyer would tell a man he cannot win a contested custody case, because it just isn't true. He has a very good chance of winning. However, when people like you create fear and myths of an impossible system where a man will be accused of molesting his children and worse, less men try, and more men are isolated from their children. But that is a minority of cases. Most men don't sue for custody simply because they believe children belong w…
/r/MensRights13/10/09 04:24 AM
1

Results in uncontested cases are not the result of bias in the court, because the court has no impact in their outcome. The parties decide themselves. To say that bias in the court is causing parties to settle one way, and therefore we should look at settlements as an indicator of bias, is circular. If bias exists in the courts then it will exist in the contested cases, the cases the courts actually decide. People settle for all sorts of reasons. The fact that men and women are assuming traditio…
/r/MensRights13/10/09 04:11 AM
1

I told you, I did a quick google and grabbed the first relevant study I found. Also, those results to not refute the study as they claim because they do not look only at CONTESTED cases, which was the point of the study. Those numbers were cited in the study itself.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 04:00 AM
1

As a professional, I have subscriptions to resources that are not available online. This is what I could find in a quick google. Things have only gotten better as far as gender equality goes.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 03:37 AM
1

Win is an award of sole custody. There are no ties in my state because the state cannot award joint custody, the parties have to agree to it. I don't have an online version of the 60% number but here is a law firm citing to it on its web page. I'm sorry I misquoted, the study actually showed fathers have a slight advantage in contested cases. There have been studies as to fathers' chances for success in contested custody cases. In one study, involving cases which were not contested, mothers rece…
/r/MensRights13/10/09 02:39 AM
1

I have no idea what happened in your case. I have 30 cases on my active list right now. I don't know how many I've done. In one case, adverse made up accusations of abuse. The court didn't buy it. Other than that, things have always gone fairly smoothly, as custody cases go. The fact that there are horror stories out there does not mean there is anything wrong with the system. There will always be anomalies and outliers. Edit: Also, it is the parties, not the system, that make some cases brutal …
/r/MensRights13/10/09 02:34 AM
1

That is exactly where these myths come from. Custody cases can be brutal and bloody, and the survivors of such cases become vocal about their expereinces. But not all custody cases are blood baths.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 02:18 AM
1

On average, women win contested custody cases 60% of the time. Those aren't horrible odds. It is this propaganda that it is hopeless that keeps men from contesting custody. Edit: Also 90% of the custody evaluators in my city are men. And they have no gender bias.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 02:10 AM
1

If person A says I want custody and person B says "fine I don't want to fight", then person B has no right to complain about person A having custody. It's not the state that takes children away from fathers, in over 75% of cases fathers do not contest custody.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 01:57 AM
1

It means contesting custody. Person A says "I want custody" and person B says "Okay." That's not fighting. Person A says "I want custody" and person B says "So do I." Now they are fighting.
/r/MensRights13/10/09 01:55 AM
1

We don't say "get to visit" in the divorce world, we say "have parenting time" and most of my male clients "have parenting time" three times a week, at least two. Men don't need to stage hunger strikes, they need to start fighting for custody. The majority of men do not contest custody, which is why the number of fathers with custody is so low. Men also need to start taking a more central role in their children's lives, which means women need to start backing off. Because of cultural pressure to…
/r/MensRights12/10/09 09:02 AM
2

As a family law lawyer, I would like to add that 90% of clients do not dispute that whoever gets the kids will keep the marital home. The other 10% insist that the home is too expensive to maintain and must be sold. This is the result of parties putting aside the rage of divorce to keep some stability in their children's lives. I would also like to add that that 82% figure includes stipulated judgments, where parties agree to custody. A vast majority of the time clients come in already in agreem…
/r/MensRights10/10/09 11:56 AM
1

Yeah, the family court doesn't award houses based on who sucks more or who tried to murder who where. It awards them based on the statutes for distribution of marital and nonmarital property.
/r/MensRights10/10/09 11:50 AM
1

In a world of equity, there's no reason for you to command or even request someone else to serve you in that way. I disagree. In the world of equality, we can all ask each other for favors, and we are all free to deny each other. Additionally, I was speaking of the word "emasculation" which clearly means feminization by the dictionary definition.
/r/MensRights09/10/09 04:58 AM
-1

Your cheap shot at pegging does a disservice to the men's rights movement. Men should be free to express their sexual desires without being limited to sexual desires that are traditionally masculine.
/r/MensRights08/10/09 06:22 AM
5

I don't like the whole concept of "emasculation." It comes with the belief that it is bad for a man to be womanly and bad for a woman to be manly. It should be fine for anyone to display any traits he/she likes. Then, if a man who displays masculine traits were temporarily perceived as someone who displays feminine traits, it would be no more a problem than if a man who preferred red were temporarily perceived to prefer blue.
/r/MensRights08/10/09 06:19 AM
0

Fine, but in my professional experience it makes absolutely no difference, and the law says no such thing. Usually if parties cannot agree the court orders the house sold and split. Otherwise the house is valuated and the party that does not get the house gets half of its value.
/r/MensRights25/09/09 03:12 PM
0

Absent of kids it makes absolutely no difference. (Edit: re: who is living in the house as a far as who, if anyone, keeps the house.)
/r/MensRights25/09/09 03:07 PM
0

You never said we were assuming that kids were involved. Like I said, it's not hard and fast rule. If you want custody it is usually best to keep custody. There are circumstances, however, where it is not. And there is no rule that he who lives in the house keeps the house.
/r/MensRights25/09/09 02:52 PM
-1

That's not true, moving out of the house has nothing to do with who is awarded the house. In fact, moving can be a very important strategic move, because you may move to the county you wish to file in. All counties are not created equal, especially if you plan on having a custody battle. Edit: That's not to say moving is always the best strategy, just that there is no hard and fast rule.
/r/MensRights25/09/09 07:49 AM
0

Please, for the love of god everyone, do number 11 first. Laws vary by state and a lawyer will tell you the best course of action.
/r/MensRights25/09/09 07:48 AM
0

No, the court found both parents fit. The court does not need to find one parent unfit to award custody to the other. It just needs to find one parent to be more fit then the other. The bar is legally the same for both parents, although men face judicial prejudice in many courts.
/r/MensRights25/09/09 07:46 AM
0

This worked a lot better when it was assumed that mom or dad would take the kids. (In the early 1900's it was assumed that dad would have the kids, and this was also the law. Children were the property of the husband. By the 1970's the assumption that mom would get the kids had been codified into law under the tender years doctrine. The doctrine was overturned in the 1980's.)
/r/MensRights25/09/09 07:44 AM
3

This happened in 2006. Also, she does not sound like a very good advocate. By disseminating impounded material from the care and protection and paternity actions, by failing to return to the Juvenile Court impounded reports belonging to the court, as ordered by the judge, and by failing to remove impounded material from her website, again as ordered by the judge, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4 (d) and (h). hi addition, by deliberately disobeying the Juvenile Court judge's May 1, 2…
/r/MensRights25/09/09 07:34 AM
0

Ugh, guys. As a family law lawyer let me say that was a disgusting thinly veiled ad. With a 16 year old the first thing is not to jump into litigation. If kiddo is 8 then yeah, fine. But at 16 if you aren't seeing your kid and you have the court force her to see you, she will hate you all the more for it. The parenting time will not go well. Furthermore, at 16 the courts are reluctant to enforce parenting time if the child does not want it enforced. I agree with the second half of his advice, co…
/r/MensRights25/09/09 07:20 AM
1

People need to get divorced. But most divorces do not involve a custody dispute.
/r/MensRights10/09/09 02:48 PM
1

There are many stories, that does not mean those cases are not relatively rare. (There are also many stories about shark attacks) (And male pedophiles)
/r/MensRights10/09/09 02:45 PM
1

No, it shows that by aborting the woman is not dissolving her parental rights in utero. She has no such right, ever.
/r/MensRights10/09/09 02:38 AM
2

And some clarifications How is this handled in the case of adoption? The resolution would probably be similar in this case. It is also a concern with adoption, but the concern is hightened here. In adoption, the concern is addressed by showing the parent the state resources that are available to him/her and assuring that no one is bribing the parent to give up his/her rights. Here we have a parent who is not choosing between custody and removal of rights. The parent is choosing between custody i…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 11:38 PM
2

The surrogate example shows that a woman cannot dissolve her parental rights in utero, just as a man cannot. Abortion is birth control, it stops the child from existing just like using a condom. This is because we have decided that the child does not have any legal rights until it is viable.
/r/MensRights07/09/09 11:17 PM
3

Because the right the Supreme Court found is a privacy right over your body, not the right to terminate parental rights in utero. Edit: My point here has been that the law is currently equal. If you want to change the law so that men and women can dissolve their parental rights in utero, I have opinions on that as well which I have written about at length here several times. I really don't feel like digging back and reposting all of it. Is there a way to search comment history? Alrighty, here's …
/r/MensRights07/09/09 11:14 PM
1

No, a woman cannot dissolve her parental rights before a child is born. For example, if a woman hires a surrogate and the two agree the surrogate will cull if there are multipile fetuses, but the surrogate changes her mind when she becomes pregnant with 8 children, mom will be responsible for all 8 and will have no ability to dissolve her parental rights and obligations in utero (so long as her genetic material was used to create the fetuses). The woman's right is not a right to dissolve parenta…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 08:59 PM
2

I'm sorry sylvan, our views of this are too far apart for us to have a productive discussion which is why I have not been responding to you. I understand your position and I believe, from your responses, that you fully understand mine. In case you do not, I believe that all persons have equal ability to make willful decisions over their medical care so long as those decisions do not interfere with the well being of others. This is unrelated to the child's right to support from both of its parent…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 08:52 PM
2

You're welcome. I like talking about this stuff, hit me up any time.
/r/MensRights07/09/09 08:39 PM
2

Fair enough, though aren't police allowed to take genetic material just laying around and run all sorts of tests on it? What I mean is, if the tests are done using waste from the pregnancy, then there shouldn't be any need for consent in the first place. In order for it to be constitutional, there needs to be a compelling state interest that would be furthered by the state action. Law enforcement is a compelling state interest. There is disagreement as to whether protecting the bests interests o…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 08:27 PM
2

I am for mandatory testing but I do not believe it would be constitutional, as it would force persons to undergo a medical procedure. Keep in mind that many fathers do not want to know if the child is biologically related, they would rather just believe he is than go through the heart break. This is one way those situations arise where dad only questions paternity upon divorce. However, mandatory testing would sort these issues out at the child's birth and force the parties to make decisions wit…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 08:03 PM
1

If a man wants to keep a child, and she wants to give it up for adoption, how often is the woman required to pay child support, at all, let alone equal to what the man would pay? Child support laws are the same for men and women. They are formulaic. Women pay less on average because they make less on average and all states use income in computing their formulas. A little more than 1 out of 10 obligees are women.
/r/MensRights07/09/09 07:33 PM
2

One more thing though... on the subject of extramarital affairs which leads to a child not biologically related to the father, is there no recourse for him not to raise another man's progeny (assuming the mother wants to keep or if it isn't found out until after the birth of the child)? That seems very messed up if not. This used to be the rule because before DNA testing marriage was used to determine paternity. I believe only Colorado holds on to this rule, which is indeed messed up. (Edit: On …
/r/MensRights07/09/09 07:28 PM
0

No, if you dissolve your obligations through adoption you do not owe any money. The right to abort comes from the right to make decisions about your medical care (privacy right over your body) not a vague right to make choices in general. Therefore, you have no rights over a fetus in someone else's body, only your own. This is true for both genders. For example, if a woman uses a surrogate and 8 fetuses implant. The two had previously agreed the surrogate would cull to one fetus, but the surroga…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 07:10 PM
-3

How so? You have same same rights to dissolve your parental obligations after the child is born. And just like a woman you have complete privacy rights and control over your body. If you were pregnant, you would be able to terminate the pregnancy until the child developed rights over its body. If you had an adult conjoined twin, you would not be able to cut off your twin at the risk of his death. No one else can tell you what medical procedures you may have so long as they do not interfere with …
/r/MensRights07/09/09 06:57 PM
0

No, you will. And if she wants to give it up and you do not, she will be held responsible. You also have equal rights to sue for custody.
/r/MensRights07/09/09 06:51 PM
-2

I'm a family law lawyer. There is always joint legal custody by default. Physical custody goes to whoever the parties agree it goes to which is, surprise, usually the mother. In nearly every state dad can now easily get a dna test if he denies paternity so long as he is not married to mom and has not acted as a father to the child. In the US, there is a bias towards parents and against children when dissolving parental rights. Both parents can do awful things and keep their rights. However, in c…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 06:45 PM
-2

Both have equal rights to put the child up for adoption. An adoption cannot go through unless both agree. If mom wants adoption and dad says no, dad gets kid. If dad wants it and mom says no, mom gets kid. After the child has been adopted, no more checks. Dad also has equal right to sue for sole custody after the child is born, just like mom. When child is born there is joint custody by default and physical custody in whoever the parents agree the child will live with. Checks go to the parent wh…
/r/MensRights07/09/09 06:29 PM
-4

A woman does not have the right to dissolve her maternal obligations/rights while her child is in the womb. If her child is being carried by a surrogate (or in the future in an artificial womb), she has no right whatsoever to end its life. She has a privacy right over her body until the fetus is sufficiently developed that her privacy right is balanced against its right over its body. Men and women have equal rights to dissolve their parental obligations after their children are born.
/r/MensRights07/09/09 06:22 PM
1

No, spotting occurs in pregnancies where the child is carried to term all the time. It can occur with some regularity, and if a woman normally has irregular periods she can easily mistake spotting for a period. Up to a quarter of pregnant women have some spotting or bleeding in early pregnancy, and about half of these women miscarry. But if you have an ultrasound that shows a normal heartbeat between 7 and 11 weeks, your chances of continuing the pregnancy are greater than 90 percent. http://www…
/r/MensRights16/08/09 06:03 AM
1

It is possible. Women can have spotting during pregnancy, sometimes to the degree where it seems to be a period. My understanding is that taking the pill during pregnancy (which one is not supposed to do) can greatly increase this effect.
/r/MensRights15/08/09 06:32 PM
1

I do not agree with you.
/r/MensRights19/07/09 10:03 PM
1

Did you read the opinion?
/r/MensRights19/07/09 09:44 PM
1

I found a copy of the judgment if anyone is interested: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/551.html It seems to me that this is more about the father's reaction to and ability to cope with the news that the mother is dying than the religion. Edit: After reading the entire opinion it is obvious that this is not about the religion, but about the father's decision to sue for custody within days of the mother's cancer diagnosis. This decision showed disregard for the wishes and well b…
/r/MensRights19/07/09 08:25 PM
2

I agree, except for the last part. It is best to present your story and let the police suggest a restraining order. The police tend to be suspicious of people who arrive at the police station asking for a restraining order, as the orders award other benefits such as temporary possession of a joint home or temporary custody of children. Asking immediately for an order could prevent them from believing the rest of your story. If the police do not suggest a restraining order, a person may still go …
/r/MensRights15/07/09 03:07 PM
3

Sure. I think men and women in intimate partner violence (IPV) situations stay for the same reason. Note, however, that not all violence between domestic partners is part of an abusive controlling relationship known as IPV. Some partners stay with partners who hit for the same reason some partners stay with partners who yell: they are willing to tolerate a certain level of aggression as their partner expresses anger, and the behavior is not part of an overall pattern of abusive and controlling b…
/r/MensRights14/07/09 06:48 PM
5

Yes, while the system is more difficult for male victims to navigate (and that is not to say it is easy for female victims to navigate) they can be successful. I have a male client right now whose girlfriend is finally in jail for her assaults against him. He had to make two police reports before she was finally arrested.
/r/MensRights14/07/09 06:20 PM
3

In domestic violence disputes they are trained to arrest the perpetrator, but many officers seem to pull away from that training that they should arrest the hysterical party and not the calm one. Depending on the victim's personality, the victim may be hysterical or calm, so this method of determining the victim is not accurate. Police also are often biased against male victims.
/r/MensRights14/07/09 03:29 PM
22

I work with male (and female) survivors of domestic violence. It is important for domestic violence victims to understand that when men call the police they do not always arrest the perpetrator. If you decide to call the police, and they come to your home but decide not to arrest the perpetrator, do not let the police leave you in the home with the perpetrator. Even if the perpetrator has never seriously injured you before, this is an extremely dangerous time in a violent relationship. If you te…
/r/MensRights14/07/09 04:30 AM
1

First, this isn't a negligence case. It's family law and tort law does not apply. Second of all you are forgetting that the duty is owed to the child.
/r/MensRights09/07/09 07:19 AM
0

Relevant research and discussion http://www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2008%20FCR%20Kelly%20and%20Johnson.pdf
/r/MensRights08/07/09 07:43 PM
1

I found a copy of the judgment if anyone is interested: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2009/551.html It seems to me that this is more about the father's reaction to and ability to cope with the news that the mother is dying than the religion. Edit: After reading the entire opinion it is obvious that this is not about the religion, but about the father's decision to sue for custody within days of the mother's cancer diagnosis. This decision showed disregard for the wishes and well b…
/r/MensRights08/07/09 03:25 AM
0

I think we agree then. By this But if you are allowed to parent then you are obligated to support your child. I meant if you exercise the option to parent then you must assume the responsibilities, you have obligated yourself.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 11:00 PM
0

I completely agree. I'm a little hazy on the part where the abuser then parents the child because after all the child was of the abuser's making. That is, this part The responsibility of this child should fall squarely on her shoulders in this case.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 10:51 PM
0

So a 14 year old girl is capable of understanding and choosing to have a child but a 14 year old boy is not? A scared 14 year old girl's decision to not tell anyone about her growing pregnancy makes her responsible for her child? Also are you seeing the child here as a penalty that should be imposed upon her? Edit: She can give the child up for adoption, why not hand it over to her abuser as you advise the boy in the exact same situation to do? She does not have ownership of the child just becau…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 10:40 PM
1

That's not an option. She's just had the baby in this hypothetical. Like many 14 year olds, maybe she waited too long before telling anyone. She is now in the same situation as the boy in your hypo. Would you advise her to turn the baby over to her abuser and absolve herself of responsibility?
/r/MensRights18/06/09 10:31 PM
1

I do not understand why this seems like a good solution to you. Would you advise a girl that had just given birth to the child of a 37 year old to hand the child over to her abuser and absolve herself of responsibility?
/r/MensRights18/06/09 10:23 PM
1

The vast majority of the time, whoever the parties agree that the baby stays with. If the baby is in danger the court can issue an emergency custody order. The court can also a status quo order if one party suddenly attempts to change the agreed physical custody arrangement against the other party's wishes. The status quo order will remain in place until custody is settled in the court. Otherwise as joint legal parents with no parenting plan yet in place each has the right to physical custody at…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 09:40 PM
1

Only if she sued for sole custody. The default is joint custody. The case above may have been a joint custody case as well. You can have joint legal custody but physical custody in one parent which still requires a support order.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 09:29 PM
0

But if you are allowed to parent then you are obligated to support your child.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 08:25 PM
2

No. First of all, to win a suit for custody one does not have to show the other parent is unfit. To win a custodial suit a parent must show custody in him is in the best interests of the child, and a significant portion of this claim is showing he is the more fit parent. It is not necessary to show the other parent is unfit. Second of all, default custody is joint between the two parents listed on the birth certificate. A person may sue for sole custody as soon as the child is born. Edit: I real…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 08:20 PM
2

You have to distinguish between the state bringing an action to remove your custodial rights and the other parent bringing an action to become the sole legal parent. They are different. In an action to terminate parental rights the state must prove you are an unfit parent. Even people who violently beat their spouses maintain their parental rights so long as they never touch their children. Likewise, a person who statutorily rapes her partner will keep her parental rights so long as she does not…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 07:25 PM
3

Yes, he can. He is unlikely to succeed, but would be much more likely to succeed if it was statutory rather than forcible/coercive rape.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 06:28 PM
2

Women also give birth to and assume responsibility for children at 14 all the time. Are you suggesting that a 14 year old should not be allowed to parent his child just as he is not allowed to drive?
/r/MensRights18/06/09 05:03 PM
0

Then we are close to agreement, except I would construct the statute something like this: Victim is 14 or under then rebuttable presumption of unfit parenthood of the statutory rapist. Victim is 15-17 statutory rape will be a compelling factor to award custody in the victim or other relative of the resulting child. Edit: Also by this I believe that 14 year old that wishes to parent should face the same procedures and standards as an adult. I meant the normal procedures facing a sole custodial pa…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 04:37 PM
1

So should a man who fathers a child through a consensual relationship with a 17 year old automatically lose his parental rights to the resulting child?
/r/MensRights18/06/09 04:28 PM
2

Yeah, this is what I believe too, see my response to our other conversation.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 04:00 PM
-1

Yes, I don't like it either, but it's something that's talked about in child law circles. I believe that 14 year old that wishes to parent should face the same procedures and standards as an adult. If he can do it, then he can parent, if he can't, then tragically custody should be removed through normal procedures. That is not to say they should not receive extra state resources for persons so situated if they are available (parenting classes, support groups, etc.) As Myevilaccount points out, t…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 03:59 PM
0

We could have custody fly straight by the 14-17 year old and to adoptive parents.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 03:53 PM
2

This is an interesting solution, but see MyEvilAccounts concerns about a 14 year old's ability to understand and assume the obligations of parenthood. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8ti8p/few_believe_women_should_be_compelled_to_bear_and/c0adsav Your solution would require a total reworking of legal parental rights, as well.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 03:47 PM
0

No, it is a complete tragedy. I use the term "his obligatoin" because legally it is his obligation. You can use all the fanciful and wishful language you want about how unfair it is, it is still true. That's why I propose the taxpayers take up this obligation, to relieve him of it. Another possible solution is to forbid all persons under a certain age from becoming parents, as they are too young and immature to take up such an obligation. This solution removes some agency from the child parent, …
/r/MensRights18/06/09 03:45 PM
2

That's not what my post says. If you read my post fairly you would find I have nothing but compassion for the boy father and his child.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 03:39 PM
1

That was actually my suggestion, that I, and all the tax payers, take up the burden of supporting the child. You and me, for the sake of the boy turned father.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 03:38 PM
-9

If the woman chooses to give birth to the child, she will still need to care for it. It is not the child's fault it was the product of rape and it is due the same care and support. That the boy does not have the option to abort his child is a tragic fact of biology. If he does not support his child, it will still exist, with half the emotional and financial support because it was a product of statutory rape. This is an inequitable result because it puts the weight of the woman's crime on the bab…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 09:20 AM
0

I think this is a good sign. There are still many, many fewer out male dv victims than female. This is the dv male victims coming forward to claim protection and accuse their abusers.
/r/MensRights28/04/09 07:47 AM
1

She has not been convicted. Also, if she committed this heinous crime, she could still be a dv victim. People can be both victims and criminals.
/r/MensRights28/04/09 07:46 AM
3

You know, it's not nice to call people names behind their backs. I read this subreddit because I support equal treatment of male and female dv victims, as someone who represents male dv victims. I also support joint physical and legal custody of children in the event of divorce, paternity and maternity leave, equal access to social services for single fathers, and I believe that the names of people accused of crimes should not be released to the public until they are convicted. But you don't kno…
/r/MensRights28/04/09 07:00 AM
1

NOW may have defined it as shouting, but here in Oregon DV is legally defined as physical harm or fear of bodily harm. Fear must be established by a credible threat. Saying "I'm going to kill you" isn't enough, there must be a reason why the threat is believable. For example, a specific plan to kill and the means to carry it out. This abuse must take place in the past 180 days to qualify the victim for a protective order.
/r/MensRights28/04/09 06:44 AM
1

(gooble goggle gooble goggle)
/r/MensRights27/04/09 11:49 PM
3

No, you will note the number now says plus 1. That means I am right. BestServedCold is at minus 3 which means he is 3 degrees away from right. Man this system of quantifying rightness is great! We should use it in court. Edit: Skuttles you now have 2 degrees of righteousness. Good job!
/r/MensRights27/04/09 09:54 PM
5

Hello fellow equality cunt! (that would be you, you post there now, one of us, one of us, gooble goggle gooble goggle)
/r/MensRights27/04/09 09:45 PM
2

I've gotten 7 upvotes and 7 down votes, for the record. (Have that neat greasemonkey skript)
/r/MensRights27/04/09 09:31 PM
2

The story did mention several times that she was heavily drugged and postoperative during the whole ordeal. I do not think it's fair to judge her parenting when she's on heavy pain medication. Also if they let her make the decision to have him circumcised while she was drugged, that seems wrong as well.
/r/MensRights27/04/09 05:40 AM
0

Oh. But he was so convincing, I thought he really believed that. Well, that's a relief.
/r/MensRights27/04/09 02:35 AM
6

Excellent point, Gareth. Part of the tragedy is that this poor child would have had a much better chance if he had been punching his classmates rather than fondling them. I am hesitant about the "choose to become a predator" part. Some people with predatory tendencies are sane enough to control these impulses and do, some are sane enough to control these impulses and don't, and some simply are not sane enough to control these impulses. Either way, a child is not responsible for his actions to th…
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:54 AM
2

Just because you did not derive physical pleasure from masturbation as a child does not mean one third of children do not. Calling this simple biological fact sick is what creates all this hysteria around sex and sexual acting out, that harms boys like the one here. It is not sick that children can derive physical pleasure from masturbation. They simply need to learn proper boundaries. There is no need for hysteria and labels of "predator!" when they do not learn these boundaries.
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:33 AM
1

They do feel pleasure from it, according to the link I sent you from a children's hospital. Up to a third of children in this age group discover masturbation while exploring their bodies. Often they continue to masturbate simply because it feels good. I have also spoken to several men who masturbated as children for pleasure. This is reality, choose to ignore it if you like. No one is blaming this boy for what happened to him, and I agree that labeling children sexual predators is harmful. In fa…
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:23 AM
5

Children do masturbate. I masturbated as a child, and I know many other people who did as well. It does not do them any good to call this behavior sick and to call them too pure to ever engage in such behavior. http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/pa/pa_bmasturb_hhg.htm
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:13 AM
-2

The reporter did note that the boy had been sexually abused.
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:10 AM
5

She is not blaming the little boy. Children masturbate and enjoy masturbating before they hit puberty. When they are abused they do not learn socially appropriate boundaries for this behavior. When they are abused they can also be so disturbed by the abuse that they become incapable of learning these boundaries. This can lead to sexually predatory behavior.
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:05 AM
2

I don't believe the tone of the article is antagonistic. When I read this article, I got a sympathetic picture of a disturbed child that the system failed.
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:01 AM
0

The article said he was grabbing their crotches.
/r/MensRights27/04/09 01:00 AM
1

They had a joint custody agreement, but husband was willfully violating the agreement, repeatedly. Eventually the court gave mom sole custody because it found ‘‘the joint custody system . . . [has] fallen apart’’ and attributed ‘‘the bulk of the reason why to [the plaintiff for] being inflexible, in putting [the] children in the middle and making [the] children pawns in this custody battle.’’ That is what the court must do when one party is sabotaging joint custody. Also charges against her for …
/r/MensRights28/03/09 07:11 PM
3

Jesus, she's not brainwashed. She thinks both boys and girls can do things and that it's important for single mom's like hers to be able to work. She thinks it's great that women can vote, work, and live and sad that that level of equality has not reached everywhere. It's called teaching, not brainwashing.
/r/MensRights27/03/09 05:12 AM
4

These cases demonstrate how poor eyewitness testimony is. Victims of crimes are traumatized and are not able to accurately identify their attackers. They are especially susceptible to police suggestions about who the attacker was. Furthermore, children who are molested by someone they trust will often alter their memories of the molestation so that the perpetrator was a stranger or someone they do not know well. In this way they protect themselves from the full force of the trauma. All eyewitnes…
/r/MensRights25/02/09 10:09 AM
3

This thread is a great example of the ridicule and difficulty that male domestic violence victims face. Shelters for female victims of domestic violence are extremely limited; our female clients are only able to get beds at shelters if they are in extreme danger. However, shelter's for men are nonexistent. The best resource for shelter for our male clients is a domestic violence organization that can get them a discounted hotel room.
/r/MensRights22/02/09 05:34 AM
3

This is an interesting the development. Laws that give the husband of the mother parental rights to the child originated from the idea of ownership. A man owned his wife and any children she produced. Later, the laws solved the problem of proof of paternity. With out DNA tests, there was no conclusive way to prove paternity, and placing the presumption of paternity on the husband resolved this problem. Now men no longer own their wives and DNA tests can prove paternity, so the final reason for m…
/r/MensRights19/02/09 08:09 PM
1

True, but that doesn't make it right. They are both children and neither is to blame for this tragedy.
/r/MensRights15/02/09 07:00 AM
1

I did extensive research on issue #3 when I was clerking for a judge. As you can imagine, there are many, many studies on the topic. However, best evidence suggests that divorce is damaging to children only if it is high conflict and/or if the children do not have equal time with both parents after the divorce. If the divorce is high conflict or the children are isolated from one parent after divorce, they are at higher risk for anxiety and depression. Children who go through medium to low confl…
/r/MensRights09/02/09 07:11 AM
1

"The other approach is psychological. It holds that people of whatever sex who commit domestic violence probably have a personality disorder rooted in family violence and/or neglect in childhood. It is, thus, a treatable condition. It's not a power game, but the result of childhood stressors." I agree that abusers have a personality disorder. We see a consistent pattern of systematic, controlling behavior from abusers, and an inability to form healthy, romantic relationships. I think it's a stre…
/r/MensRights30/01/09 08:56 PM
3

These kid left in a car cases happen a lot. So much that I've been nagging my engineer friends to design a safety device to prevent these. This is me nagging any engineers out there. Sometimes manslaughter charges are brought in these cases, sometimes not, depending on the circumstances. It always takes awhile to complete the investigation. I don't think this is a case of gender bias.
/r/MensRights29/01/09 07:09 PM
2

Furthermore, alimony is usually awarded by the court if one spouse stayed home. It's unusual for a spouse who worked during the marriage to receive alimony. What we really need to know is, of divorcing couples where one spouse stayed home, are stay at home moms awarded alimony more often than stay at home dads?
/r/MensRights29/01/09 05:49 PM
1

Ha, well, it's your choice. I can tell you that the advantages work for you too, and that the marriage penalty probably doesn't apply to your financial situation.
/r/MensRights29/01/09 12:22 AM
2

There are a lot of legal advantages to marriage. Marriage is associated with about 1,000 legal rights that are important if you are involved in a long term romantic realationship. Obviously, if you're going to swear of LTR's all together there is no need for marriage. Some examples are the right to inheritance: marriage gives you iron clad right to inherit from your spouse, while a will may be contested by relatives after your spouse's death. They're likely to do so if your spouse is loaded. The…
/r/MensRights28/01/09 11:43 PM
1

Not quite. In most states, there are 2 stages of judicial oversight of restraining orders. The first is ex parte, the second is a contested hearing. At the ex parte review the judge asks "If these accusations were true, would the statutory requirements for the restraining order be met?" and "Are these accusations baseless?" If he answers yes and no, he grants the order. It is a temporary order, and must be reaffirmed at a hearing if the respondent invokes his/her right to contest it. At the cont…
/r/MensRights28/01/09 10:45 PM
1

You could still get married. Write a prenuptial agreement. Just don't have kids, prenups don't control child support or custody.
/r/MensRights28/01/09 10:34 PM
2

This is my favorite child's rights issue. There was a prison in California that also experimented with this, I'm not sure if they're still doing it. Children should not be imprisoned because their mothers are. I work with women in prison, and a prison is no place for an infant to live, I don't care how many whinnie the pooh decals you stick on the cell walls. This is what happens when we take the idea of children as chattel to its extreme.
/r/MensRights26/01/09 03:19 AM
0

There is no excuse for domestic violence, but healing for abusers is often overlooked. While their behavior is abhorrent, abusers are sick and need psychiatric help. They are incapable of conducting normal, loving romantic relationships, and this hurts the quality of life of the abusers and all the romantic partners they meet. While many programs have been unsuccessful, there are programs that have had success in treating abusers. There is one program in Oregon that is known for the impressively…
/r/MensRights26/01/09 03:04 AM
1

This is so important. Most issues in divorce can be resolved in mediation. A skilled mediator can keep tempers from flaring during this difficult, stressful time, in order to divide the marital property fairly between the parties. It is vital if you have children. Studies suggest that children whose parents go through low conflict divorces, followed by a joint custody agreement, look the same as children who do not go through divorces. Children who go through other types of divorces are at highe…
/r/MensRights25/01/09 09:52 AM
3

That still happens in some family court jurisdictions. Others are developing progressive laws that consider facilitation of a relationship with the noncustodial parent as a factor when assigning custody. Here in Oregon, the standard for determining the custodial parent includes whether the parent will facilitate a relationship with the noncustodial parent. This includes not trash talking the parent, making the child available for all parenting time, and setting the relationship with the noncusto…
/r/MensRights24/01/09 07:33 PM
3

It seems like the hostile reaction is mostly due to the peddling of a gas guzzler via child.
/r/MensRights24/01/09 12:44 AM
3

Yeah, seems to have more to do with the fact that he was in foster care.
/r/MensRights24/01/09 12:14 AM
6

This is a nuanced problem. It comes not just from gender stereotypes that men are aggressors, but from gender stereo types that women are weak and harmless. The passer bys that do not justify the woman's violence assume the man is not in any danger and does not require their help. This is also why men have such trouble in dv court. They face duel prejudices, first that they are the aggressors, and second that they are not in any danger. Most dv statutes require the victim to show danger of immin…
/r/MensRights23/01/09 11:55 PM
9

I'm a woman and I hang out here. I work in the family court and I like to talk family court issues. Mensrights subreddit is the only subreddit that will talk family court with me. I've found that a lot of people who post here are very passionate about their issue, which is to say there is a lot of anger. I think many posters would be better advocates for their position if they could keep their tempers cooled. Edit: Oh, and I do pro-bono work for victims of domestic violence, and have a special s…
/r/MensRights22/01/09 09:01 AM
1

It's not that I know she goes to class with only boys, it's just that that's what I took "with several boys" to mean. She and several boys are in the class. Edit: I always get such angry, angry responses in this subreddit when I share my thoughts. It's really off putting. edit 2: And I'm not doing anything retroactively. That is what I thought as I read the article.
/r/MensRights22/01/09 04:08 AM
1

I thought they pointed out her classmates in the ASD program were all boys because autism effects more boys then girls. Their readers are thinking "I thought autism usually effected boys" and they are answering "yes, her classmates are all boys."
/r/MensRights22/01/09 03:37 AM
1

Yeah and for the most part it's gender neutral. I found myself getting a little wistful. Not nearly wistful enough to break up with my husband.
/r/MensRights19/01/09 09:10 PM
1

I'd be for a gender neutral version of this law. People who kill their abusers should have the charges reduced to manslaughter. Domestic abuse causes psychological damage to the victim, causing the victim to falsely believe that his/her abuser is all powerful and all knowing. This often leads the victim to the conclusion that the only escape is to kill the abuser. Murder under these circumstances is still wrong, but I believe the mitigating circumstances should reduce the charge to manslaughter.
/r/MensRights19/01/09 06:00 AM
7

He mentions "community control" which was part of her sentence, and wonders what it is. These programs are to hold people who are not flight risks in the community. The idea is to protect the community from her and impose some restrictions on her freedom as punishment without paying the cost of housing her in a prison. Community control ranges from an ankle bracelet to having to report where you are several times a day. There are usually restrictions on where you can be.
/r/MensRights19/01/09 05:26 AM
1

I hope kiddo has a good lawyer, too. She has a claim as well.
/r/MensRights19/01/09 12:25 AM
1

Thanks, I will. Just because my opinion of the family court (severely to mildly sexist depending on the court) doesn't jive with menright's subreddit's opinion of the family court (radically feminist), doesn't mean my knowledge of The Law can't help the discussion.
/r/MensRights18/01/09 11:00 PM
1

I'm just informing, Jeeze. I do about 10 hours a week of pro bono work for the dv system and have an interest in it.
/r/MensRights18/01/09 02:07 AM
2

Especially with children. More than controlling the answers you get, you can plant false memories by asking suggestive questions. This can destroy the child's relationship with the parent. This is why the movement towards child centers is so important. At these centers, children who make out cries of abuse are questioned by psychologists specially trained in interviewing children, who video tape the question sessions. It is also why children make poor witnesses in court.
/r/MensRights18/01/09 12:18 AM
1

The man can do this too. I see it happen both ways about equally. Edit: The problem for the police is that mandatory arrest statutes often demand that the partner who causes injury be arrested. Defense wounds tend to appear on the face and forearms, while the evidence of abuse tends to be hidden under clothes. So the partner with the bloody, scratched face is deemed the victim, and the other partner is arrested. This can happen to male and female victims of abuse. Obviously male victims of abuse…
/r/MensRights18/01/09 12:13 AM
2

I think her advice is pretty good. I kind of wish she'd used the word "abusive" to describe step mom's behavior, but I've also been told in trainings that throwing out the a-word before a victim does is usually not helpful: it just makes them feel damaged and defensive.
/r/MensRights17/01/09 12:31 AM
2

You do not lose automatically. Most states have statutes that encourage maintaining the "status quo" parenting arrangement. If you move out, the status quo becomes that kids live with mom, and this hurts your custody case. Your custody case is not over, however, and you may still prevail, especially if you can show that mom has poor parenting skills. In most states alimony awards are unrelated to abuse reports, who moved out when, or who had the children. You will have to pay child support if yo…
/r/MensRights16/01/09 11:42 PM
2

This article has some good points, but I hate generalizations about how The Court or Victim Services will not help you. Courts and victims services offices are different everywhere, and general statements like this deter people from seeking help from the system. Victims Services can be an excellent place to start, and are a great resource to people who cannot afford a lawyer. They have no legal right to stop you from filing anything. If you sense they are hostile rather than helpful, just walk a…
/r/MensRights16/01/09 11:36 PM
3

If a person has joint custody of his children (as in sole custody has never been assigned to either parent) he has the right to take the children with him when he leaves. If the children are in danger, he should try his best to take them with him. Often the victim of abuse does not take the children when he flees because fleeing is difficult and dangerous. His failure to take the children is then used as evidence that he did not really feel he was in danger. Whether or not the court buys this re…
/r/MensRights16/01/09 11:29 PM
1

Not well, but I think a better analogy would be "Women tend to not ask for help about their weight because they think asking for help is weak." The quote clearly says "they think" as in the men think. I don't think it's implying that the men are right in thinking it is cowardly to ask for help. I took it as an oversimplification of the feelings I explained in my post above.
/r/MensRights16/01/09 05:52 AM
3

He got 30,000 for slander, and no one outside of the family became aware of the statements. Pretty fair outcome.
/r/MensRights16/01/09 01:00 AM
4

He assumes that remedy through the legal process would be cheaper than routine genetic testing at birth. Testing your children at birth would be much cheaper than launching a legal battle when you suspect they are not your biological children. It will also save the children the emotional scar of having the man they know as their father take their mother to court to prove he is not their father and not responsible for them.
/r/MensRights15/01/09 10:02 PM
2

Well, it says Maui Domestic Violence Counselors agree, which suggests they've polled more than one. Admittedly, I too have not counseled many male victims of domestic violence. But every one I've met has expressed fears of ridicule for being victimized by a woman, for not being manly enough to stand up to her, and for not being able to handle the situation by himself without having the law step in. In fact, all but one said they were only consulting us because they feared for their children. I t…
/r/MensRights15/01/09 07:01 PM
3

It depends. Male victims of domestic violence are often afraid to come forward because they believe it is unmanly to be victimized by a woman. I do pro bono hours at a legal aid clinic for domestic violence survivors, and we've had a few male survivors request female attorneys because they do not want to explain what happened to another man. Abusive women play off of this fear, telling their victims that no one will believe them and they will be ridiculed by their friends, so the fear of ridicul…
/r/MensRights15/01/09 04:26 AM
2

Because she's a white baby. Kiddo would have adoptive parents inside a year, so social services isn't especially motivated to track down dad. Plus once kiddo is in the custody of protective services, mom and dad have lost temporary custody rights. So dad has to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops to get kiddo back, just as if he was the one who left her in the box.
/r/MensRights11/01/09 03:45 AM
2

The title is misleading: downward modifications are allowed but not retroactively. The law stops retroactive reduction. This means that if you do not get into court immediately after your circumstances change, you will still owe any payments that accrue. This law doesn't just effect people who find themselves prisoners of war. If you lose your job, are arrested, suffer a psychotic break, whatever, and are unable to make payments, payments will accrue until you are able to go to court and have th…
/r/MensRights11/01/09 03:40 AM
1

I really, really don't get why women bashing counters men bashing.
/r/MensRights17/12/08 08:58 AM
3

Exactly, everyone should but everyone doesn't. The state doesn't want to provide that support, so it spends resources searching for father's to provide that support. This is why it is so diligent about identifying biofathers to pay child support. Without it, the support these children required from the state would be greater. I work with women who have been or are incarcerated, and the state is equally diligent about finding them so they may pay child support. Some of these women had their child…
/r/MensRights15/12/08 08:40 PM
3

The state isn't worried about these women because they are a small minority and tend to be financially independent.
/r/MensRights15/12/08 08:11 PM
3

If you think it's a child as a fetus, it still doesn't exist because it's dead. No child to support.
/r/MensRights15/12/08 08:08 PM
8

It's because when a woman chooses an abortion, she stops the child from coming into existence. If a man has a financial abortion, the child still exists, only without its father's financial support. It presents a problem for the state. Everyone agrees that impoverished children deserve help. The state would rather the biological fathers of these children provide that help.
/r/MensRights15/12/08 10:39 AM
1

Wait, does the woman get this too? How many rooms does this house have? House?
/r/MensRights09/12/08 07:49 PM
1

He should consult an attorney before canceling any credit cards, too.
/r/MensRights09/12/08 07:36 PM
2

Yes, he wants a criminal defense lawyer, not a family law lawyer. If his divorce attorney offers to defend him on these criminal charges, it is probably a sign that he doesn't have a very good divorce attorney.
/r/MensRights09/12/08 07:33 PM
3

Here in Oregon, we have child centers where children who make out cries of abuse have video taped interviews. The interviewers are psychologists specially trained in interviewing children. If you have a similar set up in WA (I believe you do but I'm not certain) kiddo should get an interview as soon as possible. If Mom has planted these ideas, it is more likely to come out in the interview if the interview takes place sooner rather than later. Someone said your friend will never get custody. Thi…
/r/MensRights08/12/08 11:55 PM
3

Don't drain the accounts, do cancel the cards. Draining the accounts will piss of the court during the divorce.
/r/MensRights08/12/08 11:46 PM
1

Man, you really take this karma thing seriously. All the down votes in the world won't change the fact that you're filled with hate. Hate! Edit: Also, I wouldn't give opinion upvotes, because she didn't do a very good job defending you guys. I wasn't even sure which side she was on. And she called you frustrated, which I think implied sexually frustrated. Edit 2: Oh nos, Opinion, am I being downvoted fore being RATIONAL? The outrage! Oh no, wait, it was probably the explanation point after the s…
/r/MensRights06/12/08 06:35 AM
3

There's a fine line between freedom of speech and slander. If the man had said she was bad in bed, selfish, a bitch, things along those lines, it would have been freedom of speech. He crossed the line into slander when he accused her of child abuse and prostitution. But his real mistake was accusing her of trading sex for legal services. This put her lawyer's professional reputation at stake and made it important to him that something be done about it. I agree that the criminal slander statute i…
/r/MensRights06/12/08 03:50 AM
1

Same as it is for false reports of other crimes. Anything from court ordered counseling to prison, depending on the impact of the false accusation (both as far as state resources consumed and the impact on the accused), the person's record, and the person's ability to be rehabilitated. The burden of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt. If criminal charges were never filed there are civil remedies available. The victim of the false accusation would need to show damages. Lost wages are best,…
/r/MensRights06/12/08 03:31 AM
1

Fuck, incarcerated women in my state don't get a cosmetic allowance. When they go in they don't even have money to buy shampoo, unless a relative puts money on their books. And if they borrow shampoo they will be disciplined.
/r/MensRights06/12/08 03:15 AM
0

do you deny that the commercial is directed towards men?
/r/MensRights04/12/08 01:06 AM
1

Why? The commercial is directed at men. It's trying to get men to buy lavish gifts for their wives. "Buy her something huge, you know what a bitch she'll be if you don't." It's showing a negative image of women as materialistic shrews.
/r/MensRights03/12/08 08:17 PM
2

Guys, they are also saying that women treat men like crap, sending them to "the dog house" and refusing to talk to them unless they get nice, lavish gifts. Whose world view is that? Also there is nothing here about threating men like dogs, doghouse is an expression of speech.
/r/MensRights02/12/08 06:33 PM
1

He may not remember it, but it could still effect his development. Psychological research suggests children bond with both care givers by about 9 months, and with the primary caregiver by 6 months. If they are separated from their caregivers, they may form an attachment disorder. Attachment disorders cause difficulty forming bonds later in life.
/r/MensRights02/12/08 12:06 AM
1

This article was written about Florida, these laws vary from state to state. In most states a dv restraining order does not necessarily mean you will not be allowed to carry firearms. Read the order over carefully to see what restrictions apply to you. If an order is filed against you, it is a good idea to obtain legal counsel. If the allegations in the order are false, there is little chance it will be upheld if you have adequate legal council. Even if you cannot afford legal council, most judg…
/r/MensRights01/12/08 04:25 AM
1

Most states in the US no longer have adultery laws or at least do not enforce them.
/r/MensRights01/12/08 01:56 AM
2

They always shackle the woman to the bed, regardless of her crime or behavior history. Most of the women I work with are incarcerated for check fraud or ID theft and reside in minimum custody. I don't think shackling someone in labor is ever warranted. I do not want to sound as if I am against the child's removal. I'm primarily a child advocate and I think the prisons where women are allowed to keep their children with them are horrible. Children should not be incarcerated because their mothers …
/r/MensRights30/11/08 07:34 PM
0

Uh oh, I make twice as much as my husband. Is he going to turn into a lazy, indulgent, over-pampered slug? He plans to stay home with our children, is this a bad sign? Damn it, I knew he just wanted to squander my hard earned dollars and eat bon bons all day . . .
/r/MensRights30/11/08 09:15 AM
5

That is not true in my state. I work with women in prison. Women are just as likely to be sentenced to prison if they are pregnant. I have heard judges cite the pregnancy as a reason for the sentence, "A woman in your condition should have acted so selfishly." Incarcerated women give birth shackled to the bed, even though it has been shown that this is medically dangerous. The child is taken immediately after birth and often they lose custody.
/r/MensRights30/11/08 09:05 AM
-1

Why is stuff like this on men's rights? It's not related to men's rights at all.
/r/MensRights21/08/08 10:21 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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