TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Shadoe17 Archive

View 0 posts and 114 comments by Shadoe17 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Interesting, I didn't know that. I'll have to look into how their law is structured around this. I don't think it's a bad idea, if people have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind, and other genetic testing can be done at the same time.
/r/MensRights15/04/26 04:12 PM
2

Where is this illegal?
/r/MensRights15/04/26 08:17 AM
12

Sure, and all girls must also have their tubes tied, with the same requirements to have the procedure reversed. And any female that gets pregnant without said paperwork has no legal rights to force the male sperm donor into any responsibility for the offspring.
/r/MensRights21/01/23 03:06 AM
3

If they're funny yes. If they're mean spirited no, but then they're not really jokes, they're insults.
/r/AntiFeminists06/09/21 11:43 PM
0

Read the article, don't just look at the pretty pictures. At least 11 of those 60 conscript both male and female. While others have selective service (like the USA) that include both male and female, as they should.
/r/AntiFeminists04/09/21 03:53 PM
1

Your on link refutes the 60+ countries idea that you first posed. It says that there are 45 at most in the world.
/r/AntiFeminists04/09/21 02:22 PM
1

Ok, if we're gonna get down in the weeds with this, please list up the 60 countries you claim have compulsory military service for men only. I can only find like 3 or 4, who are all the others?
/r/AntiFeminists04/09/21 12:40 PM
2

Most do, Israel, all the east Asia countries, all Scandinavian countries.
/r/AntiFeminists03/09/21 11:23 PM
1

Well, if they want equal rights, equal pay, and an equal voice ( all of which they already have ), then they should shoulder equal burden. Beside, we haven't had a draft in 50 years, and I doubt we will ever have another after the way that turned out.
/r/AntiFeminists03/09/21 11:21 PM
3

I love the Dem's reaction to this, shows their hypocritical nature. -"False reporting is already a crime, why make another law to do the same thing." Jump to gun control; -"We need a law that makes it illegal for violent criminals to have guns" Umm, it's already illegal for violent criminals to have a gun, more bans accomplish nothing. Pick a side an run with it. Increase the penalty for existing laws, then you get accused of being too harsh or working for the "prison For-Profit Corporation" by …
/r/MGTOW10/01/20 12:15 PM
2

So if she stopped writing and the EX no longer got royalties, does that mean she off the hook? To begin with, just because she stops writing doesn't mean the royalties off what she has already written will stop. Royalties go on as long as the books are being sold. I know of writers that are still getting income off a book written in the 1970s, and they never wrote another. But, putting that aside, the case is in Australia, and I don't claim to know how the laws handle alimony down there, and don…
/r/MensRights09/08/18 03:53 PM
20

I don't know how the courts work down under, but in America alimony is totally separate from child support, and is "intended to keep the lower earning spouse in the life style they have become accustom until they can provide for this on their own". So it often times has an expiration, but not always, and will end if the person getting the alimony gets remarried. (thus the reason so many have turned to live in relationships rather than marriage) By that definition, alimony is giving your ex- part…
/r/MensRights09/08/18 02:19 PM
1

Actually it has been going on for over two millennium in recorded history, though it was only in cases where the mother was already dead until about 150 years ago, when they started doing it successfully on living mothers. So, keeping things tight for quite a while, not necessarily the same vagina. Wonder if necrophiliacs appreciated this a couple thousand years ago?
/r/MGTOW08/06/17 10:06 AM
6

C-section, keeping the play pen righteous for decades.
/r/MGTOW07/06/17 06:00 PM
5

LOL, women are afraid they are going to lose that one way they have to control men. SEX. I bet most of the women that are opposed to this, including the reporter that did the "investigation" have a whole drawer full of dildos, in various sizes, shapes, and colors.
/r/MGTOW05/05/17 10:50 AM
11

Even though this is obviously a fake post, let's analyze it a bit. If he follows no women, he's a sexist. On the other hand, if he followed mostly women, or at least a lot of women, she would call him a sexist for stalking women on Twitter. So basically she thinks all men are sexist because they are men, but she's looking for a way to justify her bigotry so people don't realize she is the actual sexist in the conversation. I believe they call this trait "projection".
/r/MensRights25/04/17 10:40 AM
2

In my state, all child support cases come before a judge every 3 years to re-evaluate. In most cases they are modified to adjust for the rising cost of raising a child. The only thing that will keep them from raising the CS is the income of the non-custodial parent, only a certain percentage can taken in CS. ( I don't remember what that number is, I haven't had to deal with it in the last 10 years.)
/r/MensRights12/01/17 07:25 PM
1

I agree that IF AND WHEN it becomes legal for a man to absolve their parental rights, and financial responsibility, then and only then should women have overwhelming rights in child custody cases. But seeing that that will never happen, then the laws should be more equal. Using your example, if I through a seed in my neighbors yard, and then I'm required to water, fertilize, prune, and apply insecticide to the tree, in order to make sure it bears good fruit, then yes, I am owned at least half of…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 07:21 PM
7

Usually when a man is penetrated it is considered assault, not rape, which carries lower penalties and less of a social stigma.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:23 PM
8

Women, in most cases, are automatically assumed to be owed 50% of all possessions in the case of a divorce, regardless of what they brought to the marriage or what they have added to the marriage. In cases where a women has brought more, or added more, property to the marriage, they typically get to keep everything they have brought/added, plus 50% of whatever else is left. It is almost unheard of for women to pay alimony, and they pay significantly less in child support if the father is given c…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 04:21 PM
327

Regardless of what feminist want you to believe, the majority of laws surrounding sex crimes, child care, marriage, and possession of personal property in America favor women in a massive way. Until recently, in many states, men couldn't even be raped, in legal terms, by a women because the laws required penetration to be a victim of rape. A few states still have this in their statutes. Women have ALL the right when it comes to child rearing and child care decisions. In order for a father to get…
/r/MensRights12/01/17 11:44 AM
2

So I guess she should have her hair shaved off since it is straightened and teased, which is obviously a white women's hair style.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 10:49 AM
2

Ah yes, the rantings of another racist bitch. Oh, she's black, so I guess she can't be racist.... Bull shit, just another racist wanting to cry victim and have the government pass laws to give her what she didn't work for.
/r/MensRights24/03/16 11:12 AM
3

This reminds me of the feminist that recently wrote and article bemoaning the fact that guys no longer paid attention to her while she walked down the street, and she missed the attention, after years of berating guys for cat calling and seeing the beauty in the female form. A few years from now, if it takes that long, these people will be writing about how men no longer take the initiative, or aren't spontaneous. How men no longer just kiss them out of the blue, but instead seek affirmative per…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 12:36 PM
2

?? So let her do as she wishes with her body, just quit holding men responsible for her actions. If she gets pregnant, it's her body, her child, and her responsibility. If the men have no say in the pregnancy, then they should have no responsibility to the woman or child either.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 02:22 PM
2

Basically if you have men this option it would give them enormous control over women's bodies. Like women currently have enormous control over men's finances. She keeps the kid, you pay. She doesn't keep the kid, you have no choice. Why should ALL the decisions be fully and completely with the woman, it takes two to have the reckless sex that got them to this point. Why should the women be able to opt out, but not the man? She knew perfectly well that she could get pregnant, probably better than…
/r/MensRights08/02/16 11:49 AM
1

Female victims make them How? Yes I know there is some bias, especially in either old school judges and newer "feminist" judges (opposite ends of the spectrum but both have similar outcomes), but how is it that they are "made" to give bias judgements? These individuals should be voted out and better people put in place.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 02:53 PM
1

In the legal system, there is a heavier penalty Can you please link that law.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 11:42 AM
4

Colleges have their own investigations and courts, in addition to the legal system. They call them "Academic Courts" usually. Regardless of the legal outcome, the college assigns it's own punishment as well. Oddly enough, if the legal outcome is guilty, the student is most often jailed, so they are expelled automatically, so the only real purpose of these courts and investigations is to punish the innocent. In the liberal mindset of most of the colleges, even to be accused of a crime makes you g…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 07:52 PM
1

No, false allegation will skyrocket in the media, because the alleged victims would face any repercussions as they didn't file legal charges. They can destroy a persons reputation without putting themselves at risk of being proven false and being criminally liable.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 12:36 PM
1

Which is why the police should always be involved. Filing false allegations is a crime too, and should be punished in the same way as the crime alleged. They are simply trying to avoid getting themselves in trouble, while creating trouble for innocent victims, all the while claiming they are the victims of some great societal conspiracy.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 12:33 PM
1

My point exactly.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 12:30 PM
20

If a crime has been committed, isn't it the right thing to do (reporting it to the police)? I mean, the campus doesn't have any authority to prosecute, it doesn't have the means to investigate, the only thing they can do is spread rumor and destroy somebodies reputation based on one persons word.
/r/MensRights12/11/15 07:59 PM
3

Apparently you think that the armed forces are made up of nothing but infantry. It's out of necessity that the armed forces were always men and always will be. You are so out of touch with reality, you don't even know that women have been in the armed forces for nearly 100 years in this country. And served with our military long before that. I see no reason for me to continue to debate with a person that has no clue what century we live in.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 07:23 PM
2

Right. There's no troops in the middle east or anything. Yeah, and I guess if there were they would all be in the bush, because we don't allow them to use technology.... I don't agree with selective service in general. Doesn't mean we should impose it on women to be fair, we should remove it. I agree, either one would be fine by me, but I would prefer to do away with it all together.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 06:55 PM
3

And not everyone grubs through the marsh. There are plenty that never see a ruck after basic, but still fight in combat zones.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 06:53 PM
0

because men are stronger by miles and you don't want to bring women to the front lines A large percent of modern war far has absolutely nothing to do with strength. So that excuse has been out of date for the last few decades. And only due to the nature of warfare changing are women even an option, as they have many more jobs and duties opened up in the armed forces that women can fill now. As you point out, there is no reason to continue to require selective service to be a male only responsibi…
/r/MensRights09/11/15 04:54 PM
1

How is this patriarchal? It's almost certainly just pragmatic and historically about survival. Historical, yes. Pragmatic, no. It is patriarchal because it imposes a requirement and responsibility on men that it doesn't impose on women, only for the sake of "it's always been that way". It's simply a response to reality. What reality? That women can serve in the armed forces? Bad news for you buddy, they already do.
/r/MensRights09/11/15 01:25 PM
1

One that you obviously aren't willing to follow. lol
/r/MensRights14/07/15 04:18 PM
1

I'm sorry that you're an idiot? Hmmm.. I would say if the shoe fits, wear it. Obviously you have never bothered to pay any attention to how this law is being applied in California. I'll just end this now, as I refuse to be drug down by your stupidity and beaten by your experience with idiotic double talk.
/r/MensRights14/07/15 03:41 PM
1

Love how you leave out words, in order to twist a line and make a point that isn't made in the original text. Anyway, you proved my point. In California if both parties are intoxicated and have sex, the guy can be charged with rape. Because even though "she" was into it at the time, legally you can't consent to any action while intoxicated, and therefore, even though "he" thought she gave affirmative consent, legally she didn't and his (their) intoxication isn't a legal excuse for his actions. (…
/r/MensRights14/07/15 12:25 PM
2

Drunk sex is not a crime. Drunk sex is legal. Not according to California's Affirmative Consent Law. Section 1, Article 2, sub-article a. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
/r/MensRights13/07/15 04:50 PM
1

Really screw with your GF, marry her now, then take her back to the Philippines with you when you go. LOL
/r/MensRights13/07/15 04:34 PM
3

This is just stupid beyond words. If you believe that you could get "raped" because you might get too drunk to say no, then don't go out drinking. Alcohol doesn't make anyone do something that deep down they didn't already want to do, it just dissolves our inhibitions to stop ourselves from doing things. It's a "good sense eraser".
/r/MensRights03/06/15 02:19 PM
5

Agreed, push up bras should constitute fraud! Seriously. As well as girdles, or whatever they call them now.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:09 PM
2

If a woman lies to me about her age, for instance, that may be poor morals on her part. But, although I may have wasted my time, there aren't any immediate or severe consequences to her deception, so it shouldn't be criminalized. If she told you she was 21, when in reality she is 15, you could go to jail. Prove that she lied, and you still go to jail. She should bear the responsibility of her lies, not you.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:06 PM
3

What will they call this law? The Gold Digger Protection Act of 2016. Maybe if some of these people would take the time to get to know a person before screwing them, they wouldn't get surprised that their one night stand isn't going to lead them to a life of luxury.
/r/MensRights26/05/15 06:04 PM
3

That reply made no since. Maybe you misread. HE went to jail, not me. Or are you just all confused?
/r/MensRights11/05/15 01:17 PM
3

I vote against taxes, they still steal my money every payday. I fought off a mugger, he didn't get any of my money and went to jail for trying. I have an effect on the mugger, and my neighbor, but none on the government.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 12:30 PM
2

You mean in the same way the government mugs us every payday, without caring what we would like to use the money for?
/r/MensRights11/05/15 12:17 PM
2

Your own logic states otherwise. You have influence over the people that are near you, not so much the ones that don't even recognize your existence.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 12:06 PM
1

If you have (as much as you do in anything else) Then you have just as much say in what you neighbor does with your money. Personally, I believe you would have more say in what the neighbor does than in what government does. Especially in these days of HOAs and land zoning. The federal government doesn't recognize YOU and anything but an ant on a hill.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:06 AM
1

So which is it, you have an equal say in anything, or you have no say in anything? You seem to want it both ways, but you can't have both and still sustain your argument.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 11:00 AM
2

Then it would go to reason that you have an equal say in what your neighbor does with the money he forced you to "donate" to him.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 10:58 AM
2

It was a rebuttal to your idea that you have a say in government. Didn't you read the entire post, it was very short?
/r/MensRights11/05/15 10:54 AM
6

You have very little say in what government does. You elect a representative that you hope has the same views as you and then trust in them and the system to get your desires to fruition, while 485 other people, elected to represent other communities, try to do the same. Control is a very faint illusion.
/r/MensRights11/05/15 10:49 AM
2

Well, when you don't even know the name of the person you are getting the donation from, it would make it harder to sue them. But, if I gave you a baseball bat to go play baseball with, and you used it to beat someone to death instead, that wouldn't make me an accomplice.
/r/MensRights08/05/15 03:51 PM
11

This really wouldn't be any different than donating at a sperm bank. Well, actually it would. At a sperm bank you KNOW your making a baby with someone, just not who. But the similarity is, he wasn't a part of making the decision to have a baby, nor did he act in a manner that would reasonably result in an accidental pregnancy. Therefore he should have no responsibility for the child, financially or otherwise. As she is a doctor as well, she can't reasonably claim that she can't afford to raise a…
/r/MensRights08/05/15 11:36 AM
1

True. I guess they expect her to "automatically" be contributing to them because.... well, who knows. That might be a good point to bring up in a child support adjustment hearing. Make her pay the same as you, or cut both of you loose.
/r/MensRights07/05/15 03:07 PM
1

In reality, the money is paid to them, by law. It only goes to your ex- because they are minors and the guardian is entrusted with their care and upkeep. When they are old enough and on their own, they should be getting the support, not the ex-. Similarly, I took in a friends child while there were troubles in his house. He was receiving support, but while she was in my care, the support came to me. The support legally must follow the child, not automatically go to the ex-. Alimony is the only p…
/r/MensRights07/05/15 10:27 AM
1

If nothing else you would pay it directly to them, not your ex-.
/r/MensRights06/05/15 11:36 AM
1

moving out on their own shouldn't have anything to do with it. But yes, the system is unfair in every direction so the best they can do is pass a bill that goes against logic so people will just get confused over the issue and stop wanting it fixed the right way.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:14 PM
0

10 allow it, 7 haven't ruled on it at all, and 11 have restrictive rules. Most of the rule only allow it if the other parent can prove that they can't afford to pay and the subject parent can easily afford to pay, and not burden the state with loans.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:11 PM
2

Once the order is issued, I don't know if it would work, but a friend of mine did get out of part of the child support requirements because by the time it went to court he was living in a different state and the state he was in (Florida) didn't allow certain things that his wife wanted and the state she was in (Tennessee I think) put them in the order. When Tennessee came after him for not following the order, he took it to a Florida court and the order had to be changed. I think the issue was h…
/r/MensRights05/05/15 04:08 PM
1

Well, New Yorkers ARE very childish.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 03:03 PM
1

In Georgia, the step parent's income isn't added to the "parental income". I know this because my step daughter is in UGA, and has financial aid. My wife, who is an accountant, has never had to submit my income to the state in regard to her daughter getting FA. She'll graduate this fall, and nothing has ever been amiss with her FA.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:15 PM
1

10 states allow for it, the other 40 don't. Personally I would move, Cali sux.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:12 PM
1

Child support is COMPLETELY different to paying for someones college. Child support is only paid until the child is of the age of majority (18), thus the "child", only 10 states allow for any type of post-minority child support and only in a limited way. Most people don't enter college until they are 18, if they go at all. Any other "obligation" is voluntarily entered into by the person.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 02:11 PM
2

No one is "responsible" for someone else's college college cost. They only are asking for information. You not even responsible for you own kids college cost. If you do pay for it, it's out of the goodness of your heart, not an obligation.
/r/MensRights05/05/15 11:58 AM
1

The fix for this is to insist that she get a job or get out. It happened in my marriage, my wife said she wanted to be a "stay at home mom", which translated into an "I do work so I can hang out with my other non-working friends" mom. When I discovered that the stay-at -home part wasn't being adhered to, it was get a job or get out. She's been working a steady job ever since.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 12:51 PM
1

look at it this way, if she didn't stay home and take care of home and hearth, he wouldn't have had the time to devote to his career and become the millionaire he is today. In that way she DID contribute to his career and businesses and therefore deserves a stake in them, as he will no longer be providing for her directly.
/r/MensRights10/04/15 12:46 PM
3

I don't know, this all looks staged. And the fact that he was having somebody video the event tells me that he was more of a glory hound than a white knight.
/r/MensRights04/03/15 02:05 PM
3

Georgia has a similar law, but not quite as retarded. If the complainants filing the divorce papers have sexual relations during the procedure, the papers are null and void. Even if both parties have already signed, but the judge hasn't, if one shows up at the judges chambers and declares that their "marital relations" have continued, the judge is obligated to toss the papers and the proceedings must start from the beginning. My mom went through this with her second husband. Worked the first tim…
/r/MensRights22/01/15 12:07 PM
3

That's sick, so she ended up with three kids by three different guys just to stay married to your uncle? That's just twisted!
/r/MensRights22/01/15 11:28 AM
7

They support gender equality, when it is the female that starts in the position of being less than equal. Their mission is to advance the rights of minority groups, and as men aren't considered a "minority" group (that doesn't make much since seeing that the population is about equal male to female) they don't help, or even oppose, actions that would help men's rights.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 11:26 AM
6

The state doesn't get the revenue to begin with. And they would be trading the non-father for the real father, so the child support would still be there, just from the right person. But I agree, it will die, due in part to the feminist backlash that will happen. "How dare you not take a woman's word for who she made babies with!!!!!"
/r/MensRights22/01/15 11:22 AM
3

It will probably fall on the tax payers, since it is a court ordered test. At the very least, it will be a sliding scale for those that can't afford it. The courts can't unduly burden someone for exercising their rights.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 11:05 AM
1

"Although the majority of serial killers are male, there are also many females that have committed these types of crimes. Among serial killers, only eight percent are believed to be female." -http://phschieftain.com/2014/12/09/serial-killers-just-the-facts-please/ I would consider 92% being male to qualify as "almost all", but I suppose that phrase is open to some interpretation.
/r/MensRights16/12/14 10:48 AM
1

I'm not talking about victims at all, I'm talking about killers. The majority of serial killers are statistically male.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 06:52 PM
1

then men probably are more likely to be violent murderers than women Well, almost all serial killers are male, so we have that.
/r/MensRights15/12/14 11:32 AM
1

if a trained man and a trained woman fought each other, the man wins every time. Such generalizations are both bias and incorrect. Women cannot play in the NFL. That is a rule, not a handicap. Again, rules made by a patriarchal society. They had to lower standards for women for gain entrance to combat roles in the military. No, the requirements are the same for men and women, at least in the USA, I can't speak to other countries requirements. You have an obvious bias in all your methods of think…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 08:16 PM
1

Yes, but you have not touched on anything that couldn't be accomplished by either sex, or that requires both sexes to accomplish. Men (most) have the physical structure to be stronger than women, but women can be equal to men in fighting. Both sexes have equal intellectual abilities. Both are perfectly capable of providing food and raising children. Both are capable of waging war. And to the original post, only women can have children, but they do require a man to do it.
/r/MensRights24/11/14 06:29 PM
1

a man 20 minutes to be ready to go again. He might be ready for the action, but the sperm count is considerably reduced. every two to three days is considered best for sperm production in even the healthiest men. Facts vs propaganda. But that still doesn't change my point, you would still need that man to produce children. That village, however, would be extremely vulnerable to attack and malnutrition. How do you get that? Women were responsible for most of the agricultural work and a great deal…
/r/MensRights24/11/14 11:03 AM
1

The anti-feminist.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 05:05 PM
4

Their largest generic contribution to the society is the propagation of the species. Men, however, cannot produce children and so tend to be more expendable. Never heard of a group of women in a secluded island producing offspring, I'm pretty sure it requires a man, oh and that would be anyone of the male gender.
/r/MensRights21/11/14 05:03 PM
2

Agreed, but again, this wasn't about authoritarianism, it was about playing the blame game with somebody else's life hanging in the balance. They weren't saying "you must" (authoritarian) they were saying "you did" (unproven accusations). But anyway, yes, both sides are just as bad, this one just happens to be from the liberal side.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 05:26 PM
4

I'm totally against the Patriot Act as well, but I don't see how that has anything to do with this particular situation. This wasn't about being an authoritarian, it was about wanting to be able to blame someone for "your" mistake and not having to prove that they really did anything wrong. It created a modern witch hunt, where once you are accused there is no way out, you're guilty, even if you aren't guilty, you're still guilty, and you will be punished. Same problem with pedophiles, yes it's …
/r/MensRights05/11/14 04:57 PM
7

butt hurt Well that was a unique choice of words, ROFLMAO.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 04:06 PM
12

I think it has been happening in the lower courts, because the judges still remember what due process and burden of proof mean. But the state can then take it to a higher court and have the decision over turned, under the previous law. This new ruling will solidify constitutional rights and make that impossible.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 04:04 PM
20

??? Why ??? Oh, because they want to be able to lock up any guy, without a real reason, just by claiming he raped them. The law has always been clear, innocent until proven guilty. It's only in recent times that liberal, feminist leaning, judges have tried to make an exception when it comes to rape or assault on women. The burden of proof shouldn't change. It's too easy for some cheerleader who gets caught "slumming it" to claim rape in order to "save" her reputation.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 03:02 PM
130

Finally, somebody is applying the laws laid out in the constitution, instead of the "feel good" emotional desires of the "politically incorrect", to the crime of rape/false accusation. There will always be injustice, the legal system is flawed and can't get it right every time, but better to err on the side of the innocent. Or as the Blackstone Formulation states: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" Due process finally wins one.
/r/MensRights05/11/14 12:16 PM
1

If it should exist is another discussion, Well, actually that is this discussion. So basically what you are saying is that the law must be bias in one direction or the other, it can never be fair and equal. People would be scared off from reporting actual rapes in fear of getting on the list by mistake. Kind of like guys are afraid to piss off a girl because they might end up being charged with rape, and all it takes is one accusation to ruin your life, whether true or false. Nope, to end up on …
/r/MensRights14/10/14 10:10 AM
2

I'd download the app. (make it for android first, iPhones bite)
/r/MensRights13/10/14 12:53 PM
1

If it was a deliberate lie and not a mistake I'm sorry, how do you mistakenly lie about being raped?
/r/MensRights13/10/14 12:52 PM
1

Those innocent men still have their lives destroyed. The only hope of getting back part of their lives is to prove the accusations false and to out the accuser. Evidence should still be the determining factor, for either side, not just one word against another.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 12:48 PM
1

Or maybe people would see this list and think twice before risking getting themselves added to it by accusing an innocent person.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 12:46 PM
1

I mean, if someone is accused of rape but is found innocent, does that instantly make it a false rape claim? No, and these people wouldn't be included on the list. Only people that have been proven to have falsely reported the crime, through their own admission or the evidence, should be included. I think I answered your second question, but just for clarity, proving a police report to be a false claim is something that already happens and there are already laws on the books to punish those peop…
/r/MensRights13/10/14 12:43 PM
1

person who lied about a crime happening to them That would be a crime, Filing a false police report is a crime in all 50 states and D.C. Punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. So the comparison is accurate.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 12:37 PM
6

Essentially this has happened, except it was DNA not a video that exonerated the man. It just amazes me that it take nearly an act of congress to get the judges to reopen a case where DNA evidence is found to prove innocence. Absolute proof that the court systems are more interested in looking like they have convicted a criminal, than they are in actually finding and convicting the right criminals.
/r/MensRights01/10/14 10:10 AM
1

Maybe not in concept, but I think you'll find that legally just taping someone in a private setting without their consent is illegal because of privacy laws.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 05:00 PM
33

Yep. It's not like the courts have ever refused to reopen a case when DNA evidence exonerates a wrongly convicted person. They would rather have an innocent rot in jail and the guilty roam free than to admit they made a mistake.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:43 PM
2

If she did know, would she have filed the rape charges in the first place? I agree with most states laws on this one, if it's in a public area, there is no expectation of privacy so taping is legal (and fine with me), but in a private setting all parties involved should know and agree before the tape rolls.
/r/MensRights30/09/14 04:37 PM
1

Neanderthals had tools, as did several other pre-Homosapien species. We only have evidence of Homosapiens (modern humans) defiantly existing for 100,000 years, though there is some evidence that they might have gone back as far as 200,000 years, but no more. Tools don't indicate modern human species.
/r/MensRights24/09/14 12:32 PM
0

Got cha. ;)
/r/MensRights22/09/14 06:11 PM
-1

Not sure which part of your comment was meant to be sarcastic, the women being that old, or the fact that humans have only existed for right at one hundred thousand years.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 05:55 PM
0

BS. You cannot get equality by demanding retribution.
/r/MensRights22/09/14 05:52 PM
1

Bull dikes!
/r/MensRights10/09/14 10:54 AM
3

Up, nothing like the state paying the bills so she can have some pocket money to keep buying her drugs. I'd hate to think that she had to waste good drug money on stupid crap like paying the electrical bill or buying food.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 04:10 PM
14

Why should she be let out to parent her child, and the father not? They are accused of crimes against the interest of the child, but she is given the benefit of a doubt and given the child back while he serves the whole sentence! What happens when she fails to stay sober? Do you think they will lock her away and let him out for counseling and to take care of the child? I bet not, the child will go into the system and he will continue to serve.
/r/MensRights03/09/14 02:55 PM
1

Missed one that I feel is important, maybe it's a state by state thing. Women can have surgical contraception, or tubal ligation, without even informing their spouse about the procedure. However, men aren't allowed to get a vasectomy without written and notarized consent from their wife, assuming they are married. I suppose this would fall under the same category as abortion or adoption without informing the father, but I feel this takes it to a whole different level of legalized deceit.
/r/MensRights14/08/14 10:56 AM
1

Nothing new here. Female heroines have been in stories of almost every culture dating back thousands of years. Walt Disney and our patriarchal society is really the more new thing. A return to story telling that recognizes both genders equally was bound to happen, and is a good thing.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 05:27 PM
1

That is my point, he's playing on peoples emotions and hormones to imply that if it's a pretty girl, then "he" must have wanted it. A sentiment that is no different than "she was wearing a super short skirt, she must have wanted it".
/r/MensRights26/06/14 10:16 AM
2

Hmmm... You have a point there.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 01:41 PM
4

i love that he only put in the sexiest "college girls" he could find in the bit, what about the 250lb, hairy b*tch that is the real perp? I bet he would feel different if "big Bertha" was the one coming on to him.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 11:51 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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