TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Steavee Archive

View 0 posts and 104 comments by Steavee 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)
0

I have absolutely no idea what explains those numbers. My point is that with the massive discrepancy between those sets of numbers they don't conclusively prove HIS point. That's all.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 05:17 AM
1

according to you, an expert in... reddit comments? Again: "Memory" doesn't explain away a 250-300% difference in numbers. Especially if your proof and methodology is: 'because I said so.' Research doesn't work like that.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:49 AM
2

I am not the CDC. I'm just reading numbers and pointing them back out to you. Numbers from the exact same chart someone else tried to use to prove a point. My only point was that it was not as clear cut as they tried to make it sound. Conflicting evidence doesn't prove his point is wrong and mine is right, but it sure as hell calls both into question.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:24 AM
2

I have almost no neck hairs (I wear the 'sexy stubble' look, although it's a bit out of date). I make sure to bic everything below about a finger width above the adams apple. I guarantee I am not basement dweller, as my condo (ok, ok, rented townhouse) is build on a slab and thus has no basement. But it is all mine (otherwise I'd have to quit walking my fat ass around naked all the time). As for age, it's possible. I'm about 4 years shy of the median mens age (thus more than 50% of the populatio…
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:22 AM
2

Or maybe I was just playing along and finding your stupidity amusing. Funny, that's exactly what I was doing. Well, your stupidity and how easily worked up you are. I figured all the different "voices" (if you'll indulge my use of the term in a written medium) was a dead giveaway.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:10 AM
0

It began as a bunch of racist upper class white women who weren't happy that they had every need seen to and didn't have to work a day in their life. A gilded cage is still a cage, and if you don't think women worked before suffrage you should re-take history. The MRM unfortunately seems cursed to obscurity. It's not obscurity or a curse, it's active dismissal by the Media, and by society at large. Why? Because it's not a movement about fairness in custody hearings, or the unfairness of "man up …
/r/MensRights15/10/13 04:06 AM
2

You got boring. I'm done with this. Your troll-fu is marginal at best, and you should be less smug. When you spend all that time trying to convince random people on the Internet you are smart it demonstrates conclusively that you have over-estimated your own intelligence. Also, something something "over-compensating." Just some food for thought.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:30 AM
2

You are indisputably the smartest person on the Internet, oh great and powerful twit will you explain it to me? Gosh golly gee willikers mister, wouldja?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:19 AM
2

Sorry? I even used italics to make it obvious to someone of a room temperature IQ like yourself. You'll do better next time.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:05 AM
2

No, and if you'll notice we've kept going. Honestly I had no interest in his self-indulgent, prima donna, preening display of his own unnecessarily swollen ego nor the pitiful attempt at wit he tried to use to flaunt it. Mostly I'm enjoying writing a few sentences and watching him ramble on for 7-10 paragraphs. It's as close as I'll come to trolling.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 05:03 AM
0

Perhaps but in this instance the annual rates are similar. Absolutely, and I cannot account for that. I don't know why that is, and I am not refuting it. But I'm not trying to. My base claim is that the lifetime numbers show a massive difference between men and women. The original study backs that up. No one has been able to counter with anything truly relevant, just downvotes and insults. I'm not saying men don't get raped, just that extrapolating from those lifetime numbers shows 3x more women…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:57 AM
2

Ahh finally a flaw in the twit! That my dear fellow was sarcasm. Finding the definition of sarcasm and comprehending it is an exercise I leave to you.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:48 AM
0

It's a flawed study. They only used 96 men and women and they did not match claimed abuse to verifiable cases. (I covered the implications in my reply to the post.) Also it only dealt with childhood sexual abuse. It tells us very little about how teens or adults of either gender report rape.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:37 AM
2

It wasn't my best word choice, but it was fun and I'm too tied to give a hoot about a 13 year-old on the Internet critiquing me. Also: I didn't count paragraphs, I initially typed four and felt that was too low a number, that is as much thought as I gave anything you typed. But please, keep wasting your time enumerating what you imagine are my many faults and flaws. I'm 30 pounds overweight after I quit smoking, you should work that in. Also I have a blue-collar job, I am over 30 and still unmar…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:29 AM
1

True, but using the data to draw conclusions (as has been done here repeatedly) would be premature at best. Basically imagine I got molested and it was verified and got me included in the study. Later I was raped or molested again. Then I am interviewed. They didn't ask directly about my abuse, instead they prompted and noted if I mentioned it. However they did not check to see if I was talking about the childhood abuse they could verify or some other abuse that may or may not have occurred late…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:19 AM
-3

I'll place the same level of gravitas on your recommendations as I did your unfounded assertions. In the future when you want to insult someone a short quip is best. In places that aren't the Internet no one is going to listen to you ramble on for six paragraphs about how your are somehow nebulously superior.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:04 AM
0

Widom and Morris did not control for disclosures matching the targeted abuse cases. They also interviewed less than 100 men and women. So they may have underestimated the non-disclosure rate and that isn't controlled for men vs. women. Women may have been abuses more often, and discussing later abuse while both equally not disclosing the earlier abuse. Or the other way around, either way the methodology was flawed and the sample size was small. What else do you have?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:57 AM
-2

Widom and Morris did not control for disclosures matching the targeted abuse cases. They also interviewed less than 100 men and women. So if I was verifiably abused and included in their study and later abused again when it finally came time for my interview I could have been talking about more recent abuse. If we posit that (just as an example) women are more likely to be assaulted during their teen years then they could have been bring this up when responding during the interview. This could m…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:57 AM
-1

It's not a fallacy to ask the person asserting something to demonstrate their credentials and cite their sources. That's just critical thinking and good sense. If you just believe everything on the Internet tells you I have a bridge to sell you, amazing deal! Act now!
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:27 AM
1

You are exactly what is wrong with MensRights. Feminism isn't entirely a bad thing. It began as equal rights for women and is still mostly working toward that goal. There are wingnuts of course, people like you on the opposite side. But a lot of that is just the loud shouting of small number of wackjobs. A pro equal rights for women and a pro equal rights for men movement can and should co-exist. It is not capitulating (look it up) to want equal rights for BOTH sides. MensRights should be a ques…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:25 AM
3

Two simple problems: One wouldn't female rapists levels and male victims sharpen as well? There wasn't much gender specificity there. Two if men downplay rape and assault shouldn't the 12 month numbers be lower too? I think you're trying to fit data into your theory instead of finding a theory that fits the data. Either way the numbers still show two different things and you haven't shown that the 12 month numbers are any more valid than the lifetime numbers. Damn son! (That's cute, I'm going to…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:15 AM
2

Again, that would work but all I am asserting are numbers in a chart someone else posted. Everyone else has decided that some numbers matter and some don't, on and on claiming various things. I'm just sitting her pointing at the numbers.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:10 AM
0

Right, that would work if I wasn't pointing out numbers in a chart someone else posted trying to prove something the opposite of what the chart shows. I'm not asserting anything other than what the chart linked above shows.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 03:08 AM
1

Definitely male. Definitely not feminist. I would just like to refocus the debate on things that matter. MensRights is not anti- feminism. It MUST BE PRO MEN and not ANTI-WOMEN. Anti-women rants, even anti-feminism rants only HARM our cause. It makes us look like kooky fucking misogynists. That means that the pro-feminism world will completely ignore us. Look at the "pro-white" movement. They might have some legitimate concerns (I honestly don't know) but no one fucking cares because they can't …
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:23 AM
1

Which by feminist definitions ranges from actual sexual assault, to a man looking at a woman for a few too many seconds. You say I am the one trying to redefine words? The word "contact" is defined by the O.E.D. As "the state or condition of physical touching." Now look at the pretty graphic: there are "Unwanted sexual contact" and "Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences" categories. I didn't use the 'non-contact' numbers in my post. That should eliminate most of the "he looked at me, RAPE!" cr…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:59 AM
1

Oh, well you have gone over the study? Why didn't you SAY so? You're a statistician right? A researcher in a related field? No? None of those things? Than why do you assume you are smarter than the CDC? I wasn't trying to make the best possible arguments. Only show that there are plenty of reasons the numbers are different. The point is none of that demonstrates WHICH numbers (if any) are inaccurate. Your belief that the numbers that you disagree with are wrong isn't backed up by the report or b…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:34 AM
1

Are you going to apply bad memory math to the female numbers and not the male ones? If you cut both sets of "lifetime" numbers by 50% women are still 2.5 times more likely to be assaulted and 3 times more likely to be raped. But yeah, "memory." Says random internet dweller with zero credentials of any kind. This is the CDC. You're just a guy with a reddit account. "Memory" doesn't explain away a 250-300% difference in numbers. Especially if your proof and methodology is: 'because I said so.' Res…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:24 AM
-1

Are you going to apply bad memory math to the female numbers and not the male ones? If you cut both sets of "lifetime" numbers by 50% women are still 2.5 times more likely to be assaulted and 3 times more likely to be raped. But yeah, "memory." Says random internet dweller with zero credentials of any kind. This is the CDC. You're just a guy with a reddit account. "Memory" doesn't explain away a 250-300% difference in numbers. Especially if your proof and methodology is: 'because I said so.' Res…
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:22 AM
-7

Says random internet dweller with zero credentials of any kind. This is the CDC. You're just a guy with a reddit account. "Memory" doesn't explain away a 250-300% difference in numbers. Especially if your proof and methodology is: 'because I said so.' Research doesn't work like that. Besides it IS controversial when you apply the "memory" blur to only one set of numbers.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:19 AM
-5

Says random internet dweller with zero credentials of any kind. This is the CDC. You're just a guy with a reddit account. "Memory" doesn't explain away a 250-300% difference in numbers. Especially if your proof and methodology is: 'because I said so.' Research doesn't work like that. Besides it IS controversial when you apply the "memory" blur to only one set of numbers.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:19 AM
0

Where does it say that in the report? Are they 300% less accurate? Because that's the scale we are working on here. Unless you can prove the lifetime numbers are less accurate your assertion that they are is just unproven bullshit. Or are they just not in agreement with your existing belief and therefore—just like Obama's birth certificate—MUST be fake some how?
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:45 PM
-1

Except the author repeatedly mentioned how men also have experiences with rape and assault (albeit at lower levels which the data HE posted showed was true).
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:42 PM
1

Sexual assault/rape against men is on the rise due to the "empower women" and "sensitive men" trends? The number of victims is correct and men are FAR more likely to be repeatedly assaulted/raped. Women have a ton of resources to leave abusive relationships and men who lack that same access tend to just stick it out? Maybe the 12 month figures are a huge outlier? OP said "the 2010 figures are more accurate" on his little graphic. I wonder if other years show the same correlation. Maybe "more acc…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:39 PM
1

"Contact" means physical touching. There is a separate category for non-contact sexual assault that I didn't use in my numbers. Nice try though.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:23 PM
-2

Just so we are clear. The stats that prove your point—provided by the same people who provided the 12 month stats—are sound. The stats that don't help your point are summarily useless. If the report publishes bad numbers the whole report is in question. You can't have it both ways. Good try though.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:22 PM
0

So you are (with absolutely zero evidence) calling one set of numbers within a report good and the other bad. Numbers taken from the same people. One set proves (without a doubt) male rape is a prevalent as female rape. The other set is COMPLETELY USELESS. It's shocking how the "good" numbers prove your point and the "bad" numbers cast doubt on it. Riiiiiiiiight. "Memories change" is shaky at best. Especially since it's pure supposition in reference to this report. Even if true should apply to b…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:21 PM
-8

Double Edit: Some of you are ridiculous. This is a CDC report, not a high-school project. Do a bunch of random Internet dwellers really think that they know better than a group of highly regarded and highly educated researchers? None of them thought: "huh, I wonder if this lifetime data is skewed by memory"? Or are you saying the CDC—the gold standard of research in dozens of fields—published bad data? "Memory" does not explain away a 250-300% difference in numbers. Especially without further pr…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 08:51 PM
2

Prove your point. Otherwise it's simply conjecture. Find a field like modeling or athletics where the "talent" is paid on a contract basis and the primary product is the persons physical attributes and their salability to the general public. Then find an article where HuffPo demands equal pay and calls for boycotts etc. in that field until it happens.otherwise you're just making shit up and trying to compare apples to oranges. I'll wait.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:51 PM
0

Around these parts, I don't think it was sarcasm to call HuffPo a "man hating rag."
/r/MensRights09/10/13 06:38 PM
0

In other news /r/MensRights learns that male athletes are paid waaaaaaayy more than female athletes. /r/MensRights (and the rest of the country) refuse to call for boycott!! Male athletes are worth more than female ones on almost all cases. Female models are more marketable than male models. Sometimes market forces define worth by gender. Sensationalism is silly.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 03:50 PM
2

[Citation Needed] You should talk to someone. Professionally.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 03:15 PM
3

Honestly it's because so many other things slip by. Or the sub-group of MRA's that gravitate toward MensRights to express their thinly veiled hatred for women. Just mention Alimony and you'll see a thread turn dark fast. I saw a post about 'paying for a vagina you have to right to access' with 50+ upvotes among other wonderful examples. Too many people here equate the MRM with anti-feminism. They denounce all feminists based on the actions of a radical few but then turn around and complain when …
/r/MensRights19/09/13 03:15 PM
9

It's worse than that. The summary for the study says: The goal of the study was to establish whether false allegations of sexual offences with an unknown perpetrator can be distinguished from accurate allegations. Case files of 27 true allegations of sexual offences with an unknown perpetrator were compared to those of 14 false allegations. The comparison was guided by a list of 43 criteria that are hypothesized to differentiate between true and false allegations of sexual assault. Analyses indi…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 02:30 PM
72

That is a massively misleading (if not outright false) title that is not backed up by the article you linked. One study looked at only 88 cases and came to the conclusion 10%-40% might be false. There were 1454 reported rapes in 2008 in the Netherlands, so the small sample size explains the wide range. Edit: It's worse than that. The summary for the study says: The goal of the study was to establish whether false allegations of sexual offences with an unknown perpetrator can be distinguished fro…
/r/MensRights19/09/13 02:15 PM
1

I've read countless articles where they go on and on about the accused and what they did. The finish with either "the accused had no comment" or "the accused has contested the charges" or etc. etc. I'm not sure who teaches it like that but it's common in my experience. Especially when the the accused's side of the story is rather short. Stylistically if it is one or two sentences it makes kind of a nice final small paragraph. "Joe Blow was arrested today on two counts of murder for the August 19…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 05:49 PM
3

Balance man be the wrong word. Perspective maybe? I think reporting on what her reasoning was helps to further understanding of the situation at hand. I think some of the folks here wanted nothing but the strongest condemnations in the article but that isn't reporting. Good reporting gives you the facts and lets you decide how you feel about it. Hack reporting tells you how you should feel about something and backs that up with either facts or "facts." TL;DR: a good reporter doesn't cast judgmen…
/r/MensRights11/09/13 04:57 PM
34

That wasn't the journalist "defending" the woman. That was making sure to include a fragment of her side for a bit of balance. In journalistic voice.
/r/MensRights10/09/13 04:31 PM
4

To be fair, "they" are still talking about it because--if you'd read the article--Mike brought it up. Yet again.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 01:07 PM
-3

[S]peech alone shouldn't be discouraged or hindered, no matter its content. You do see the irony right? You want to defend the exercise of controversial free speech from objection by objecting to—and creating controversy around—someone else exercising their right to free speech. There must be some 1984 level doublethink going on here. Some free speech is more equal that others (I know, that's Animal Farm). Penny Arcade may start to feel the need to limit their creative processes or avoid certain…
/r/MensRights07/09/13 04:03 AM
-4

What the hell are you talking about? Did you read a completely different article? The only times gender was mentioned at all was in quotations of what other people said and pronouns describing Mike and the people quoted (he, hers, etc.). The 'voice' of the author itself was impressively gender neutral. Never once did it say "only women can be raped.." or "he should be ashamed for offending women.." or anything like that. I didn't even know a woman had written it until I looked for the authors na…
/r/MensRights07/09/13 01:13 AM
2

According to the IRS in 2010 less than 600,000 people paid alimony total. (Strangely less than 500,000 received it...) That is about two tenths of one percent of the population of the U.S. It isn't exactly the epidemic folks around here make it out to be.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 08:47 AM
2

Yes but this was due to a state law that holds a minor may not be the victim of sexual assault if they engaged in acts consensually. She was still a criminal, and was treated as such but it was considered a "mutually agreeable act" a standard that had been applied to cases of an overage male and an underage female as well. It is an attempt to separate actual child molestation from statutory issues. Plenty of 15-17 year olds of both genders are fully capable of deciding whether or not to have sex…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 04:18 PM
-4

I feel your pain. Every time I point out that there is a bunch of bandwagon jumping, groupthinking, borderline women-hating shenanigans going on with little or no evidence I too get downvoted into oblivion. Stuff like this doesn't help the movement. There are real, actual goals that MensRights can and should accomplish. But getting all fired up over a fictional story that may relate to a real one from 20 years ago makes us look like idiots.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 04:04 PM
0

I am not saying she did. It's entirely possible she is as terrible a person as the hivemind here has made her out to be. But without the rest of the story we don't really know that do we?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 12:55 AM
1

I'm willing to bet someone from /r/atheism would say the same thing about guilting you...
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:03 PM
0

I've already said this case seems pretty ridiculous.. for opening their legs for only five years Jesus. Get some fucking help, go talk to someone.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:40 AM
-2

"male slavery" is yet another one of those phrases which is NOT helping us or our movement. It's hyperbole at perhaps its most offensive.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:03 AM
-1

It isn't forced on everyone, in fact according to the IRS in 2010, just less than 600,000 people were paying alimony. Two-thousands of a percent of the U.S. population. (Strangely less than 500,000 people are receiving alimony.. somehow..)
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:58 AM
-1

Oh no no.. I am providing context to a misleading statistic (97%!! ZOMG!). Firstly you need to re-read the article: Andrea and Andrew Left were married in June 2001 and separated in February 2006. Andrew is a stock trader. Andrea was a practicing attorney before she and Andrew had children. Also, and this clearly proves how little you understand statistics, one article about one couple cannot prove anything about the world at large "beyond doubt." As an aside: I had to look this up since people …
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:47 AM
1

I had to look this up since people keep bandying that statistic about. The article I believe you (and others) are referencing was in the guardian in 2011. It talks about a study (in the UK mind) done yearly by Grant Thornton of divorce attorneys. Not divorcees, the lawyers representing them.. It found 27% of divorces were caused by "falling out of love." Which someone has paraphrased as 'boredom' although anyone who has been in a serious relationship understands those two are not synonymous. At …
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:28 AM
0

When people say this sub is full of women-bashing misogynists, THIS is what they are talking about. balk at the thought of financially supporting others, including their own kids Bullshit like this doesn't help Mens Rights, it just sets us back. The world won't take us seriously with people like you involved. But thank you for attacking me, my single mother (who never received a dollar of child support), and women everywhere. Eat shit.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:17 AM
-3

You know when the feminists complain that this sub is full of women bashing misogynists? lifetime lease with no guarantee of usage of a vagina. ^ This is what they are talking about.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 02:01 AM
-1

Actually what I described was very obviously a gay relationship (adopted kids, new boytoy, etc.) and if you didn't see that you didn't read my damn post. The fact that 97% of alimony is awarded to women does not damn the institution of alimony as wrong or unfair, only the implementation. Even then however your statistics are subject to other variables: 97% does look bad, but consider too that 90% of stay at home parents are female. Similar numbers apply to couples with no children but one income…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 09:47 PM
1

I think, friend, if you re-read my post I remained (other than addressing the person I was replying to as male) gender neutral. In fact I suggested a gay relationship in my story BECAUSE I am male myself and presumed the other commenter was male as well. In marriages, most decisions that big are made together. After all if I were married and my wife suddenly decided she didn't want to work anymore and expected me to support her I would immediately file for divorce if she would not change her min…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 09:11 PM
2

Mothers can't pass down life skills? I was raised entirely by a single mother.. I can change my own oil, have a 401k, money in the bank, etc. Yes in an ideal world both parents would cooperate and perfectly share custody harmoniously. I have a pair of friends doing that right now. But it doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes one parent will do a demonstrably better job raising the kids than the other one would. At any rate if you want to turn what was a discussion about alimony into a disc…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:56 PM
0

No no. You said (and I quote): Great, so then whenever a man fights for custody and loses, he should be off the hook for support. That is a COMPLETELY different case than: On the contrary, I said that if she wants custody then no child support for her, period. If someone wants custody, they might have a damn fine reason. Maybe the other parent is physically abusive. That parent shouldn't get custody and SHOULD pay child support. And a fake custody case might be a "silly myth" now, because there …
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:50 PM
1

1, Just because someone wants custody doesn't mean they are a fit parent. Or haven't you seen video of crackheads who want their babies back. Hell I was in a homeless shelter and there were people fighting for custody of their kids while fucking homeless! The problem your blanket solution creates is a parent who doesn't want the kids, and doesn't want child support putting up the worst case possible to "fight for custody" while intending to lose AND getting off the hook. 2, Money isn't the only …
/r/MensRights30/08/13 08:14 PM
-2

While I agree she appears to be a scum bag (we might not be getting the whole story here), what if she got screwed out of millions in the divorce (oh, no honey, we don't have millions on the bank, just this number for an account in the Caymen Islands I happen to have memorized)? Would that change your opinion of her using this loophole to keep taking him to the cleaners? Maybe, right. If I was the new man in that situation I wouldn't feel slighted in the least. Even if that wasn't the case that …
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:43 PM
2

1, Maybe he does not want full custody. A pair of my friends are getting divorced right now and he just wants them every other weekend and holidays. That's not decided by the court, but by him. 2, Why? Because money? What is better for the children? To be raised by the parent they only saw on nights and weekends or the parent who was home to raise them full time? I agree it's a shitty situation all around. Most of the time civil law isn't about fixing shitty situations, it's about finding the le…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 07:13 PM
-5

Because leaving the workforce for a decade or more to care for the "teams" children will (in most cases) permanently lower ones lifetime earning potential. Or think about it this way. Say you and I get married straight out of school. You get a great job doing something and I stay home maintaining the house and raising our (assuming you too are male) adopted children. 20 years in you decide you want a tighter ass (fuck you, I helped you build a life, what about our children you monster??!!). You …
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:29 PM
-1

While the amount seems high (because it is) keep in mind two things: a) Courts tend to work on a "standard of living" basis. If me, my partner and two kids were used to living on a couple of million per year is receiving support of 50k a month that insane? Maybe, but consider: b) If my partner and I decide together that I should stay home and raise the kids, but a decade later we divorce and I go back to work (in most cases) I will never make as much money as I would have if I had continued work…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 06:16 PM
1

Such an arrangement IS wrong when the other damn parent could be paying. Dead people can't pay so why should I might be the dumbest thing ever said on Reddit. Way to selectively quote. As I said in the next sentence I will gladly pay the penny per paycheck for SNAP and other programs that assist those who struggle making ends meet. But the deadbeat parent needs to be taken to task as well. Again, your argument is: "well that dead person isn't paying child support, so why should I?" You must be t…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 10:31 PM
1

So basically your argument boils down to: "dead people don't have to pay to support their kids so why should I pay for mine?" I don't want "anyone" to pay to child support. I want the PARENT to pay child support. Otherwise I the tax payer get stuck supporting YOUR kids. And while I will gladly do so if they have needs, the parents should be paying up first whenever possible.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 10:07 PM
1

Are single mothers who don't know who the father is delusional? Are widows and widowers delusional? Do you know what the world delusional means? The people you mentioned aren't delusional, they're making the best of a bad situation. (Nice attempt at slut shaming by the way with your "don't know who the father is" bit) Just because I don't know who hit my car doesn't mean that someone isn't responsible for reimbursing me for the damage. I just might not get my money if I can't figure out who it w…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 09:44 PM
1

Intelligent people understand that a cure should not be worse than the disease it is meant to treat. Which is why I cannot figure out why you think a parent should be able to abandon their child AND not have to pay to support them. You said someone who has the child 85% of the time should bear 85% of the cost. So someone who had the child 100% of the time should bear 100% of the costs right? That's completely delusional, and you clearly miss your own definition of 'intelligent.' Edit: "pay a fin…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:33 PM
1

Your other reply was stupid and did not merit a response. Now that I see it is you here, the same conclusion applies.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:29 PM
1

Ohhhh it was "noted." You really are good at this. I'll bite, I can't help it. Child support is not welfare. Is it paying your half of the bills to support your child. The marital status of the other parent has no bearing on that. Each person is half responsible for creating the child, each person should be half responsible for funding their path to adulthood. If you and I agree to split dinner and halfway through I find $20 in my pocket that does not absolve you of your responsibility to pay fo…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 08:21 PM
1

You're gonna want to re-read they thread there sparky. The top post says: [S]hould child support be sent on a Debit/ATM card whose purchases can be viewed by either the father or mother electronically, to ensure that the money being sent is being spent on the child, and have a record of it? THAT is what I was talking about. You know, the top post I replied to before you cut in arguing about something that is apparently different. Fine, but do try to pay close attention this time because I'm tire…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 07:26 PM
1

Sorry I should have been more clear: First, being able to view the purchases is a privacy concern (stalker ex-spouse??) Second, say I spend money from my savings on something for the child (say something popped up unexpectedly) and then 'pay myself back' by using CS money to go out to the bar one night. If the amounts even out I'm not abusing the CS, just (smartly) having extra savings in case of emergencies. However someone looking at the CS debit card would only see me spending money at the ba…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:24 PM
2

I was halfway through a response when I realized that you MUST be trolling because no one could be THAT obtuse. GG. That's some quality work. You had me hook, line, and sinker.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:16 PM
1

If you want to discuss the unfairness of custody battles you are preaching to the choir. However you are also changing the subject entirely. You're treating the child like it is a time share. Sure if your ex-spouse got the vacation home 80% of the time it would make sense for them to pay 80% of the cost. Children are not a time share. They are a massive investment of time and treasure. Each parent is responsible for half the costs of rising the child regardless of who has custody. Otherwise you …
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:00 PM
2

Reposted from down the thread: That's great in theory but what if the parent paying child support is late/frequently unreliable? Hell what if an emergency happens? Perhaps I spend my own money (from savings, or a vacation fund) on a hospital visit because my fellow parent hasn't paid in a while (or we are between payments). Why should I be prevented from refilling my saving account (or taking that vacation) once that parent finally pays because someone else abused the system?
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:33 PM
5

That's great in theory but what if the parent paying child support is late/frequently unreliable? Hell what if an emergency happens? Perhaps I spend my own money (from savings, or a vacation fund) on a hospital visit because my fellow parent hasn't paid in a while (or we are between payments). Why should I be prevented from refilling my saving account (or taking that vacation) once that parent finally pays because someone else abused the system?
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:32 PM
0

He is equally responsible for the costs of raising his child. Despite her (in your construct) having more money while he has less she has to spend more paying for the child. What I can't figure out is why you think it's fair for each parent to keep their own money to pay their own bills (they both have a mortgage payment..) while one parents shoulders the responsibility of caring that child 85% of the time and paying 100% of the costs.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:28 PM
9

Why wouldn't they? If A and B have a child and the split up, and the B and C get together why should that free A from having to pay for raising their child? As a parent YOU are responsible for the costs of raising your child, not the other parent's partner. You might be thinking of spousal support (alimony) which does often end if the person receiving it gets remarried.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:03 PM
1

Are you an idiot? Not the last time I checked, are your opinions and arguments so weak that all you have are ad hominem attacks?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:48 AM
1

Well it's one thing for a rapist to go free, it's another when the victim then gets dragged into a trial of their own.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:41 AM
0

As far as i can tell no one suggested that. It was only suggested that it wouldn't happen. It was suggested that it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which does imply at least the possibility of a trial. Again though the consequences for the accused rapist were considered but not the consequences for the accused false accuser. On another note how would you solve the smearing of the accused? If the perfect is not to be an enemy of the good it sounds there can't ever be any consequence…
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:37 AM
-4

So it's a travesty when a man is dragged through a false accusation. But it's ok when a rape victim is dragged through a trial accusing them of bringing a false accusation? That's the biggest issue I have in this sub. While I support the idea that the pendulum on mens rights has (in some areas) swung too far in the other direction it seems the solution proffered most often here is to swing it back just as far in the our direction instead of finding a way to a comfortable middle.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 12:09 AM
-4

Hence where I mentioned--in the next goddamn sentence--the rapist being well connected.. Imagine the opposite, being accused of rape by the daughter of the most powerful man in your city after you had consensual sex. You're probably fucked right? And proving rape is much harder than proving false accusation. I'll say that again. Proving rape is MUCH HARDER by design. Beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you cannot prove the rape beyond a reasonable doubt than an overzealous prosecutor could use tha…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:17 PM
0

Seeing people prosecuted for filing false rape claims--whether they were actually raped or not--might make you reticent to expose yourself to that possibility. Imagine a police department and district attorney that aggressively prosecute false rape claims. That could be a nightmare scenario for the victim. Say you are raped, and you report that rape to the police. If for whatever reason the police cannot find any evidence to support your claim of rape--even if you were "legitimately" raped--you …
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:35 PM
13

What's funny is that is says Byron. Everyone got it wrong anyway, so I guess his identity is still safe. Except for my big mouth.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:32 AM
7

That's the only reason I still participate around here.. To try to tamp down the nuts. I think it's bullshit that you can have "womans day" but you can't have "mens day." I hate that "rape" cannot be joked about but "prison rape" is fucking hilarious. I hate that I have to feel nervous even being near strange children. I hate that a man generally starts from a huge disadvantage in a custody battle.. But half of the shit that people flip out over around here is just reactionary, ill-informed and …
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:27 PM
7

They pled guilty to vastly different charges.. It isn't that he got 12 times the sentence for the same crime.. he also pled guilty to like 12 additional counts of sexual assault for all the raping... Christ this is just such a massive fail of a post. edit: a letter.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 08:03 PM
3

That's WHY it's garbage.. you can glean all of the following from the article you linked.. The financial manager law has been in place for 25 years, however Gov. Snyder drastically increased the power of the position and renamed it emergency manager. It wasn't until this law that the position basically enabled that person to dictate everything that happens within the area they manage. The "manager" becomes the local government entirely. Secondly all you did was count the number of times her name…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 03:39 AM
10

So the first link you posted is your own post. Not a great reference there. The post is also complete garbage for a number of obvious reasons. You seem to be as big a partisan hack as you accuse her of being. The second are twitter accounts SOMEONE (and there is NO information about who is responsible) posted the same statement to.. Maybe a staffer or and intern had a bad idea, maybe someone of the right did it to then smear her with the "scandal." There is zero evidence it was Maddow. Cenk Uygu…
/r/MensRights28/04/13 01:41 AM
-3

She didn't sneak up on him.. No where in the story does it say she snuck up.. Why are people comparing this woman to a peeping tom? It sounds like he was nude in an area of his house that was visible from the street or another public area. It kept happening and the woman was concerned he was doing it to get some exhibitionist pleasure and masturbate.. It can't be proven--she quite possibly overreacted--and he was acquitted.. End of story.. Jesus some of you folks have active imaginations.. As ba…
/r/MensRights23/04/13 11:42 PM
-3

The man was acquitted, end of story.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 10:39 PM
0

It very well could be caused by "toxic masculinity." It could also be caused by phases of the moon. It's mostly just conjecture and guesswork. Yes I didn't find the EXACT situation. However those examples made it pretty clear that this isn't just anti-male policy gone wrong. Not just because she was wearing something they didn't like. That isn't why they called the cops on him you daft twat. He argued with the teacher and administrators, then refused to do what they asked. Whether you agree or d…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 09:48 PM
3

Well a large part of the coverage of shootings in this country are pundits trying to fill air time. Plus, there honestly aren't many mass shootings committed by women; I'm struggling to think of one. We do have to face facts on that issue. If there is a mass shooting or terrorist attack, it was almost certainly a man who did it. I have no idea why that is, but the statistics don't lie. Here is a 5th grade girl who, while she didn't get arrested probably didn't argue as much (she seems like a cri…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 06:25 PM
1

I firmly believe school shootings are tragic. I also firmly believe in (very) strong gun control. But this? This is ridiculous. It's a t-shirt. HOWEVER, the article doesn't say he was arrested because of the shirt. He was arrested because of an argument with a teacher that seems to have gotten out of hand. Maybe the teacher was a giant asshole, maybe the kid was. We don't know, so perhaps we should put the torches back down. Also, you a limited First Amendment right in a school. There are multip…
/r/MensRights22/04/13 11:03 AM
-2

Edit: The fuck? Apparently I rustled some jimmies. Look you don't become a parent by virtue of dating a woman with kids for a few months. You can advance to that stage but it certainly isn't after 11 months. I certainly wouldn't let some woman I was dating for 11 months be my child's "mother" without plenty of supervision and correction. Just because you believe yourself to be a fit and wonderful quasi-parent doesn't mean that you actually are, and it doesn't mean the actual parent should just l…
/r/MensRights07/04/13 05:33 AM
0

That's cute. If only the original post mentioned that in some way... Of course it's ok to hit an armed attacker. There are always exceptions to every rule. It isn't ok to kill someone: "But what if they are trying to kill you!!!" You shouldn't steal: "But my kids are starving!!!" Everyone fucking knows it's ok to hit someone--woman or not--who is coming at you with a goddamned knife. That it is an exception to the 'don't hit a woman' rule isn't some shocking revelation and pointing it out doesn'…
/r/MensRights03/04/13 06:45 AM
0

Yup. They sure are. Massive cowards. Don't you even try to make /r/MensRights okay with hitting a woman.
/r/MensRights03/04/13 05:25 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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