TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TenLink Archive

View 12 posts and 186 comments by TenLink 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)
138

TenLink/r/MensRights19/10/12 04:52 AM
108

TenLink/r/MensRights07/03/13 02:56 AM
75

TenLink/r/MensRights25/10/12 05:16 AM
62

TenLink/r/MensRights26/10/12 07:19 AM
17

TenLink/r/MensRights26/10/12 09:41 PM
11

TenLink/r/MensRights04/03/13 01:42 PM
8

TenLink/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:08 PM
5

TenLink/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:52 PM
4

TenLink/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:56 PM
0

TenLink/r/MensRights25/10/12 11:56 PM
0

TenLink/r/MensRights01/11/12 07:12 PM
0

TenLink/r/MensRights13/03/13 10:34 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

The first girl isn't a victim. She is a perpetrator.
/r/MensRights31/03/13 04:06 PM
3

Though feminists are more powerful than they should be, they won't be overcoming business interests anytime soon...
/r/MensRights25/03/13 11:29 PM
3

Title nine ensures "equality" by requiring that the school supports an equal number of men's and women's sports teams. The problem is women don't like sports very much, so it ends up preventing men from creating new teams unless a female sports team can be created at the same time.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:13 AM
1

But what are people going to think? People can be reasonably justified in doubting a woman's competency based on the practices I mentioned. Regardless of your actual ability, affirmative action seriously undermines your credibility no matter how hard you have worked.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 12:58 PM
1

so long as women and men have an equal chance. Men and women don't have an equal chance. Women are held to significantly lower standards. That is discrimination. Unfortunately, given the needs of the job, it doesn't make sense to lower standards to get more women. There just shouldn't be many women.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 12:56 PM
-2

Well, I really wish I could agree with you 100%, but I could only do that if our culture was closer to a meritocracy. But because of our modern climate of political correctness, affirmative action, and frivolous lawsuits, people are very, very justifiable in being skeptical of your abilities. How do they know you didn't get to where you have based on having a vagina rather than working for it? How do they know you haven't been met with a life of lowered standards and special treatment? If I was …
/r/MensRights19/03/13 04:41 AM
-1

On average women are not as effective at physical jobs as men. Not just the military, but also areas like construction, fire fighters, etc. The only reason to pull women into these occupations would be if there was a shortage of more physically able men. The vast majority of the time this isn't the case. In fact, other than an extended period of war where there started being a shortage of soldiers, it is hard to imagine a good reason to put women in these positions. Even if she is good at a snip…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 03:25 AM
-7

I am sorry for your frustration, but >90% of the time they would be right to be skeptical of a woman's ability in this field. It is stereotyping, but this stereotype is accurate. Most women don't take an interest in this stuff, so when you see one that does it is surprising.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:58 PM
-1

Well, I don't really have an opinion about what people should or should not do. Individual liberty is a strong value for me so I wouldn't presume to assign people roles. That being said, societies have goals. To realize any given goal, there will be actions and practices better suited and practices less suited to achieving them. The practices best suited to the advancement of one goal may be counter productive for another. If your goal is to increase your groups population as quickly as possible…
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:51 PM
15

Some women can meet the physical standards, but many or most can't. Standards should not be lowered because women can't handle them. Occupations requiring physical standards should have a gender disparity favoring men, since men are average going to have more innate physical ability. Gender disparity is in some cases justified. In some cases it isn't. In the case of physical standards gender disparity is completely justifiable.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 11:32 PM
12

Came here to say this. Tit for tat doesn't do any good. Spite, hate, and revenge doesn't do any good. Remember, it is those emotions and reactions that have made feminism into the monster it is. Please take the high road all.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:12 AM
-5

I wonder how often these "discounts" are really just part of a scam. Women are more likely to spend their money stupidly. And they like special treatment (real or feigned). If you go to the grocery store and look at a product that has a "designed for women" or some such bullshit, it is usually just the exact same product as the gender neutral one but more expensive. For example, a laxative advertised as just for women had exactly the same active ingredient as any other one. It is just that marke…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:57 PM
5

I am reminded about the museum of tolerance episode of south park
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:19 AM
1

Probably a good idea. There won't be much luck on wikipedia. Or there won't when only one of us goes on at a time.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:19 PM
1

I have met guys who are crazy and out of touch with reality. I haven't really noticed gender disparities in this.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 10:17 PM
4

If your a white male and you want to go into science, it isn't enough to be as good as the next person. You have to be several times better to even be considered. For mathematics, being several times better is the only reason the disparity exists. Because men are usually better at math, by a lot.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:53 PM
2

Feminists don't respect others free speech
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:48 AM
1

I think the drug war is in effect racist. I think it is at least possible that tendency towards crime might vary from one race to another, or the tendency to get caught. Making things criminal that shouldn't be will thus affect one group more than another. So the drug war is in effect a racist policy, though I don't believe that is intentionally that way. It makes things criminal that shouldn't be. But I am not convinced that differences in outcome automatically mean discrimination. This is one …
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:43 AM
-3

Penis envy?
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:15 AM
3

I have included a discussion of feminist discrimination against men on the wikipedia page. So far it includes this protest, the one at warren farrell's speech, and some avfm poster destroyers. It is actually not to bad check it out.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 03:02 AM
1

You are pretty self rightious. One moment your preaching morality, the next mass killings. who is the immoral one here?
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:16 PM
1

You have a lot of hate sir.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 12:30 PM
0

I have actually traveled the world extensively and met many people from many places. Who grew up in widely different circumstances and cultures. Let me tell you something, the average person is selfish. They would act exactly the same as I have described. I am happy for you that you have lived such a sheltered life that you haven't been exposed to the grittier realities of human relationships. Cheating is quite common. The problem I have have with your philosophy is that it is too puritanical. Y…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:50 AM
0

Even if it were true that most people thought that way (and I honestly don't believe that to be true), your argument is based on a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Again, though your position has some merit, I don't believe it to be true. At best I am responsible for a small amount of the blame. Something I weigh as less important to my own desires. For clarification, I do not actively pursue girls I know to have boyfriends. Certainly not over any long period o…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 03:28 AM
-1

Well, I respectfully disagree. Placing value on my own desires is legitimate. Weighing my desires as being more important than abstract moralities and someone I don't know doesn't make me bad. Not taking responsibility for other people's moral failings doesn't make me bad. It simply isn't my responsibility to make other people do the right thing.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 02:53 AM
1

The only part of this I think we should be outraged about is the killing of baby girls which led to this state of affairs. It is just a basic principle of economics that if supply goes down price goes up. There are currently 40 million more men than women in China. I am not surprised rich men are doing this for that reason alone. I don't like hypergamy, but I recognize that it is most likely an evolved biological trait for women. It is in their nature to have this tendancy, and for good reason b…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:27 AM
2

Well, keeping an eye on resources is probably an evolutionary derived trait. However, the money mentioned is paid to the middle man, not the wife. Though I am sure she will get plenty later. Really this is due to anti-female aspect of chinese culture combined with the one child policy which caused them to kill infant girls. This is just basic economics. The supply of women went down, so their cost went up. The only gender politics part that we should be outraged about is the killing of baby girl…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:21 AM
1

I agree with you that white knighting is bad... Women need to be held accountable for their actions. However, blame needs to be applied to the perpetrator of the lies. she certainly is more at fault than the white knights. The mentality of wanting to help people who are legitimately hurt isn't a bad thing. It is the hijacking of that mentality for selfish and immature purposes that is bad.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 01:11 AM
1

You should break up with her. There is to much at risk for you legally.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 10:43 PM
2

I agree. It is not the most morally upstanding thing to due, but I have had sex with at least 3 or 4 girls who had boyfriends. I am not claiming to be morally upstanding here, cause it isn't right, I know. But I want to have sex, and in this case I am letting my personal desires have more weight than abstract philosophy. Oh well, I don't feel bad about that and probably you shouldn't either. Believe or not my desires have value too. But really, the main responsibility falls on the person in the …
/r/MensRights10/03/13 10:09 PM
2

We should immortalize this comment. Its great.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 10:04 PM
2

No I haven't bothered. Doesn't seem worth my time.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:04 PM
-6

You only have one life to live. If you could just get away from years of stress and expense, I view that as worthwhile. But that is just my opinion.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 06:00 PM
1

I am opening a talk page discusion on it. We can alternate keeping it out so that if this person keeps adding it back they will get banned from edit that page for 24 hours.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:56 PM
-13

I hope you have a passport. In your situation, I would just leave the country. Even if you make it through all the legal expenses and it gets thrown out, you will still be guilty to everyone in the area. You will have to move to a new city at least even if you do win. But you are still risking getting convicted since the courts are rigged against you. And you will be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Unfortunately your life as you have known it is fucked. Go to asia or south america and just…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:44 PM
4

It won't, more conservative societies will replace feminist oriented ones. This is because any society where feminism has become dominant has a significantly reduced fertility rate. Below the 2.1 children per person necessary to keep a society's population afloat at the same level. This will take generations to play out but you can already see it happening. It is more obvious in Europe where native populations are starting to be replaced by immigrants such as muslims who hold more traditional vi…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:24 PM
7

At a graduate school interview for a biology phd, I mentioned in passing that biology may possibly play a role in why not as many women get into math heavy sciences to one professor. At the dinner that night, the head of the department came and initiated a conversation with me. Basically accusing me of sexism and getting really pissed off and raising his voice. Keep in mind I was not trying to escalate this conversation. I wanted to be over as quickly as possible so I mostly just agreed with him…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:16 PM
1

Someone should add this to wikipedia. I have been having my hands full as is. Already had one source removed and two users attempted to get me banned for edit warring by alternating their deletions. It is a real pain in the ass.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 09:19 PM
5

Deleted. It was there, check yhwhsks edit if you don't beleive it. This obviously is not supported by any sources. Since anyone can edit, you might choose to delete this sort of thing rather than post it. This might have been the work of 1 person that no one else (unfortunately) bothered to fix. Thank you for bringing it to attention.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:39 AM
-8

Honestly, the main reason is that most women don't know very much. And for what they do know they aren't very ambitious about it. Turns out that must subjects, like math, politics history, etc aren't interesting to most (not all) women.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:35 AM
3

I have been spending a lot of time on the men's righs movement page. Trying to make improvements. You could probably see some of my changes if you looked at the history section..... However I spend 80% of my time arguing on the talk page with morons. What would be really helpful is for people to step in and (politely) offer some support. these cunts have been warned a number of times about their obnoxious behavior. Please spend a second to help a little. It is worth it as a lot of people will im…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 07:31 AM
1

men's rights movement
/r/MensRights08/03/13 02:59 AM
1

Working on this one page is tiring enough. Don't think I would want to spend time on more than one.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 01:17 AM
1

I know that feminists have redefined what gender is supposed to mean for their own purposes, but fuck that. Gender is directly determined by biology.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 01:15 AM
4

Most MRM's don't view gender as a social construct. Or rather, they acknowledge that biology is the most decisive factor in determining gender. you are probably right about institutional discrimination. The good thing about wiki is anyone can edit it, so please add your input over there.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 01:12 PM
9

You are a life saver. This will help my secure the place of a few contentious edits. Including the social construct part.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 04:58 AM
9

I am talented at writing. It doesn't need to be pro-men's rights. It might even be negative. I can word it well. I just need something that states men's rights issues = ..... Of course, something sympathetic will always be better.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:31 AM
1

People can be trained to do various kinds of work between 1- 4 years and maybe less depending on the job. There are people outside of this situation who live with shitty minimum wage jobs and can function autonomously if they aren't motivated. Transfers of wealth should not exceed the time necessary to be trained. I would think that no more than 1 year should be needed, but at most 4 years since a 4 year diploma could be gotten in that time. There is absolutely no excuse for payments to exceed 4…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 11:20 PM
3

It is a blatantly discriminatory transfer of wealth from men to women. 97% of alimony payers are men. This subsidy for females accounts for 9.7 billion dollars a year.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 01:44 PM
2

A blatantly discriminatory transfer of wealth from men to women: Americans gave $9.4 billion to former spouses in 2007, up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier, according to the Internal Revenue Service. Men accounted for 97% of alimony-payers last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau"
/r/MensRights06/03/13 01:34 PM
8

I agree, but this might be better served indirectly through taxes than as a direct transfer from one spouse to another. Something analogous to unemployment and training grants. Also, there should be no expectation on either spouses part to maintain the same lifestyle. A person alone deserves the lifestyle they can afford, not the lifestyle someone else can afford.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 01:24 PM
2

I am pretty sure no fault divorce was originally a feminist policy because of things like this. It basically lets women get away with any misbehavior they want without consequence to their divorce cash in. I really think MR should be opposed to no fault divorce since this is its major affect and purpose.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:49 AM
2

I am kind of doubtful that domestic violence accusations are ignored in no-fault states. I think it is more about if she cheats on you and gets caught there are no negative consequences to her divorce winnings.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:45 AM
2

Ya, I am pretty sure abuse is exempt as is, so this won't do much about that anyway. I was under the impression that the main effect of no fault divorce was that it allowed women to misbehave in any way they want without risking the financial rewards they get in divorce. As such I have always been opposed to no fault.
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:43 AM
6

So I probably don't understand no fault divorce so please correct me. I was under the impression that no fault divorce was what feminists want. In real situations, it works out such that a woman can cheat on you with six guys and have their kids, but then there is no fault when she gets caught. If fault is taken into account, well she was a bitch and doesn't get the house and the kids. (of course it cuts both ways and if he is a cheating asshole then he also gets screwed. I am fine with that). T…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:37 AM
1

Ya, you are right so far. But this sentence has come to the forefront in the discussion page there.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 11:22 PM
2

This is a great comment. I see cowardly shitheads are downvoting you. Well have an upvote from me and my thanks.
/r/MensRights05/03/13 05:06 AM
3

If the link didn't direct properly, it is section 8.1 To be fair, I was able to make some minor edits to tone down the most egregious editorializing of the history section. Anyway, I feel this is kind of a non-starter if all these sources are going to presented like a neutral viewpoint. If a "scholarly" work starts by labeling itself "a feminist analysis" it is an open admission of bias. It is saying that no I am not objective, I am furthering feminist ideology in any way I can. In this type of …
/r/MensRights04/03/13 01:58 PM
1

I have spent a little bit of time on the wikipedia page, and have made some minor wording changes, which went alright. However, when I brought up the obvious conflict of interest of having most of the sources be from feminist academics, the conversation is completely shut out. They don't even address this point. They close the section entirely to prevent any discussion.
/r/MensRights04/03/13 01:23 PM
2

I have made a few edits to the history section. I have made some edits to tone down the bias, use less loaded words, and increase the accuracy of the representation of views. However, I have left this shit in there: The plea for "equal rights for fathers" is frequently accompanied by a rhetoric of children's "needs" which helps deflect criticism that the rhetoric is motivated by self-interest.[9] I would appreciate if you would demonstrate your commitment to a more fair editing process by taking…
/r/MensRights03/03/13 06:56 PM
1

except he was found not guilty by people looking at the details of the case. The only thing left is that she is a vindictive bitch.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 09:59 PM
1

This wasn't some stranger. This was her ex-boyfriend she was mad at and in a vindictive fury tried to destroy with false accusations. Rape accusations between people who used to be in a relationship is especially suspect.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:39 AM
3

Ya, I really hate a tendency to advocate an MRA version of polictical correctness. Two wrongs don't make a right. Only equality should be striven for, not spiteful tit for tat.
/r/MensRights02/03/13 05:26 AM
2

I haven't, but I appreciate it. I will check it out. I have almost 30 pages written at this point. Mostly explaining biological mechanisms. I plan to move on to more political things after. I sort of get on and off writing it. It has been several months since I have picked it up. It is time to get at it again.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:43 AM
1

I have sarcastically named it hatefacts for now.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:12 AM
2

I have more, but they are sort of unorganized. These three should start you off. These are from my document that I have been writing. I haven't specifically revisited them in some time. Please if anything seems amis please bring it up and I will address it specifically. I have more saved on my other computer. I need to back up more of these links than I have on google documents. IQ test stuff: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/322/5906/1331.full— http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/SexDiffs.p…
/r/MensRights01/03/13 03:04 AM
1

Next time you could also talk about x linkage. deleterious alleles on the xchromosome can't be hidden in males.
/r/MensRights01/03/13 12:00 AM
1

There isn't much on the y. It is tiny. Search for x linked traits or pseudo-dominance generally to see why males express phenotypes under this pattern more commonly than women. This phenomenon is usually taught with the example of the white eye mutation in fruit flies, but it applies to all organisms with xy gender determination. Yes I have a series of studies for something I am working on if you really wanted to read them. But the greater variance for men in IQ is pretty well established in psy…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 11:58 PM
1

what group is this?
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:51 PM
1

For most practical purposes. Like being a fireman, a soldier, etc, the physical aptitude of men makes them better at these jobs.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:47 PM
2

There is basically no evidence that women as a group are as capable at science as men as a group. This is a wild ass guess that people think might be true and in pursuing the realization of that guess they have produced not very much. At least in sciences requiring heavy mathematics. If you walk into an upper level math course at any university, there aren't anywhere near as many women. Most scientific advances in math requiring fields don't involve many women. I don't know how people can claim …
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:44 PM
3

I suspect past societies were a lot more pragmatic and reasonable than people give them credit for. If women truly were going to provide all these advances and generate wealth and prestige, they would have been allowed to do so. There isn't any good reason not to let them. In fact, the fact that there are prominent and influential women scattered through out history shows this to be the case. Exceptional effective women could and did make a name for themselves. The real problem is there aren't a…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 03:44 AM
5

I agree that women were denied things in the past. That does not prove that if they were given every opportunity they would have delivered as much as men have. In fact, for the last twenty years exceptional efforts have been made to correct past denial of opportunity with underwhelming results. Instead of acknowledging that maybe there is more to this than institutional discrimination, more and more handwaving and shaky arguments are put forward to explain disparities. Some women will be good at…
/r/MensRights28/02/13 03:39 AM
3

This pattern of variance is likely due to x-linked intelligence.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:20 AM
4

They aren't better at breaking down doors in a fire, or doing heavy lifting. There isn't a sport in existence where the top female athlete could win against the top male or even a lower ranked male at a professional level. For most practical purposes, women can't compete with men physically. *this is a generalization which is broadly applicable of course, I do acknowledge that they are men in shit physical condition and women in great condition.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:17 AM
1

This an odd thing to think considering that the overwhelming majority of technological innovations (99%) were the result of the work of men. Society wouldn't exist without these contributions. Despite significant attempts at social engineering, you can't make more women engineers. It isn't in their biology.
/r/MensRights28/02/13 01:14 AM
4

It is hard to take people seriously who resort to conspiracy theories (the patriarchy) to explain their positions.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 01:37 PM
1

I didn't really post this to debate abortion. Frankly, I think this issue is blown out of proportion. I came to say that it is not a men vs. women situation as many feminists like to frame it.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 01:34 PM
1

People oppose abortion for religious reasons. Women are more religious than men. http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-religious-men.html Of people who oppose abortion, at least 50% (though probably more) are women. How anyone can blame this on men with a straight face is beyond me. Abortion is clearly not a gender issue.
/r/MensRights25/02/13 12:26 AM
1

A lot of nervous system genes are on the x chromosome. Boys are more at risk from disorders originating on the x. Gender disparity in traits that have a genetic basis strongly point to the involvement of x chromosome genes.
/r/MensRights24/02/13 08:26 PM
1

I am going to be honest. I have never heard anyone use this term before. I just learned about it now. I usually don't get too worked up about things that seem very rare.
/r/MensRights22/02/13 01:20 PM
1

its true
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:20 AM
1

So she says she doesn't like like statistics, and offers speculation as the better alternative? That is just non-sense.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 03:23 AM
3

Its a form of slavery.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 01:36 AM
1

My university had a lawschool, and a place for students to get legal advice. Try to use that resource if available.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 03:48 AM
1

/b/ needs to have more jokes like this.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 02:56 AM
1

One of my favorite quotes from the original piece: ""While firm differences can be comfortably negotiated within the contrasting form of discourse, a mode of discourse governed by sensitivities and ‘tolerance’ cannot tolerate uncompromising difference. ""
/r/MensRights10/02/13 12:04 AM
1

Well, I am not sure if less efficient is the right way to say it. I was thinking specifically of high paying technical occupations, which I believe are and will remain overwhelming male for biological reasons.
/r/MensRights09/02/13 12:43 AM
1

What if there are fundamental biological differences between men and women that more or less skew the gender ratios in certain occupations. With the equality of opportunity policy in place, you will basically have a permanent gender imbalance. Is that an acceptable outcome to you?
/r/MensRights08/02/13 01:02 PM
-1

You are already asking these guys to do something very dangerous. You shouldn't willfully do anything to lower those odds further.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 12:41 PM
-5

The vast majority of women are not as physically capable as men. This capability, in this situation, could mean the difference between life and death for the soldiers. Taking that kind of risk with people's lives for the sake of political correctness is more than foolish, it is morally reprehensible.
/r/MensRights04/02/13 12:16 AM
0

I do not not know who started the MRM or specific things they personally believed. However, even if they believed some horseshit like that, I would strongly disagree with it while still supporting most of the aims of MRM.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 01:59 AM
3

It is probably important for guys to be aware that women like this are out there so that they know to look for it and protect themselves.
/r/MensRights03/02/13 01:55 AM
-3

Is there any statistics for how many women out there are like this to one degree or another? I mean this is a huge fear. But it would be a lot easier to put it into perspective if we could nail it down a little bit. Are 50% like this? 70% .05%? I would really like to know this.
/r/MensRights27/01/13 01:53 AM
0

What has changed in that amount of time that you would think this would be different? I have demonstrated my claim. If you disagree the onus is now on you to provide data that proves me wrong. Except you can't. Because I am right and such data doesn't exist.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:48 PM
0

I did
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:47 PM
18

Women know that in the current legal set up that men can't refuse. They know that when a man says "I don't want kids" that legally it doesn't matter. The state will make him responsible. This incentivises them to have kids without the consent of their partner. And really they don't need it. If men don't willingly fall in line, the the state will coerce them into something. Allowing men a short window where they have an option analogous to adoption for women would take away that incentive for wom…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:33 PM
2

Ya, but there were significantly more 2 parent homes in absolute numbers. Proportionally, single parent homes are way over-represented.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 04:15 PM
1

There is plenty of data on this. Look it up. I am not going to go out and find you 100 different studies on this. Its even been on this subreddit before when they talk about DV. If youre lazy wait for the next time and actually click on the link. The most likely familial arrangement for abuse of children to occur is in a single parent, actually single mother, household. This is not a personal attack on you. This is not to say that every single parent household is bad. But in general this family …
/r/MensRights02/11/12 03:59 PM
1

Creighton and Noyes (1989) found that 25 per cent of children registered as physically abused in England and Wales for the years 1983 to 1987 resided in single parent families. Approximately half of the children registered for neglect or failure to thrive, and a third of those registered for emotional abuse also resided with a single parent. Sack, Mason and Higgins (1985) found the prevalence of physically abusive punishment to be twice as high in single parent families as in two parent househol…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 03:12 PM
2

I think totalitarian government is more the result of "equality of outcome" because social engineering goes hand in hand with this desire. My conception of EOO does not involve the willful manipulation of people's environments. I only mean that merit and only merit would be the determiner of promotions, hirings, acceptances etc. Otherwise laissez-faire approach is taken to most things.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 02:22 AM
2

I think this mainly just semantics. When I say equality of outcome, I don't mean requiring homogenization every part of the environment. I mean that when a person is viewed by a potential employer or college that the only thing considered is their achievements and other forms of merit. If you dislike my choice of words or you feel it is too loaded feel free to suggest alternative vocabulary.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:58 AM
2

When I say "equality of opportunity" I personally mean that merit and achievement should influence the selection of people for positions, careers or schools and generally whatever rewards society has to offer. Also equal access and availability to education, at least up until high school. Race, gender, political ideology etc should not play a part in such selections. Neither to the benefit or detriment of any person. I feel that genes are currently outside of our ability to control them, at leas…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:50 AM
0

I am not saying it is the worst outcome, I am pointing out it isn't the best. Some single parent households are quite good I am sure, but usually a complete family with both mother and father is the best possible arrangement. My problem isn't with her or her situation. It is with the general attitude people have towards family structure, which I interpreted in the responses in this thread. There is a perverse conception that single parent households are on an equal footing with complete families…
/r/MensRights02/11/12 01:13 AM
-2

Forming a single parent household should be viewed as a bad option. Sometimes it may be the least bad of several options, but it should never be viewed as a good outcome.
/r/MensRights02/11/12 12:00 AM
-8

The people who think this is a good thing have no idea what the situation is. Statistically single parent households are not as good as complete families. Though sometimes it is an unavoidable, it is never a situation to strive for and praise. May issue is with reddit acting like this is a good situation, when in fact it isn't.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 08:48 PM
8

I think a lot of men's rights people believe in equality of opportunity, while feminists and many on the left believe in an equality of outcome. A lot of the problems with our adversaries comes from this difference. To believe that there could or should be an equality of outcome you have to believe in the assumption that everyone was born with equal innate aptitude for all things. Well, plainly this isn't true. We can see obvious examples of this in sports and athletics. Men and women are obviou…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 05:51 PM
1

There isn't biological parity in the investment in nurturing the fetus. Not having parity in abortion choice directly follows from that. Moreover, I think it is very bad to bring a child into the world when one of the parents don't want it. Father or mother. Both should want the child or it shouldn't be had at all. He needs to find another girl.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 04:18 AM
3

I don't believe fathers should be able to decide whether a child is aborted or not. It is her body. However, they should have a right analogous to an adoption which would allow them to not be a father.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 04:17 AM
3

I agree with you, but I don't think the intention of the author was to allow men a right analogous to abortion/adoption. NOBODY is arguing that we should let my friend who impregnated his girlfriend off the hook. I am. I think many of us here are. Women are allowed to "get off the hook," whether through abortion, adoption, or excessive child support. Men deserve a small window where they can opt not to be a father which would be analogous to a woman giving a child up for adoption. Women should n…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 04:13 AM
0

I have a special talent for pissing people off. In a situation where I am anonymous the gloves come off. I remember one time playing a friend's gears of war I talked shit to an unbelievable degree to the opposing team, who happened to be British. One of the many things I said was something like "So why does everyone over there have bad teeth? Is it because of all the cum you drink?" They asked how I liked sex with my sister. lol. Anyway, after about ten minutes of this, I had pissed off everyone…
/r/MensRights01/11/12 03:45 AM
0

You have to hedge your bets. There is only one opportunity to get out and its now. He foregoes trying now and he has to deal with the consequences whatever they may be and there is a good chance it ends up badly. For me personally, the chance that it may work out sounds like quite a long shot. Better to get out and find a better partner. What he wants is a full family where he gets to spend time with his children. He doesn't want a psycho baby's mama and supervised visits every two month.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:37 PM
0

I think in this situation a person has to be selfish. We aren't talking about a minor inconvenience, we are talking about 18 years of potential hell and huge amounts of money. Obviously there is no desire to have her kill herself, but if she is that unstable, well that is not a sufficient reason to be mired in that kind of hell. Moreover, a person that off balance shouldn't be having kids anyway. In an ideal situation a guy wouldn't need to do this, but this is literally the only option a man ha…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:20 PM
11

I posted this blog the other day but it didn't really take off. It is by a guy in the construction industry giving a first hand account of the effects of gender policies on construction. It results in the hiring of substandard workers and the giving of jobs traditional given to young males in an apprenticing role to women instead. Thus preventing many young guys from getting into the industry. It is a good read: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/02/19/davis-bacon-equality/ In addition, I am appl…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 09:02 PM
13

Her book "the war against boys" is very good. I recommend buying it.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:38 PM
0

Feminists believe in the false dichotomy of men vs. women no matter how ridiculous. A correct interpretation of the abortion debate is between religious and secular parts of society. Sorry feminists, but there are a lot of religious women who don't believe in abortion.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:18 PM
5

Men not having reproductive choice makes this the only and last option. It wouldn't be necessary if men had the equivalent rights to women. Women currently have the choice to an abortion or adoption, while men are denied analogous options. A man is always held responsible for children even when they are had against his will. If men were given those rights, this sort of thing would be unnecessary.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:13 PM
2

I could see postponing a break up long enough to collect a sufficient amount of evidence.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:11 PM
3

Though I like the idea of women getting punished for false accusations, I am concerned that harsh penalties would encourage women to stick with the lie rather than come forward with the truth. Which could then result in more men being convicted of things they didn't do. I am not sure how best to handle the situation(harsh or mild punishment for lying). However, the correct policy would be primarily concerned with preventing falsely accused men from being convicted. It may be that light punishmen…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:08 PM
2

Well, I left the part out where you are supposed to bring her to get scrambled eggs after. That would be tasteless.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 08:01 PM
9

You might consider pulling a hail mary as a last resort. Tom leykis used to have some shows describing it. Basically tell her you love her and want to be with her but that you don't think it is time to have children. Say you really want kids with her, but lets wait another year or two. Ask her to wait to you get a promotion or a house or something like that. Whatever you can think of. Have her get the abortion and then get out of the relationship.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:41 PM
4

Follow bartabs advice. Make sure you are the father. Do not sign that certificate without a dna test.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:16 PM
2

You do not need to get married to have a committed monogamous relationship and children. The only thing marriage does is increase your financial obligations without providing any benefit to you.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:15 PM
7

Though he should try this, he should collect the evidence regardless of having this conversation or its outcome. Better safe than sorry.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:13 PM
11

Blue makes a good point. Your girlfriend is being abusive by doing this and chances are that this type of behavior isn't going to get better. In such a case you have to consider that staying with her in the long run isn't a good idea. It is a good idea to collect enough evidence to help with your case before splitting though. However, chances are that even with strong evidence your chances of getting custody are low. My stepfather went through custody problems years ago. He was a veteran of the …
/r/MensRights31/10/12 05:10 PM
9

On a side note, make sure you get a DNA test. Do not sign the birth certificate until you know for sure that it is your child via a DNA test. If you sign the certificate and it later turns out not to actually be your kid you will still be held responsible for child support because you assumed the role of father. This may seem unrelated or not relevant to your situation, but really this is something every assumed father should do as a matter of routine. In fact, I think the mens rights movement s…
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:57 PM
1

Every situation is different. Not every single parent is bad. But statistically a single parent household is not as good as a complete family. Policies that try to mitigate the problems that result from single parentage shouldn't effectively reward irresponsibility. I think as a society we should encourage the formation and stability of complete family units, while acknowledging that that isn't always possible and mitigating the worst aspects of single parent households without setting policies …
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:21 PM
1

As long as it isn't at the expense of responsible people. A single parent shouldn't be selected over a parent in a complete family because they are a single parent. I agree that it is a sticky situation and how best to deal with it can be problematic, but overall, we shouldn't set up policies that reward that family structure relative to a complete family unit.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:17 PM
2

I don't really care about identity disclosure. What needs to happen is clear protection or at least the ability to gain protection from child support payments. A person who goes through IVF with a donor's sperm should be 100% legally and financially responsible for that child and pursuing a donor for money should not be an option for them under any circumstances. Specifically in this situation, and generalized to other related situations, a legal contract that absolves the male party from financ…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:13 PM
2

The sperm bank protects a persons identity, which prevents a mother from suing the man directly. This is the largest source of protection. Case law has not been readily established on this issue so at best a man can't be sure what the courts would decide should a mother find his identity and sue. There isn't any precedent as of yet. However, alls that needs to happen is a new law requiring that sperm banks provide the identity. This happened has happened in England already and now men have large…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 08:01 PM
21

This happened to my brother. After completing all of the pre-requisites with honors he applied to nursing school and was rejected despite there being very few men. Where was the affirmative action then?
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:16 PM
15

Scholarships and admissions that specifically consider race and gender are racist and sexist respectively. As such being able to make such considerations should be illegal. Considering socioeconomic status would be a much less racist/sexist way to consider applicants. I am in debate about the single parent qualification though. I think as a society we should discourage single parenting if possible. Statistically it ends up being bad for the children and consequently for society. By giving specia…
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:14 PM
27

Yep, hard being a female student in a field with 90% females.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:06 PM
8

I have a buddy who is half Lebanese, but you couldn't tell unless he told you. No box for him either. It actually came up yesterday that because it wasn't visible, he doesn't get any special treatment.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:03 PM
5

I am applying to graduate school. I cringe every time I see one of these forms and I don't fill it out because I know it will only be used to discriminate against me.
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:03 PM
5

It wouldn't really matter if they had set up a contract. A man can't legally give up his responsibility to his children. The court would just throw it out.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:43 PM
5

Well, for some reason most women feel entitled to money from men. Even lesbians who aren't supposed to need them at all.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 08:25 PM
12

I remember a report a couple years ago of this happening to a doctor. He donated his sperm to some lesbians and they ended up sueing him for child support later. Moral of the story is don't donate sperm if there is any chance they can know who you are.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 05:34 PM
22

Its racist and sexist that he didn't volunteer the seat he had proof that he paid for to the person who had no such proof.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 11:29 PM
2

Except it wasn't injustice. It wasn't racism. It wasn't sexism. Her friend had the wrong ticket. A mistake maybe, maybe, but an honest one if mistake it was.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 11:27 PM
12

I'm sure she appreciates that you insulted her with a non-gendered term.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:34 AM
1

Its also not reasonable to assume that he is guilty based on this second article. And it wasn't reasonable to release his name before a trial. Even if he is guilty, there is still cause for concern about how this incident is being handled by the police.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 02:01 AM
3

Assuming he is guilty right now based on this article and no trial makes people just as guilty of jumping to conclusions.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:57 AM
1

It is more reasonable to be arrested for the first allegation. But let's not forget that he should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. This is one of the MR's biggest pet peeves, so we shouldn't assume guilt either. And even if he is guilty, under no circumstances should his name be emailed to everyone at the university when there hasn't even been a trial.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:56 AM
2

This article doesn't prove guilt. You and many other people here are forgetting something that is often complained about here and that is the presumption of guilt without a fair trial. Granted that picture they found is anything but flattering, but that doesn't make him guilty. That he isn't being assumed innocent even here where we are supposed to be trying to reverse the atmosphere of "guilty until proven innocent" surrounding sexual assault is very disturbing.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:53 AM
2

Also, OP and many other people are assuming he is guilty right now. Well maybe he is, but aren't most people here in favor of innocent until proven guilty? This article does not prove guilt.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:49 AM
-3

Even if he is guilty, there is still the very relevant issue of his name being released which we should care about. This should not have been done through an email at all, and his name shouldn't have been released to the press until after a conviction. I would also like to point out that this article also doesn't prove guilt.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:47 AM
0

You can at least agree that his name should have been kept confidential until after a conviction, right?
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:44 AM
22

He was charged with 2 counts of assault. The second incident is being considered equivalent with the first. This is still a problem.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:43 AM
-2

I would like to point out that whether or not he was guilty, his identity should be protected until he is actually convicted of something. You are presuming guilt when it is still not known. The article is about a second REPORT about assault, not a conviction. His name should have been kept confidential until he had a fair trial. It is still relevant to this subreddit and we should care that his name is so carelessly released. Moreover, they are charging him with TWO assault charges. The second …
/r/MensRights27/10/12 01:40 AM
2

You make a very good point. The second incident most certainly should not be considered assault. Even if he is guilty of the first incident, the second does not classify as assault no matter how you look at it.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 12:14 AM
1

I think the best thing you can do is contact the police department with a complaint and contact the paper. Go to the websites I have filled out and send a few short emails. If you know other people who care about this issue spread the word and have them write some emails. Make it clear to all parties that revealing his name before he has had a trial is reprehensible and potentially very damaging to innocent people. Moreover, even if he committed the first act, the second in no way constitutes as…
/r/MensRights27/10/12 12:08 AM
3

Well, that is good to know. But even if that is true and he is completely guilty, he deserves to have his privacy respected until a conviction. He is still innocent until proven guilty. I still think it is worth emailing the police department in regards to the privacy issue.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:30 PM
3

Why would the police say "he did not touch her" if he bear hugged her?
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:15 PM
2

I know you probably don't want to reveal your location, but perhaps it would be a good idea to provide the email of the police department so that some beneficial emails could be sent. Or perhaps a petition. This is ridiculous and this guy could be potentially really screwed. The least we could do is send an email condemning this behavior on the part of police.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 05:17 PM
1

What I mean is, what is the best way for him to do the right thing while successfully navigating the worst consequences, especially legal consequences, of his short sighted actions.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 12:01 AM
1

I am not really an expert on this, I just know about specific cases I have read about on the internet. If you want competent advice on this situation as it applies to you in your state/country then you can start by looking at information about the relevant laws in your area, and for really specific and informed advice you would need to see a lawyer.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 09:40 PM
3

Ya, but consider that "fair" in this case involves the initial gift of 100,000 dollars and 14,000 a month in payments. The courts have a very strange notion about what constitutes as "fair."
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:19 PM
1

Private divorce lawyers usually charge fees on an hourly basis or as a flat rate for an entire case. If a husband and wife each hire an attorney, each person is typically responsible for paying his or her attorney's fees. However, if only one spouse cannot afford an attorney or the court recognizes a significant difference between the two spouses' financial resources, Pennsylvania divorce laws allow the court to require the payment of one spouse's attorney's fees by the other spouse. No law spec…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 08:16 PM
3

The idea is that if it stipulates that she gets absolutely nothing or very little that it is unfair. Whether that is truly unfair or not, courts have and will throw out that kind of pre-nup. So when writing one it is important that she receives enough compensation that the court won't throw it out. A well written pre-nup gives her the absolute minimum while still be deemed fair in a court. This is obviously what Deion Sanders motive was in giving her 100,000 dollars at the time she signed it. Re…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:05 PM
2

Well, that is how it works in many divorces. Unemployed or under-employed wives don't have the money to pay for legal representation so courts often require that the major earner pay the legal costs of both parties. The logic originally stems from the days when it was frowned on for women to get a job. The result is that even if she looses her case she isn't out of pocket any money which creates a very strong incentive for women to drag a man to court. When a woman literally has nothing to loose…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:02 PM
5

It wasn't thrown out. She was trying to get it thrown out but failed. It cost Sanders a huge amount though to pay all of his AND her legal fees.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:30 PM
1

Well, I don't think they threw it out in this case. But her claiming "that is unfair" cost a lot in terms of legal fees and the man has to pay both his and her costs. So even with the pre-nup being upheld it is a HUGE cost. Her legal fees were 275,000 at this point and his were probably at least that as well. That's money blown for nothing.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 03:29 PM
14

I think he should be able to counter sue her for frivolous legal wrangling. She signed a legal document and she got paid really well as a result. If she is going to challenge it she should at least be forced to pay the legal fees herself. It is a truly perverted legal process that makes a defendant pay the plaintiffs fees even if the defendant wins.
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:56 AM
18

She isn't a greedy bitch, she is doing it "for the children."
/r/MensRights25/10/12 06:50 AM
4

I suspect that this case was politically motivated, similarly to the Julian Assange case. False rape allegations are an easy way to get rid of people you don't like. I think these cases are of an entirely different nature. Political assassination.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 07:43 PM
2

Choosing to stay in a shitty part of the inner city rather than moving out so her children could have a safe environment because she wanted to "save the world" is a sign of some pretty mixed up priorities.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 04:24 AM
-7

Sorry to hear your mother cares more about disrespectful strangers than for her own children.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:08 AM
0

Well, he is an idiot for his delivery. But fundamentally his opinion is "don't imprison non-violent offenders." Which I agree with. Especially if it is drug offenses. It is stupid to single out women in this opinion. Non-violent men and women shouldn't be imprisoned.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 05:50 PM
1

Well, I am sure you will find sympathy here, which is good. However, I am not certain that you can be helped here otherwise. You need to seek professional help or medication for your anxiety.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 12:22 AM
6

I met some people from Norway while backpacking and apparently the vast majority of rapes there are committed by Pakistani immigrants.
/r/MensRights20/10/12 09:39 PM
-7

You still haven't provided what possible motive someone would have for planting a thread just to illicit comments about child support.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:49 AM
-2

I deleted my old accounts due to the information being too identifying. I have been on reddit for a long time and I have ventured on MR for more than a year.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:33 AM
-12

..... Well, who is setting the bait? Why? Let's not go conspiratard.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 06:12 AM
6

There wouldn't even be a sperm donor company acting as a middle man..... Really bad idea.
/r/MensRights19/10/12 05:42 AM
2

I don't see why society thinks it is fair to hold a man to the obligations of a relationship while giving women a get out of jail free card on every turn. If you no longer want to commit to the relationship contract, you should be required to give up all of the benefits of that relationship as well as the negatives.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:23 PM
1

The study downplays the role that finances play in divorce. I am skeptical that financial incentives women have play as small a part as is insinuated. I think the fact that most women know they are likely to get favorable financial outcomes and this contributes to their overall confidence in the divorce process. Children might be the most important factor, but it is hard to believe this isn't a close second. Then again receiving custody goes hand in hand with child support, so finances and child…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 08:20 PM
20

tl;dr Women initiate divorce more because they know they will get the kids.
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:40 AM
16

You forgot to mention the fact that men are likely to get financially screwed in the divorce. Whether it is alimony or child support, as bad as the relationship may be, the consequences of a divorce might be worse. It is a strong disincentive. On the other hand, most of his loss directly becomes her gain. The money he losses she gets. This is a strong incentive for her to file the divorce. She can have all of the financial perks of that relationship without having to fulfill her side of the rela…
/r/MensRights18/10/12 03:26 AM
1

There are job postings subreddits. For example r/nashvillejobs. Find the one for your area and post with a throwaway. Hiring unqualified women will only perpetuate stereotypes and could cause resentment among the other employees. I wish this sort of thing didn't go on but I don't see how you have a choice.
/r/MensRights15/10/12 05:41 AM
1

Ya, I guess so.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 09:54 PM
-1

The image at the top was really creative too...
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:52 PM
8

"I suck at physics and that is discrimination"
/r/MensRights14/10/12 03:57 AM
7

The last I checked, colleges don't have access to detentions or suspensions..... How would they find out? If they can find out, accuse her of making it up to hurt your chances with the university. Don't interact with her in any way. That can only have the potential of making things worse. Have your Parents/mom complain and defend you. I doubt a principal wants to hear an angry parent. Getting them involved and on your side is your best bet. If there is no proof then hopefully that will be enough…
/r/MensRights12/10/12 01:55 AM
5

He seemed to defend his comments pretty well. It didn't seem like backpedaling to me. Just clarification.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 04:59 PM
1

Well, if she wins it will stop the discriminatory practice of affirmative action for white males as well. So good luck and god speed.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:16 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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