TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

TheRealElvinBishop Archive

View 0 posts and 212 comments by TheRealElvinBishop on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-1

Nothing wrong with acknowledging that a law affects different populations differently. That's the foundation of civil rights law.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:17 PM
1

Facts = tearing down?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:16 PM
6

But this law is not only for the benefit of kids, it required men to give money to their wives.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:14 PM
1

You could make a case about McDonald's? The assertion is that taking a child to McDonalds is misconduct that rises to the level of litigation. It should be reported on to a judge so that the judge can force the parent to stop. If this is right, then it justifies suing every parent who takes a child to McDonalds, and justifies force in cases where parents fail to comply with a moratorium on McDonalds. If it's right here, its right for everyone similarly situated.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:48 AM
3

What rights do Mexican men have that Mexican women don't?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:49 PM
2

So when women get executed for the mere notion they were involved in a sexual crime, you would support this by saying, "Again, how are we to justify another country's customs or ideals"?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:48 PM
4

So LightweightPhenominal is pro men being executed without a trial on the mere allegation of a crime? Can you tell us what the evidence is that a particular victim of this vigilante raped or killed anyone?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:45 PM
1

From the comments section: J Carter at 2:15 AM September 7, 2013 "Such stories haunt Rodrigo, who admits some drivers 'on other routes' have raped and killed." I pulled that quote from a guardian article. That's a bus driver actually ADMITTING that other bus drivers have raped and killed passengers. I hope Diana never gets caught. No, that's a bus driver ALLEGING that other bus drivers have raped and killed passengers. If you have knowledge of facts that prove a particular bus driver raped or ki…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 12:43 PM
2

What was she right about?
/r/MensRights08/09/13 09:17 AM
1

You can't sue for damages that might occur if someone does something they haven't done. You have to prove that potential employers and dates actually saw the photos and you suffered quantifiable harm. Maybe you should try intentional infliction of emotional distress instead.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 05:02 PM
1

I asked you what statistics tell us that women are discouraged from being doctors, and you pull out ancient data that says women were less likely to become doctors generations ago? Weak. So I guess you don't really have any such statistics. Because there arent any. And even this does not tell us it is because women are discouraged. you ignore all of the other possible reasons women were less likely to become physicians in previous generations because none of them fit your prejudice.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 01:36 AM
1

That's why Raudskeggr said, "or with a minimal sentence."
/r/MensRights03/09/13 01:43 PM
1

What are you doing about this case of violence, and the media response?
/r/MensRights03/09/13 10:17 AM
1

I suppose you want to apply the same restraint when men assault women, right? Sick it up?
/r/MensRights03/09/13 07:07 AM
1

So you object if a woman assaults a MSN, but if a man assaults a man, hey, that's racing? Interesting opinion on violence. Its ok if a man is a victim as long as he is assaulted by a man.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 06:44 AM
3

When women object to being victims of violence, do you call it a circlejerk? Like when Nicole Brown was murdered and enemy said we need to respond to stalkers earlier and more assertively, was that a circlejerk?
/r/MensRights03/09/13 04:15 AM
4

You have not seen women, on average, get lighter sentences than men for the same crimes?
/r/MensRights03/09/13 04:09 AM
1

You point to women being encouraged to take lower paying jobs in medicine. What part of the 50/50 split in med schools supports that? How does this tell us women are discouraged from being doctors? You have still not established that any stereotype harms women. "I think we can all agree" that women get screwed over is very different than "statistics MAY point to the possibility." What statistics tell us women are discouraged from being doctors?
/r/MensRights02/09/13 03:40 AM
3

What's the point in hiding the name of the university. Are your trying to help them perpetuate this shit?
/r/MensRights01/09/13 07:49 AM
1

Women do not "need" more time off for maternity and child raising. To say they do is to say that mothers are more valuable than fathers, and thus that women are more valuable than men. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1lfkao/you_know_that_women_make_77_cents_to_every_mans/cbzg1sn
/r/MensRights01/09/13 04:56 AM
3

I don't buy any of this. I think we need to distinguish between parenting leave and disability leave. After birth, in almost all cases, women are capable of returning to work after only a few days. So for five days, a woman might be incapable of working because of a disability, not for parenting. The remainder of her six week maternity leave is not a "need," although it's typical to exaggerate and describe it that way. How do we know? When women are economically incapable of sacrificing their in…
/r/MensRights01/09/13 04:55 AM
5

Thanks, but let me point out that women do not "need" more time off for maternity and child-raising. Women choose to take more time off, and fortunately for women, they are supported in this choice. That's an extraordinary privilege that we don't allow to men. To say that women "need" more time off only reinforces the harmful fallacy that mothers are more valuable than fathers, and that leads to even more discriminatory policies, like after a divorce women will be parents and men will be visitor…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 01:46 PM
2

University professors are in the business of criticizing factual conclusions. They can't claim to be exempt from criticism of their factual conclusions. If they do, fuck them. Such criticism is the purpose for the academy, and if we don't do it we are negligent.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 01:36 PM
3

Your job in the academy is to challenge this conclusion.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 07:52 AM
1

Ask a librarian to help you. They are really good at it. Bring your data here, and Reddit will help you analyze it. I hope you follow through. Remember that you are not looking for a comparison of means--how much the average man earns and how much the average woman makes. You are looking for what men earn to do certain work, and what women earn to do the same work.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 07:52 AM
2

You can write one.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 06:00 AM
7

You think it's wrong to value your children over your job, or you think it's wrong for employers to pay you only for the work you do, not for the time you spend with your family? You find that offensive? Women are encouraged to be nurses, while men are encouraged to be doctors? Med school students are evenly split, so you are wrong about that. What's more, you don't object to the fact that 0ver 90% of nurses are women. That seems as if you want women to have the jobs as doctors, and have the job…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 05:59 AM
45

This article gets it wrong again. forget about weekly earnings and guessing at whether or not women work more or less. Forget about comparing only MBAs. Women earn 23% less than men. We see in the Current Population survey that the same women work 25% fewer hours than men. Therefore, on an hourly basis, women earn 2% more than men. All regression has to start from there. But even this compares only salary and wages. It does not compare benefits and perquisites. Women receive a much larger share,…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 05:28 AM
4

I don't think he implies ALL women. I understood him to mean certain things are more common in one place than another. For him to dingos a compatible woman in the U.S. Would be more difficult because such women are less common. In the Philippines, it is easier. Based on his preferences, its true. Those are not my preferences, but I agree that kind of woman is more rare in the U.S. Than in asia.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:40 AM
1

Dating is a biological imperative, and the need can't be altered. Dating rituals are not biologically designed, and can be changed. This one needs to change. There is no biological need to go to Starbucks, and when two people are there, each with $20, there is no biological need for the man to pay or for the woman not to pay. Getting free coffee does not make women procreate more, and paying for coffee does not make men biologically more valuable. The ways in which men demonstrate value have cha…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:07 PM
3

That's the point. This is just an excuse for women to continue to get free stuff, while allowing themselves to deny they are demanding free stuff. Men should resist this, not participate in it. Women often say, "I am not a freeloader. I am enlightened woman. I believe in true equality. I don't think men should pay for women. I think the person who makes the invitation should pay." But since women don't make invitations, this is just a sneaky way of saying men should pay for women. Women who wait…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 04:02 AM
–

What do men feel entitled to that women have to pay for?
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:45 PM
6

Thai chick asked me yesterday why so many white dudes divorce white wives and come to live with Thai women. I explained that while Thai women are much more shameless gold diggers, at least they are cheaper. $33 per day, volume discount.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:44 PM
–

Do you have evidence of that, or should we take your word for it?
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:40 PM
5

And they will jump in cold water to retrieve a duck for you. Id marry a woman that did that.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:37 PM
5

Even if it is, its lampooning something real and common.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:36 PM
-4

Or Asian.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:34 PM
5

Why should your girlfriend pay? After all, she made you buy a sofa you didn't want, so you owe her.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:34 PM
–

If the person inviting pays, then when one secretary says to another, let's get a burrito at lunch, why does that not imply the first Ms. pays? And when you ask a bro to meet you at happy hour for a football game, do you pay? The person making the invitation has to pay is a rule that we almost never apply unless its a man paying for a woman.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:33 PM
–

They don't do it to impress men, they do it to impress the competition they simply blame men, and want men to pay. Very few men are impressed by this shit.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:29 PM
1

This cunt says that all men should pay for all women because some men have more money than some women. If having more money obliged one to pay, then women should pay for men who have less. And the cunt ignored the money men have to spend on cars and clothes amd watches and sunglasses to be eligible to date a gold digger. Moral of the story...date women who don't use make up, and the gold diggers can fuck off.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:23 PM
1

You can get a straight razor that uses disposable blades at sally beauty supply for about give bucks. A box of blades is ten for $5, i think. I use a blade per year. See my previous comment about blade care. I love these razors. I would never switch to anything else.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:18 PM
2

If you dry your razor after you use it, and store it outside the humid bathroom, one will last six months or even a year.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:14 PM
1

You have forgotten what the comment says. Read it again.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:58 PM
1

If it was intentional, I would agree with you. We have no reason to assume that was the case.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:45 PM
1

You provided no support for your assertion that the statement is categorically false, and your comments inflame me. But I don't think you should be silenced. Parented, maybe, but not silenced.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:21 PM
1

Yes, OP was wrong. You were wrong as well. 40 + 44 = 84, not 88. (We don't know what happened in 5% of the cases.) I am not down-voting you. OP does not deserve to be downvoted for being wrong, either.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 03:39 PM
1

A categorically untrue statement "men win all the time in custody cases, it's women who are disenfranchised in family court" If it's categorically untrue, you should contradict the comment with the truth. Instead you argue that people who are wrong should be censored. I think everyone should speak and that people who are wrong should be corrected. You have no knowledge that this statement was made for the purpose of inflaming, even if you are inflamed. Given the edit, it seems clear to me that i…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 03:30 PM
1

Even without the edit, instead of downvoting, make a contradictory comment. I hope this subreddit can rise above the "if I don't like it, you can't say it" bullshit we see in other places.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:23 AM
1

Then instead of putting forth a dwnvote, put forth an argument.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 04:22 AM
1

Why does this post have 28 Downvotes????? It is factually incorrect, but it has a place in the debate. Please don't silence people because you disagree, just set the record straight with your own comment.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 03:37 PM
6

Your data is inadequate for the purpose for which you are using it. Moreover, you have grossly misinterpreted the data you have. One of your sources does not address the question at all, and another directly contradicts your conclusion. I suspect you posted these links without really reading them. Only 4% of child custody cases actually go into litigation. In those cases, the man gets either joint or sole possession of the child 51%. What this means is that men get NO custody in 49% of cases. Th…
/r/MensRights15/08/13 10:11 AM
–

110% of child abuse is done by women. women are incapable of being near children without male oversight. that's a fact. You have a source for that? Don't think you need one because it is obviously, overwhelmingly easy to decode?
/r/MensRights15/08/13 07:48 AM
-3

Fathers and families .org
/r/MensRights15/08/13 05:40 AM
–

I love how nobody took your bullshit seriously enough to respond!
/r/MensRights15/08/13 05:40 AM
10

Can you show me the legislation that abolished it in 1840? It's the law in 45 states in the US currently.
/r/MensRights15/08/13 05:36 AM
10

Feminism is about equality? What actions have feminists taken to achieve equality in criminal sentencing? In conscription? In college scholarships? In contraception? In Obamacare?
/r/MensRights15/08/13 05:33 AM
1

Your link does not support your claim. You knew that, didn't you?
/r/MensRights10/08/13 03:18 PM
9

The Obama white house does not determine the pay scale for government jobs. The pay scale does not distinguish between men and women.
/r/MensRights10/08/13 07:42 AM
1

Here's a system that works better than percentages: Equal parenting. Each parent pays their own expenses. No child support due to either party. In cases where parents reach an agreement that is not equal, they can agree on child support. If they agree on time but not money, the minimum actual cost of raising a child in your county is calculated. If you get custody 20% of the time, you pay 20% of that amount to the other parent. This is fair because you are meeting the basic needs of the child, a…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 09:24 AM
1

I am rich. When I was married, I could choose to live on less than I earn. I was under no obligation to spend on luxuries for my kids. I could save for retirement, put money into a business, help my parents, and so on. I could tell my kids "no" to the $120 sneakers. Now I pay more in child support than my entire household budget before. Why should I no longer be able to say no to the sneakers? Here is the twist. Mom still gets to say no to the sneakers and use my child support payments to lease …
/r/MensRights08/08/13 09:41 PM
1

This would not create a bias toward men unless men have greater opportunity to earn more money. We know that's not true. So there would not be a bias toward men. I am not suggesting it's a good idea, only that it would not favor men. Men are more likely to be the breadwinner because women, while having more than equal opportunity to earn money, choose not to behave in ways that translate to more equal income.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 08:09 PM
1

I see that there are caps in Wisconsin, Alaska, North Dakota, and Texas. If it's really "almost all states" I'd like to know.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 08:02 PM
2

The burden of proof is on the blowhard making the statement. My research says that as of April, "Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin have solid shared parenting laws. Illinois, Minnesota and Indiana are adopting legislation that increases accessibility but is scaled back from 50-50 custody equality to higher percentages and greater contact for non-custodial parents." That does not qualify as "most states". Rather than making a firm conclusion about your statement, I thought ther…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 07:56 PM
0

That's pretty typical already. Its called school, scouting, grandparents, and neighborhoods friends.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:34 PM
0

The nuclear family perpetuates women neglecting their obligation to support their kids financially? I thought they actively made those decisions.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:33 PM
1

Private school was voluntary before the couple separated, why should it be mandatory after? Why not order dad to pay for after school activities, rather than giving cash to Mom. Why are kids entitled to be affluent? Why not order Mon to earn more money so her kids can continue to be affluent?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:31 PM
1

The comment does not argue against women. It argues in favor of financial ability, regardless of gender. It does not punish women, and if it is historical balance, that is only collateral. Your attack is misplaced.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:24 PM
1

Dude, the comment does not paint everyone with the same brush. It specifically distinguishes between circumstances.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:17 PM
1

Being a parent and living off of another persons labors is not a sacrifice, its a privilege. You think living off another persons income at one time entitled you to live off that person forever, even when you stop keeping his house in order?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:14 PM
1

If dad can support his kids, and Mom cant because she chose not to develop a career, why is mom more fit by default? If a solution is appropriate for housewives, why apply it to the vastly larger number of women who are not housewives?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:11 PM
1

Is it SUFFERING if a kid does not get the $120 sneakers he got last year? The illness of a parent is as hard on a kid as divorce. Should there be a law that if I get cancer and lose my job, I am required to spend as much on my kids as before? Are you willing to make disability payments from your tax dollars equal to the previous earnings of rich people to achieve your mandate of not making stressed kids suffer by having $ 60 Sneakers?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:09 PM
1

Why. A marriage license is not an indicator of special relationship status. Was Britney Spears in a class above Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:04 PM
2

Once a year.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:01 PM
1

Caps can be localized.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:57 PM
1

Where?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:56 PM
3

I am rich. When I was married, I could choose to live on less than I earn. I was under no obligation to spend on luxuries for my kids. I could save for retirement, put money into a business, help my parents, and so on. I could tell my kids "no" to the $120 sneakers. Now I pay more in child support than my entire household budget before. Why should I no longer be able to say no to the sneakers? Here is the twist. Mom still gets to say no to the sneakers and use my child support payments to lease …
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:55 PM
2

Going to need a source for the "just about every state" claim.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:50 PM
1

If $1000 per month is the cost of raising a child, the father should pay only $500. The custodial mother is responsible for half. If the father gets 20% of the custodial time, he should pay only $200 per month, right?
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:48 PM
2

I am not aware that any surrogate or egg donor has been successfully sued for mommy support. Semen donors have. Lying to children, biological fathers, and presumed fathers is reprehensible and indefensible. For the state to sanction, abet, and/or require it is vile. The only decent thing for you, me, and the state to do is oppose this travesty.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 02:27 PM
2

If the perpetrator is female and the victim is male, then yes, it's obviously legal. There was no prosecution, right?
/r/MensRights31/07/13 04:51 AM
1

She can still force the donor to pay child support.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 03:22 AM
0

Thank you for your well-reasoned and well-supported comment.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 03:20 AM
0

You think continuing to defraud a man because he has previously been defrauded is not how the law works. It is how the law works. If a woman can defraud a man until he establishes a parental obligation under the law, he will be required to continue to pay mommy support even if he is not a parent. fathersandfamilies.org.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:12 PM
1

And the only downside I see is every father would always know for sure who his children are. Must have been a typo.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:09 PM
2

I can think of dozens of reasons that it is not best for children to lie to them about who their fathers are. Taken as a whole, most families fit into this category. It is not best for children to be born into a world where fraudsters are protected and encouraged. This fits the rule of law concept. It is not best for children to be born into lawlessness, which encourages anti-social behavior. It is best for them to be born into a world with a stable social contract. Allowing mothers to profit fr…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:07 PM
1

Women would fuck around as much, they would just be more careful when getting pregnant. You can be sure of that. That's a good thing. Why are you arguing against it?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:38 PM
1

There are a lot of people who can't do it secretly. Mostly men who don't know about the pregnancy. Also, men who are denied visitation. And men in prison. And men fighting in Afghanistan. And men who don't know how or can't afford it.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:37 PM
1

Its not the role of government to live our lifes, to take our hands and guide us through life. It's not the role of the government to protect us from fraud and harm--by mandating sanitation at meat packing plants, mandating aviation rules, mandating fractional reserve limits? This is not hand-holding, it's defensive.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:35 PM
1

How do you tell someone who does not know about the pregnancy?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:31 PM
1

There are many men who want the test and feel overwhelming pressure not to have it. Instead of insulting people in a very sensitive situation, let's make it easier for them. We do not tell women who are ashamed of reporting that they have been raped that they are wussies, we go to great lengths to make it easier. Let's make this easier for both categories.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:30 PM
1

You can't do it secretly if you are in Guam in the Navy, if you are in prison, if a court has denied you visitation, if you live in a place where the law requires the mother's consent, and so on, or if you don't know about the birth. This is common.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:29 PM
1

In other words, make it mandatory and let each man decide if he wants to open the envelope.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:26 PM
1

It should be mandatory because of the low rate of compliance when it is voluntary. This low rate of compliance is not because men make the decision free from pressure. Making it mandatory removes the pressure that women put on men. After the mandatory test is done, the father can open the envelope or not.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:26 PM
1

In most cases, you can't demand one in the event that child support is contested. There is not an option to get a paternity test at the hospital in many cases, like where the father is not informed of the birth. This is common. This actually reduces government regulations. By implementing this one, we can dispose of many, many others.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:24 PM
1

It is not in the better interest of children to lie to them about who their fathers are.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:22 PM
1

All we need is a system where false paternal identification is an absolute defense against child support. We need to know this even if mommy support is not in dispute. All children have a right to know who their fathers are, not only children subject to a custody suit. This is not a matter of regulating sex. It would not be unlawful for mothers to cheat. Only to lie about paternity. This is well after the sexual behavior. The state should not be a party to fraud, even if nobody else pays mommy s…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:22 PM
1

It is not in the best interest of the child to lie about who his or her father is.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:19 PM
1

Then get the results in 48 hours. This is not a reason to continue lying to fathers and children. Moreover, even if the response were different, it is never too late for the truth.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:19 PM
2

I think this idea is a lousy substitute. Why not just answer the question accurately when you can?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:17 PM
1

Physicians are trained to avoid ordering tests that don't have a benefit. This one has a gigantic benefit. It would not be expensive if a state ordered millions of them. This small amount of money could be tacked onto the patient's hospital bill. It should be mandatory because of the low compliance rate when it's voluntary--like seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Those are expensive, too, but we accept that the are worth the cost. In fact, like paternity tests, they save money.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:15 PM
1

The child would not be fatherless.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:12 PM
1

Then let's put this responsibility on women to control their procreation, not on men and children to be defrauded.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:11 PM
1

If we put bank robbers in jail, the state has to support them, so let's let them go on robbing banks.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:09 PM
1

What would it cost a state to order millions of them? Nowhere near $200.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:03 PM
1

What would it cost for a state to order millions of them? $10 each? And why not tack that $10 onto the patient's bill? Are drugs that reduce a woman's pain during labor a waste? It's certainly more of a burden for a man to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay mommy support than it is to go through labor without drugs.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:03 PM
1

Mandating tests would result in a savings of resources. A large percentage of cases in family courts would not be in dispute. There would not be an apparatus to collect mommy support payments from the wrong people. The list goes on. And what of the waste of a man's earnings to support children that aren't his?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 02:02 PM
1

And the only downside I see is every father would always know for sure who his children are. That's a downside?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:33 PM
1

Because when push comes to shove, the government doesn't care who the father is, just that there is a father source of mommy support. If the state were so concerned about parenting, fathers would be fathers rather than visitors. States don't seem to care that children have fathers only 4.33 days per month, and every other Christmas.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:33 PM
4

The only reason I've been able to come up with is that women have a lot to lose at a personal relationship level financially and therefore an interest in making sure this testing doesn't happen.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:31 PM
1

A man can argue to a court that he is the father of a child that isn't really his, and win? Without a test? In what states does this occur?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:31 PM
3

Please have the balls.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:28 PM
1

Just come out and say it. The opposition arises from the fact that universal testing would be a threat to women's deeply entrenched ability to live off the labor of a man.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:27 PM
1

The rights of the families involved to know that their children were switched outweighs the right of the doctor to avoid a lawsuit for unlawful conduct for which she was responsible by deception.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:26 PM
5

You would not have to "be one of them by default". If testing were universal, you could open the envelope or burn it, leaving the information available to those that want it. If you are concerned about destroying families, then consider this: Maggie is married to Mark. After their first child, Maggie cheats on Mark with Luke. Luke is the biological father of a baby. By allowing Maggie to lie, you have destroyed the familial relationship between Luke and his child.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:24 PM
3

But why would you interfere with everyone else's desire to know. If testing were universal, you could open the envelope or burn it.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:21 PM
2

The doctor would not be giving information about the mother. He would be giving information that would permit inference about the mother's behavior, but this is not protected information--it's not medical.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:19 PM
1

Men who are not biological fathers can still have legal rights as parents.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:18 PM
1

He is not violating the privacy of any woman to tell a legal father that his child does not share his DNA. There is no information about the mother therein.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:17 PM
1

Doctors are not banned from giving this information, they simply don't want to. The ethical issue is just an excuse. They just don't want to.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:16 PM
2

A doctor cut open my grandfather's abdomen to repair an aneurism. Having done so, he discovered cancerous tumors on the liver. Would it be unethical to disclose this fact because he was only there to repair the aneurism? If the child will inherit because the presumed father has a dominant gene that causes illness, would it be unethical for the doctor to say, "Your son has sickle-cell anemia, which is a Y chromosome defect" because his only job is to say that the child will or will not inherit th…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 01:15 PM
0

Comprehensive = Of large content or scope; wide-ranging. You want me to stray from the main subject, or exhaustively say everything there is to say about the subject? You think continuing to defraud a man because he has previously been defrauded is not how the law works. It is how the law works. If a woman can defraud a man until he establishes a parental obligation under the law, he will be required to continue to pay mommy support even if he is not a parent. fathersandfamilies.org.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 12:31 PM
0

Of course it is. If my wife withholds from me the fact that she cheated, and I believe the child to be mine, I will establish a legal obligation based on that fraud. I will be liable to pay mommy support if we separate, even if I later prove I am not the father. That's now the law works.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:08 AM
1

This discussion is predicated on a change in the law--universal paternity tests. There is no reason that revision could not be more broad. Even if it didn't affect family court decisions, it's still good policy. It's never too late.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:05 AM
1

if they are fighting for equality, they are not MRAs, they are mislabled I agree with that, which is why I have never used the phrase.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:28 AM
1

You think that the fact that a man has been defrauded for several years is a reason to continue defrauding him? It is never too late to inform the biological father that he has a child, or to inform the child that they deserve a chance for the familial love of the biological father. It is never to late to expose an ongoing financial fraud. Why do you defend the practice of mothers to demand child support from someone who is a victim of their lies, and to continue abusing their children by lying …
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:25 AM
1

I think a universal test at birth is a good idea. But persons who became parents long ago should have the option of paternity tests without interference from the mother or the law. And the fact that a man has been defrauded for 12 years is not a reason to continue defrauding him. Why do you want men situated this way to be forced to be parents if they are not among the vast majority who would want to be parents? Instead, how about criminal charges for fraud for mothers who collected child suppor…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:23 AM
3

Their are feminists who are actually fighting for true equality. If they are fighting for equality, they are not feminists, they are mislabeled. There are no feminsits fighting for equality in conscription, criminal sentencing, paternity fraud, college scholarships, sex crimes and domestic violence responses.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:03 AM
1

There is not an ethical dilemma in telling the whole truth. The dilemma is not ethical, they merely fear unjust consequences.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:01 AM
1

Lying to children about who their parents are and denying them familial love is not best for the child. Lying to men by implying they don't have children if they do is not best for children. Defrauding men is not best for children.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 07:00 AM
1

Does the mere existence of a criminal court assume everyone is a crook? No, it assumes some people are and seeks to identify them for the benefit of those who are not. A paternity test is merely a method of inquiry, like a court.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:58 AM
1

Lying to children is more helpful than the truth?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:53 AM
1

What if you didn't have informed consent? What if you were married, then had a child, and your wife lied to you about cheating. You think it's great that you can be defrauded before you raise the child to 12 years old, that the child can be lied to about who his or her parents are, and that the biological father can have his children unilaterally removed from his life? That's not great.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:52 AM
0

How about proof of paternity as a condition of being a legal parent?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:50 AM
1

The people that benefit from paternity tests are not only the people that request them. Men who believe they are fathers and don't ask for tests need to be informed when women lie to them, men who don't know they have children and thus can't ask for tests need to be informed they are fathers, and children who can't ask for tests need to know who their fathers are.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:49 AM
1

It's not particularly expensive for the state to order millions of them, and it's cheaper than the alternatives. Money aside, what is your child worth to you?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:47 AM
1

But fathers who are present and don't deny paternity are often not the biological fathers. Let's protect them, too, and the children that mother's lie to, and the biological fathers who are unilaterally denied familial love.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 06:46 AM
1

Okay, you don't have to cite sources. You said "There were plenty of women that did want exactly what you stated." Just describe them. Give me a few examples. When were these women active in seeking equality and what did they do to achieve it?
/r/MensRights25/07/13 01:24 PM
1

I did not dispute that women deserve to be included in the democratic process. I asked when have women demanded the responsibility to be fully and equally included in the democratic process by defending it in times of war. You still have not answered. The draft is not irrelevant because we still have a selective service that requires men, but not women, to be available in case of war. Moreover, among the volunteer services, only men, and never women, are ordered into the most dangerous combat oc…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 09:12 AM
1

I'm pretty sure THIS is what you said: MRAs giant raging assholes shit pile of feces fucked up fucked up redpill or whatever I'll cite sources here slink back with your tail between your knees piss off big damn internet argument yelling at each other ignorance and misogyny superiority complex you haven't been fucked in a while Hell I'm wrong Bitches fucks his way across America passing out hot dickings raging douchecopter we'd all be better off if you jumped in front of a bus oh great wise one p…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 06:18 AM
1

I don't want to argue, either. I just want you to answer the question. I am confident that Wikipedia does not have this information because it never happened. I think you made it up. But I am anxious for you to prove me wrong. You have been insisting again and again, so I am sure you can come up with a few examples.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:23 AM
1

I didn't pick a fight, I asked a question. You still haven't answered it, yet here you are talking ugly. Are you a red pill? I don't need a dissertation, just a few examples to support the position you asserted would be enough.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 07:05 PM
1

I didn't ask if there were women senators at the time suffrage, I asked when there has been a movement for equal risks and responsibilities. You said there was one, but you still have not answered the question. Does red pill mean asking questions about women's opinions and activities?
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:34 PM
0

Can you be more specific about this popular movement among women draft women and order them into the most dangerous combat occupations equally? No woman has ever introduced a bill in Congress to do that. There have not been any articles in Ms. Magazine advocating it. There haven't been any demonstrations at the Capitol demanding it. There has never been a lobbyist registered for that position. The League of Women Voters has never published a plank on the subject. NOW opposes it. So who are these…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 06:53 AM
17

shitstorm Please channel that energy into kicking up a shitstorm with your legislature regarding equally shared parenting, with your university about their rules on sexual assault or sexual harassment complaints, with your employer about discriinatory leave practices, and so on.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 05:06 AM
1

I didn't ask why Congress did not demand equal risks and responsibilities when they granted equal rights and privileges to women, I asked when women demanded them. There is no argument therein. It's just a question. And so far you have put forth no reason to believe that women have ever sought or wanted equality.
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:23 AM
1

Congress does not have unique knowledge of when women demanded equal risks and responsibilities of citizenship. So, when did women demand these risks and responsibilities? If giving everyone the right to vote in a nation means giving everyone the right to vote (we know women have been aggressive about demanding that right) doesn't giving everyone the responsibility to defend that right to keep the nation from collapsing into a pile of feces and explosions mean giving everyone that responsibility…
/r/MensRights24/07/13 04:00 AM
2

Suffrage=The right to vote. Women have a superior position in the U.S. today with respect to political power and wealth. If feminists want equality, that must mean they want to give up some of their political power and some of their wealth to men. We both know they don't. If you do the math, that means that feminists don't really want equality. Women are 50% more likely to get a college degree, and there are hundreds of millions of dollars in scholarship money reserved only for women. The AAUW i…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:29 PM
1

Yes, the only thing determining who is in government is the voters. Feminism does not want to regulate who gets to vote??????? Feminism is not concerned with suffrage for women???????? Feminism does not try to influence how people vote or for whom?????????? What structural discrimination keeps women from going to the county courthouse and filing for candidacy? In every state in the U.S. except Alaska, women constitute a decisive majority of eligible voters. The same is true in nearly every local…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:58 PM
2

A common critique within feminism, from queer feminism towards liberal feminism, is that the belief that gender equality within government/leadership of corporations would make the world a better place. Since women (in the U.S.) have more votes, and thus more control over their subservient representatives, and since women have greater net worth, and this more control over their subservient executives, your have to be saying feminists want fewer women to be eligible to vote, and for women to be p…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 06:58 PM
1

No, I don't see where this goes off the track. Women are not less healthy than men, and have the same ability to be drafted. There is no reason that women can't then be ordered into the most dangerous combat occupations at the same rate as men. I am not aware that there are any language barriers to conscription that are unique to women. Can you see the difference between having a role in production and the home front and 292,000 dead men? Can you draw a difference between someone working in a mu…
/r/MensRights23/07/13 06:53 PM
2

I understand your point of view, I wonder if OP shares it, or has a different one.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:46 PM
1

Let's don't stretch the logic. Let's apply it to the question at hand. At the time women were granted the right to vote by men in the U.S., did they also demand equal responsibility to defend that right? Have they done so since then. Have they done so anywhere in the world? Have they resisted that responsibility? If not, what women sought and seek was/is not equality, was it? Women want and have a position of superiority, right?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 05:46 PM
2

Are you objecting to the word pupils because it is inclusive of both genders, or some other reason?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 02:53 PM
1

That's how the law works. Yes, you have to serve her with a complaint. Maybe you can get that info from someone who knows her, or wait for her to get in a car and record the license number (which would only work in states that publish license data), or you might be out of luck.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 08:03 AM
1

It would not be illegal to call the police, but it would not help. Accusing you of rape is not a crime. It might be a tort, so instead of the police, file a civil lawsuit.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:52 AM
0

Its not a crime.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:50 AM
2

I would consider women to be underprivileged in this situation (clubbing and bars) Women are underprivileged because they can cut in line and get free drinks?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:50 AM
2

What privileges do men have that women don"t?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:49 AM
1

Is that why feminists are so aggressive in pursuing equality for the Selective Service, for equal sentencing for criminals, for equal representation in colleges, for equal custody awards in family court? Because that's their main ideology?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:47 AM
1

Men don't have more money. They a have lower average net worth. What they have is a greater spending obligation, and women take advantage of that.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:45 AM
1

The point is that it's also horrible if any gender or race does not have the corresponding responsibilities and risks. When did women fight for those responsibilities and risks, like black men did in the U.S.?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:41 AM
1

Why not concurrently give women the responsibility to die defending their rights? When did women fight for that?
/r/MensRights23/07/13 07:38 AM
2

You mean this male-dominated society? http://www.passioncompassion1418.com/citations/ImagesCitations/FinOffensive.jpg Who are they dominating?
/r/MensRights21/07/13 09:58 PM
3

Grant bail because the defendant has four children? Is that what we do with men? Your honor, my client can't possibly sit in jail until trial, he has visitation with his kids every other weekend.
/r/MensRights20/07/13 09:53 AM
1

So you didn't think the stories of other people should be posted, but yours is different. I am curious to know what purpose your story has if all of the others didn't have a purpose. Your story is the result of what?
/r/MensRights19/07/13 07:43 PM
2

If there are "so many" incidents, Axxys, then they are not "isolated".
/r/MensRights19/07/13 03:36 AM
3

Being a bouncer does not require more muscles or weight than being a policeman.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 05:11 AM
2

but maybe if women feel the same unjust sentencing, I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 03:36 AM
11

I didn't see anyone fighting to prevent women from ever suffering. I saw a lawyer trying to get the best outcome for a client. Just like you would want your lawyer to do for you. The state applied the law with absolute equality. If you listened to the arguments, the main issue was that the state does not have the discretion to apply the law in any way but equally. But it appears to be an unjust law, so it should be reformed. Then neither men nor women will be unjustly sentenced. I fail to see an…
/r/MensRights18/07/13 03:34 AM
17

when a judge asks you a question, the correct answer is not "I'll get there." Nothing wrong with telling the judge the answer to his question is in her prepared remarks, and if she carries on with her prepared speech, it will be addressed. the jury didn't know the crime had a life sentance when they convicted her of it The jury made a finding of fact in this case. They decided that the defendant was or was not responsible. The jury instructions do not contain information about the sentence, and …
/r/MensRights17/07/13 07:47 PM
449

Agree. There is a gender disparity. Let's solve that problem by reaching for justice for men, not injustice for women.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 07:41 PM
1

You don't have the right to harass someone with lawsuits for hanging such posters. You don't get to "deem" what the law is. The law exists apart from your deeming.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:13 PM
1

You're okay with a system in which you can be brought to court for ANYTHING? Even speech?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:12 PM
1

Doesn't matter. The important legal and extra-legal issue is, Can they put up such posters or not, even if the authority to take them down arises somewhere other than the government?
/r/MensRights17/07/13 04:11 PM
1

The second link is the most relevant because it shows us that limitations on one's natural right to speak do not arise only from the government. Your right to speak can be infringed by your employer, your landlord, a consumer boycott, or in this case, by rabid packs of self-appointed Political Correctness Police. These feminists were not protesting the content of Leykis's speech, they set out to silence him. Because of the extremity of political correctness in Canada, the rule is, If I don't lik…
/r/MensRights17/07/13 03:26 PM
2

The Don't Be That Girl posters were removed by the government. That's a drastic curtailment on free speech, and for you to even suggest it's not is utterly ridiculous. Is this the kind of freedom you mean? http://www.rachelmarsden.com/columns/leykis.html Or do you mean this kind? http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/11/19/feminists-show-how-they-feel-about-free-speech-at-warren-farrell-presentation/ There are, of course, countless more examples.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:56 AM
2

Is this the kind of freedom you mean? http://www.rachelmarsden.com/columns/leykis.html Or do you mean this kind? http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/11/19/feminists-show-how-they-feel-about-free-speech-at-warren-farrell-presentation/ There are, of course, countless more examples.
/r/MensRights17/07/13 12:53 AM
8

That's true because of Canada's severe limits on free speech.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 04:26 PM
1

Harassment or assault would be my guess. Although depending on what the girls told the police, many other violations could come into play.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 08:14 PM
1

He was handcuffed because the police officers had information that he may have committed a crime. They investigated. When no sufficient evidence emerged, he was released. That's what police officers are supposed to do. Although I suspect they exhibited some inappropriate bias, they did not act illegally. They did not refuse to prosecute the girls for trespassing. That option remains available to the man. It is not unlawful for the police to fail to take this initiative. I am not defending the po…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 06:47 PM
1

As far as we know, nobody was charged with creepy. The girls did leave the property.
/r/MensRights14/07/13 11:17 AM
1

Wasting police time is not a against the law. The girls told the police the man was creepy. How would you prove that was a lie? And who is the aggrieved party? The state? You want a prosecutor to file criminal charges and then conduct a trial based on whether or not the man is creepy or not? I don't think the girls did anything unlawful. Sure, they may have been cunts, but that's allowed. The conduct of the police was almost certainly wrong, but it's very unlikely they broke any laws. You can't …
/r/MensRights14/07/13 04:44 AM
1

First, if the event occurred as described, posting it on the internet would almost surely harm the girls and not the man. Second, the man would have to prove that he was harmed. He didn't lose his job, his wife didn't leave him. Third, the girls would raise a litany of conditional privileges. Each of them would claim they were protecting the other, that it was in the interest of the public to know about this pervert, and so on. The biggest obstacle is that if the girls did not assert any factual…
/r/MensRights14/07/13 04:32 AM
1

You would probably have to prove the girls trespassed for the purpose of causing emotional distress. And you would have to prove the monetary value of the man's feels.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 04:15 PM
1

Not a chance. First, if the event occurred as described, posting it on the internet would almost surely harm the girls and not the man. Second, the man would have to prove that he was harmed. He didn't lose his job, his wife didn't leave him. Third, the girls would raise a litany of conditional privileges. Each of them would claim they were protecting the other, that it was in the interest of the public to know about this pervert, and so on. The biggest obstacle is that if the girls did not asse…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 11:31 AM
1

This doesn't sound likely. He was accused of a crime. Based on the testimony of the complainants, he was detained while an investigation was undertaken. When no evidence emerged, he was released. I think the issue here is heavy-handed cops. I don't see any tort on the part of the girls. Even the cops, biased as they may have been, probably acted within the law. This is not a legal problem, it's a cultural problem. It needs a cultural solution, not a lawsuit.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 09:21 AM
10

What are the damages?
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:11 AM
-2

What law did they violate?
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:26 AM
5

If a cashier is robbed at a gas station, and he has previously reported being struck by a hit and run driver, should we disbelieve the robbery allegation?
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:26 AM
8

What's your legal theory? Saying someone is creepy is not a tort. What law did they violate?
/r/MensRights13/07/13 05:19 AM
1

Seriously, SabatoPsy? How is oppression worse for women? For example, you mentioned stoning in the middle east. In 2012, in Saudi Arabia, 80 men and 2 women were executed. I guess you think that the lives of two women are worth more than 80 men, right?
/r/MensRights09/07/13 01:00 PM
2

In what ways are female oppression worse?
/r/MensRights08/07/13 05:43 PM
4

Your argument seems to be that if a woman can manage to be a lazy parasite for 20 years, living off the labor of another person, it is perfectly appropriate that her desire to be a lazy parasite forever should be enforced by law. If she has had a free ride for 20 years, she should never be expected to support herself.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 05:20 AM
5

To the extent that boys need less of this, girls need more.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 06:01 AM
6

It's also possible that boys get incarcerated for exactly the same crimes for which girls do not get incarcerated, or get longer sentences. It's possible that bias in reporting, investigating, and prosecuting lead to this. When two boys have a fistfight, it might be more likely that someone calls the police than when two girls fight. It might be more likely that police handle the cases differently, and prosecutors charge differently. It might be that judges have a bias at the time of sentencing.…
/r/MensRights11/06/13 08:34 AM
3

It can't be said that 91% of "troubled youths" are male, it can only be said that 91% of youths incarcerated are male.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 07:15 AM
3

Could you define rape, please?
/r/MensRights23/05/13 05:57 PM
10

Your reading comprehension is poor. "We were both fully clothed, and he started rubbing up against me." She knew he was rubbing up against her before he left to clean himself. This is before she finds anything objectionable. This is at the point when she WANTED to explore her sexuality. It was ONLY "Once I understood what had happened (he had an orgasm), I felt violated." "He never asked for my permission (to have an orgasm)." "I wanted to explore my sexuality a little, but things went further t…
/r/MensRights23/05/13 04:42 PM
26

No, the girl did not object to anything the boy did UNTIL he had to get up and clean himself. Her objection is the the fact that that he had an orgasm. She was fully aware of what he was doing and approved until that time. Her problem is that she did not give permission for him to feel good enough to reach orgasm. She wants to control his thoughts.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 01:52 PM
82

Let's be clear about the crime here. The boy enjoyed what the girl was doing more than the girl approved of. Had he enjoyed it only to the extent of the girl's approval, no offense. That means the crime was that his private thoughts of pleasure exceeded the girl's expectations. "You were happy without my permission." This is not based on his actions, the crime is that the boy had feelings that the girl did not control.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 10:07 AM
1

The point of the article is that women get lifetime enjoyment of a home that they didn't pay for. And why would anyone be obliged to give the deed for a home they paid for to someone that didn't pay for it? The point to the article is that women are snivelling that they got free housing, and that free housing is not enough. In addition to free housing, cash, and gold, they want the deed as well. Fuck them. If they want the deed to an apartment, let them buy it.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 02:10 AM
2

Free homes, cash, and gold benefits women.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 02:05 PM
2

They are being given free homes by men who work in coal mines to buy them. You're right, it's unbalanced.
/r/MensRights06/05/13 02:05 PM
1

I didn't say any of that. You made it all up.
/r/MensRights02/05/13 05:53 AM
8

You must have missed the part where I said that bodybuilding drugs MAY be manifestations of illness. Not every woman who uses Qnexa to lose weight meets the diagnostic criteria for anorexia, and not every bodybuilder who uses Qnexa to lose weight suffers from body dismorphia, but many men and women have illnesses that compel them to use dangerous drugs, or to use drugs dangerously. I do not assert that every Women's Studies student is mentally ill, but to the extent that feminism occupies the sp…
/r/MensRights01/05/13 04:16 PM
6

Yes, a man trying to win a race is trying to increase the esteem he receives, just like women do via appearance. That he is not ONLY trying to pick up chicks does not alter this fact. Married women are obsessed with appearance even when they are not trying to pick up dudes. These behaviors are deeply embedded in the organism. Men are under the same pressure to perform as women are to look good. That means run, earn, have the answers to questions, physically defend, court, et al, et al.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 03:40 PM
7

Male performance is an image issue as much as female attractiveness.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 02:07 PM
24

In all cases, these may not be genuine choices, but manifestations of illness: bodybuilding drugs, anorexia, and women's studies.
/r/MensRights01/05/13 02:06 PM
1

What data tells you men cause more damage?
/r/MensRights23/04/13 04:50 PM
1

He does not say that he thinks rape is or was exciting, he says that a paradigm in which women said one thing but meant another was widely regarded as exciting. Observing that some people like things that are undesirable is not equivalent to advocating them. If a historian says the Nazi party was popular, we are out of bounds to call him a Nazi apologist.
/r/MensRights23/04/13 04:33 PM
33

Remember when male only golf clubs were a sexist plot? What's the difference?
/r/MensRights23/04/13 04:07 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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