TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

WhyWasntINotified Archive

View 1 posts and 48 comments by WhyWasntINotified on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Just curious, have you looked in to imputing a salary on your ex? err.. just running the numbers here: Holy crap! *Minimum wage equals(yearly) $22,880 in Canada. That equals out to $183.22 a month in child support. It'd be years before you got your lawyer fees back! *I assume that is the minimum that would be imputed on someone who has barely worked in their life.
/r/MensRights20/02/15 10:20 PM
1

Well I hope that a CAS report wouldn't hinge on whether or not the person reporting it had custodial rights or not, but depending on where you are your mileage may vary. The important part of what I wrote above was that lying parent would be liable in court and there would be a paper trail (presumably the registration documents at the doctors office, hospital, school, etc.)
/r/MensRights26/11/14 09:55 PM
1

The doctors should be responsible and they are already involved (booking the surgery) by taking complete authority from 1 parent and not considering the other. That's why I suggested in an other post that certain public entities should practice an understood, and upfront system of joint consent where there are 2 or more custodial parents, separated or not. It's not like consent forms are foreign concepts to doctors and hospitals.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 04:30 AM
1

Yup. Worth a try. And, like I mentioned above, now would be a good time to go to your child's school and remind the school of your parental status so you don't run into a similar situation down the road.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 12:23 AM
2

I sometimes wonder if it would be possible through legal liability pressures, to get certain institutions like hospitals, medical offices, schools, etc. to require consent arrangements and tracking for custodial parents. Something like: Sole custodial parents: The parent certifies that they can make unilateral decisions (like major medical operations) when registering the child. Can be challenged if registering parent lies and will be liable for lying. Married custodial parents/Highly amicable c…
/r/MensRights25/11/14 11:49 PM
1

Unfortunately, legal pressure is your only way to move your narcissistic ex. This is the game you will have to enter into. Understand "the game" is made to be a cash cow for lawyers, so anything...anything at all you can throw at your ex will be net -$ pressure for her. The war is a war of attrition. Everything her lawyer has to respond to (and her lawyer will eagerly) will counter act her goals. The rule is, men (or "breadwinners") need an "ace in the hole" to maintain contact with their childr…
/r/MensRights12/10/14 05:46 PM
2

Having gone through a similar situation, the only advice (small hope) I may be able to offer is this: Try not to panic about you and your daughter's relationship right now. I admit it is, by some degree, in peril right now, however children are resilient. What I mean is, your relationship with her is the most important thing to maintain. So, when you are with her be as calm and positive as possible. Make the most of it, and try to put the rest of your life out of your head. Have faith that your …
/r/MensRights12/10/14 05:10 PM
1

"Ostensibly, I have no problems with the concepts of either alimony or child support. But the formulas need to be fair and cannot be sexist." As someone who's gone/going through a divorce with children I've had a lot of time to think about this. The main problem with any philosophical/moralistic support system, is that they should (rightly) be flexible to account for a change in dichotomy. For instance, when the economy is tanking, a given society will often institute support programs used to br…
/r/MensRights14/08/14 04:30 PM
3

Something really needs to be done to get the CBA out of our politics. The fact that pundits, so brazenly accept arguments from the Canadian Bar Association as legitimate, is completely unacceptable. Further, allowing our MP's to be members of the CBA (I'm looking at you Sean Casey) while they serve us is truly a travesty of democracy. Members of the CBA make up a 4 Billion dollar industry in Canada, and they WILL lobby against Canadian's interests that conflict with their financial interests. Pl…
/r/MensRights26/05/14 07:04 PM
0

hmm..I'm going to go with: Canada should NOT be granting refugee status to this person. 30 years seems like too much to me, but this is a bad precedent. What other crimes and punishments don't "jive" between the U.S. and Canada? Too many to list I suspect. The sentence is pushing the boundary a little, but not enough for me as a Canadian to agree with refugee status. And we are talking about rape. She did the FL crime in FL, she does FL's time.
/r/MensRights21/05/14 05:03 AM
1

Fathers don't have rights, they have responsibilities.
/r/MensRights21/04/14 05:42 PM
3

A standard condition to Child Support (status quo/case law) here in Canada, is to have the payer (usually the father), pay also for life insurance to cover the cost of of CS up until the age of majority. Usually around 20-30$ per month for that kind of coverage. Edit: So yeah, that's your answer. More settlements would include this condition (mother's lawyer would insure it was in there) and/or it would eventually be codified into law. Lawyers are way ahead of you = They found something else to …
/r/MensRights21/04/14 05:11 PM
1

Thanks. I had my coffee, so I'm starting to understand. I'm wondering if there is a missing component here though. That component being the CS offset, which (I might be wrong) starts at around 10,000/year or so, on the "baby moma" side, of which welfare is calculated to (income). Although I don't know if welfare is meant to reach that level. Edit: I'm pretty sure adding more welfare income to the CS amount offset means reduced CS payments to the payee. For Example: A payee with 1 child, should r…
/r/MensRights17/04/14 03:44 PM
1

This is relevant to me, but also news to me. Could some one help me out and elaborate a little more about the relationship between child support and social assistance payments? I haven't had enough coffee yet. Thanks
/r/MensRights17/04/14 02:07 PM
1

This is no laughing matter, Ridergal. Over the last 3 months apart from you, before you came waltzing through my front door, I've changed...people change. Things were different before that time. We were just two young kids, caught up in the passion, and political and legal waves of upheaval of that era. We were out to change the world back then. Now, I've grown up. Aggressive? No. More like, seeing things through a different lens. An enlightenment, if you will. You still don't see it do you? Con…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 05:29 AM
1

You're still here? I thought you walked away. Do you know what I think? .... .... I think you like me. Yup! You have a crush on me. That's why you keep trying to have a conversation after all these months. It's obvious, but look, I'm kinda', sorta' already seeing someone at the moment. It's been great, really. We laughed, we cried. We shared our deepest held feelings with each other. But, it's over now. It's time to move on. It's been fun, gal. Maybe, once the dust settles in a few months things…
/r/MensRights02/04/14 04:42 AM
1

The "I don't care anymore" defense? Meh.
/r/MensRights02/04/14 03:54 AM
0

It's three months later and you are still trying to have a conversation with someone who has walked away. Talk to yourself much? Replying to your question above would be an act of conversation. I'm not falling for that trick! I have it on good authority that you've walked away. Logic: How does it work?
/r/MensRights01/04/14 10:06 PM
1

"Yes, joint custody is a presumption in the current act" No, shared custody is not a presumption in the current act. "Joint custody" is a term relating to decision making. Joint custody is favored under the current act, but has nothing to do with this bill. It's 3 months later, and you still have no idea what you are talking about.
/r/MensRights31/03/14 04:42 AM
4

Actually, the first thing I noticed was the headline. "parenting rights"? I've always been on the fence about whether it's a good idea to use that concept. It's been argued that "Parents don't have rights, they have responsibilities." And, I can see how you can get into "hot water" if you say this is about parenting rights. Philosophically speaking I'm OK with saying parents have rights. However, in this context I'm wondering if it's strategic to frame it that way. What do you think?
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:50 PM
3

I've been following this too. This morning I was considering how the Conservatives have been doing lately. Not much dogging them right now (looks like the Senate scandal has died down for the moment), so maybe they might take a chance on this. Regardless, it really sets the stage for exposure on this issue. Also, this morning I was elated to see Barbara Kay's article. I was really hoping to see a member of LW4SP to step up. Nothing better than getting attention on a major news outlet (National P…
/r/MensRights19/03/14 04:24 PM
1

I would recommend the following advice to solve the problem. It would help if there could be a recommendation for people to post asking for advice, rather than spew hate. Let's face it. People come here (and to any other activist group for that matter) because they have been hurt. If they suffer in silence, thinking they are powerless, then you end up with angry posts (which is really just lashing out), circle jerks (distraction), and vague/lazy posts (avoidance). Take a page from women's groups…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 02:21 PM
2

This is something I've been thinking about a lot. What is the formula in this state? When someone debates in favor of child support, claiming it's fair, how do they know? Have they seen and analyzed the formula? I am talking about the actual formula. Something like what you would enter into an Excel formula bar, and the economics behind each variable. Again, do you understand the exact formula, and how each variable was arrived at? Is child support fair? In a sense, supporting your child emotion…
/r/MensRights04/03/14 01:39 PM
1

Excellent article. Good post.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 04:42 AM
1

Wouldn't that be "keeping 2 households afloat"?
/r/MensRights26/02/14 04:37 PM
0

Oh, sure! Quit using sarcasm, that'll work. ;)
/r/MensRights25/02/14 02:57 PM
2

Another thing to do is mediation. Not sure if you've been yet. Basically, if she agrees to go (and she might if you can pay a lawyer to fire a shot across her bow) then mediation might work. Mediators are lawyers, but cheaper, and if they tell your ex she will lose if she pushes the issue, it might convince her. You wouldn't have to bring your lawyer. Just keep extremely tight lipped, as some mediation processes are not entirely confidential, depending.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 02:29 PM
4

Pretend like you're ready financially to go to trial. Then it might scare your ex, and then at least you'll only have to pay your lawyer to draft a divorce order, and scare her off. Usually, disputes are resolved under the "shadow of the law". I don't think your ex should have any legal arguments against the shared calculation.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 05:51 AM
1

I'm probably going to have to go through the same thing one day soon (also in Ontario). I kind of imagined it would be legal wrangling between lawyers, and very unlikely to end up in court. I hope I'm correct... Hang in there. You're not alone.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 05:38 AM
11

I farking hate how they get away with calling it "Mandatory Joint Custody". It's so dishonest. But then again, I've never seen an honest approach from detractors of Rebutted Presumptive Shared Equal Parenting initiatives
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:59 AM
23

NOW and its co-thinkers, to their credit, once encouraged fathers, fathering and shared parenting. In 1971 Gloria Steinem wrote that children suffer from having “too little father” in their lives, and that a more equal balance of parenting was needed. Karen DeCrow, president of NOW from 1974 to 1977, says “it was clear from the feminist writings and ideas of the '60s and '70s that joint custody was what we supported after a divorce.” //stolen
/r/MensRights23/02/14 01:17 AM
6

Also, if the timing is right, and the "non-bread winner" is awarecrafty enough, she can lock in the previous years income as a support calculation for the year, her now ex, is unemployed. Better to grab what you can and go for the duel male (second partner) support income, than take a chance with the loser who lost his job. As an added bonus, she can argue "under employment" every year after, for and application to impute a salary, circumstances be damned. The "bread-winner"/"lounge at home" dic…
/r/MensRights22/02/14 08:51 PM
0

If its already in a guidelines, why do we need to this bill to begin with? Because, if you read the article I posted, these guidelines have been ignored for 15 years. So your idea of another guideline is stupid. The report was meant to change the law. Guidelines will not trump status quos, case law, and decisions made from precedent. Your idea that a new guideline sheet with a mishmash of vague language will fix anything is supported by NO ONE. "Judges do a great job"...and "We need to address t…
/r/MensRights14/12/13 10:58 AM
1

Hey look the word "forced" again. Wow what a surprise! I would like this to be put in a guideline document for judges. It already is in a guideline. Here it is: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1031529&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1&File=6 Ooops, you showed how you have no introspection on this issue again. "..that judges would talk to the family and treat them like people" They already do. They're called case conferences. Ooops, you did it again.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 11:34 PM
0

All Acts use the word "shall" because that defines what actions judges have to take. I have no problem with the bill saying judges should consider the best interests of the child but judges are already doing that so I don't understand why this bill is needed to begin with. So you like should rather than shall? Christ almighty! Maybe you should let the grownups talk.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 06:14 PM
0

The bill says judges have to force joint custody unless the parents fight for some other arrangement. How is that flexibility? The words principles, considerations and presumptions are not open to judge's interpretations? I'm getting tired this. The bill does not have the word "force" in it. This is a common lie that opponents of similar family law systems trot out, without any merit. This bill is in line with the Australian system, which has been operating on for several years now. After all th…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 05:59 PM
1

"the court shall" The divorce act in it's current form contains the exact same words. I don't know how you could have any legal act without them. Those words are to provide judges with direction in procedural matters that they can follow, so that something actually gets done in court, and provides consistency among different judges. You can't have a laws with words like "maybe if you feel like it" or "so, if ya' know, what ever is cool with you" The current act uses the same words, here is an ex…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 04:11 PM
0

It would be poorly worded if it contained the words you have added. Section 16 is a presumption not the "only consideration" as you have added. Every legal act (including the current one) has presumptions. Presumptions dont exclude other considerations. Nothing is "forced" in this bill at all. Where are you getting the idea that something is "forced" against other interests? There is nothing in the current act either about how to make mediation a reality. Yet, millions of people under the curren…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 07:45 AM
0

Subsection 16? Wow! That says the complete opposite your interpretation. *(16) The additional considerations to be taken into account in determining the best interests of a child of the marriage, to be assessed in the aggregate, are (a) any views that are voluntarily expressed by the child free from influence by either spouse or by any other person, with due weight to be given by the court to these views in accordance with the maturity and comprehension level of the child; * The court will consi…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 07:06 PM
0

This bill does no such thing. This bill does not force anything upon parents who are asked and can agree. This bill equalizes presumptions in high conflict separations. "This is a bill that forces the government into custody arrangements, especially when no one wants the government in custody arrangements." That's a nice libertarian thought; that society won't get involved in the welfare of families (children, property, finance). Unfortunately, we have tried that and people suffered. That is why…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 04:14 PM
2

If you're not in one of the states I listed above, then I might suggest writing your state representative. The more jurisdictions that adopt this legal framework the better it is for other countries and jurisdictions to point at for comparison. For instance Australia is a shinning example of this fundamental shift in protecting children and parents rights (mainly fathers) you can read about it here: http://sharedparentingaustralia.wordpress.com/ Basically there are 2 systems of family law emergi…
/r/MensRights12/12/13 04:13 AM
1

If you support this, then find your MP here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx and send them an email stating that you support Shared Parenting Bill C-560
/r/MensRights12/12/13 01:17 AM
3

There is still time to write your MP though.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 01:09 AM
2

Yeah, that was a cut+paste fail.
/r/MensRights12/12/13 01:08 AM
1

Child support is a separate issue for me. Personally, I'd like to see a graduated equalization system. Where financial responsibilities over X amount of time are presumed to be equal between parents. This follows basic financial support structures throughout societal norms (employment insurance, welfare support, etc)
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:55 PM
1

In the USA many States have shared parenting laws including Deleware, DC, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, and Texas. The following are some of the best relevant statutes from states which provide a strong preference for joint custody: • ALASKA • CALIFORNIA • KANSAS • MICHIGAN • MINNESOTA • MISSISSIPPI • NEW HAMPSHIRE The following two states have case law which make joint custody a preference: • GEORGIA • KENTUCKY Minnesota and Massachusetts have shared Parenting bills before the…
/r/MensRights11/12/13 10:00 PM
0

This blog is good too: http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/tag/bill-c-560-equal-parenting/
/r/MensRights11/12/13 09:03 PM
3

Also, this is a good read: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/12/10/barbara-kay-yet-more-family-law-gender-injustice/
/r/MensRights11/12/13 07:48 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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