TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

aardvarkious Archive

View 3 posts and 236 comments by aardvarkious 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)
1

I love how you explain her covering it up as her showing more morality and ethics Where did I argue that she was a moral and ethical person? Nowhere. it was her that hit them in the first place. Hitting them was an accident. One that could've happened to anyone driving a car. The fact that she hit the kids has absolutely nothing to do with her ethics or morality. It is how she responded that matters. And no denying that she responded in a morally reprehensible manner. Just keep jumping through t…
/r/MensRights03/02/14 12:05 AM
1

I'm guessing a large part of the difference was her crying in court. I doubt it. The big difference is that it is very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew he was going to wash the car. I mean, even if she did know, how do you prove that she knew? On the other hand, it is relatively easy to prove that he washed it. It's possible to interpret this using the classic "women are morally superior" theory, of course. You are the one reading that narrative into things so that you …
/r/MensRights02/02/14 08:22 PM
2

Remember, the two crimes here are failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and hindering prosecution in regards to that crime of not remaining at the scene. The accident itself was not a crime. She certainly committed the crime of not remaining at the scene of the accident. However, he is the one that committed the crime of hindering prosecution. What is your basis for assuming she ordered the later crime? And even of you do have basis for that assumption, it is very very very difficult to…
/r/MensRights02/02/14 06:53 PM
1

Good thing the rabble's emotion isn't what legal sentencing is based on. Because a true accident without negligence doesn't deserve jail time. And I don't buy that hitting a pile of leaves in a road way is negligence. No driver would expect kids to be in them.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 04:10 PM
2

She killed them in an accident. Hitting leaves in a road way isn't something that you would reasonably expect to kill two children. She shouldn't go to jail for that. She didn't report the accident or stay at the scene. Hence the criminal charges. However, if all she did was not report (something passive) and the boyfriend took steps to cover it up (something active) without her knowledge, then he rightly deserves a larger sentence.
/r/MensRights02/02/14 04:09 PM
1

Is that because you have personal experience with him, or because you are just assuming?
/r/MensRights02/02/14 12:51 AM
2

She could be in more emotional distress because she was the one who actually was driving when she was hit. Maybe she just had a stronger conscience pang than him. Or maybe they were in equal shock, but they just have different reactions: some people freeze, some people react when shocked.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 07:58 PM
0

Sorry I misunderstood you then. What was your point?
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:39 PM
-3

And you waded in to argue that the idea of "we don't know what happened and was provable against a reasonable doubt in a court of law" is narrow.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:33 PM
0

You are the one pushing a narrow view. You are the one saying "this is exactly what happened." I am the one saying "we really don't know what happened, and even if we have a good idea, we have no idea what was provable beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law." Proving that he washed the car is a lot easier than proving that she had knowledge of him washing the car.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 04:15 PM
-6

There are a number of plausible scenarios where that could happen. And remember, to convict her, it would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (not just suspected) that she knew. If, for example, she says "I was in shock and not paying attention: I didn't notice he took the keys" or "I thought he was taking the car home, I had no idea he would wash it," how can that be disproved without a reasonable doubt? Especially if there are not witnesses to their conversation? What we believe happen…
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:37 PM
-12

It is quite possible, and makes sense given the disperatre sentences. (I have only read this one article about the incident)
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:14 PM
2

He used the term "people who are," not "women who are."
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:12 PM
2

He never said it had anything to do with her being a woman...
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:11 PM
2

We don't know. The judge had a lot more evidence than us. There are a tonne of plausible scenarios where he is more at fault than her. For example, maybe she was in shock, went into her house, and he took the car without her knowledge.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:10 PM
3

She didn't turn herself in, but there is no indication in this article that she deliberately hid evidence. EDIT: phone autocorrect mess up. "but" was "if up" before.
/r/MensRights01/02/14 03:08 PM
8

My mom had full custody of me- my dad had absolutely zero legal right to see me. She still made sure I saw him as often as possible: something I didn't realise when I was a kid but am very glad of now.
/r/MensRights01/11/13 03:50 PM
2

The ban is ridiculous, but I actually think the word "men" makes more sense in that example than the word "people."
/r/MensRights28/10/13 02:39 AM
1

But if you don't look at it as a gift, then you look at it as employment No, I look at it as a partnership. We both have expectations we place on each other. One of the expectations she places on me is to bring in some money. But I doubt it is the most important expectation she has on me. I certainly don't see money as the most important thing I contribute.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:12 AM
1

The problem occurs when the stay-at-home member stops seeing that income from the other member as a gift, and starts seeing it as a right. I don't think I agree with this. If we had both stayed in full time work, I am pretty confident that we both would've had about the same life time earnings. My wife has forgone a HUGE portion of her lifetime earnings because we both decided she should do that. The only reason she made the decision was because we both agreed that she would have an equal share …
/r/MensRights12/10/13 02:30 AM
2

I am a husband who works full time while my wife stays home. I would agree with what Daemonicus says. We don't want to farm out our kids to daycare. We aren't able to support ourselves with two part time jobs. So one of us has to work full time. For our individual family, it made more sense for that to be me (I get paid more, my job is more flexible than hers, my job is more secure, and I like my job a bit more than she likes hers). I know that she wishes she could still work as well. And I don'…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 08:20 PM
0

What feminist thinkers and activists have you been reading?
/r/MensRights10/10/13 02:42 PM
0

Yep, ignorant and intellectually dishonest discourse. Right here.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 02:42 PM
-1

First, you use "they" like it is a unified movement. Are all feminists fighting to maintain the status quo? Absolutely not. Second, when maternal custody started being fought for women had very little status (so needed someone to fight for their rights) and they did almost all of the child rearing while having very few career prospects (so it made sense to give them the child). Just because something doesn't make sense in today's culture doesn't mean it was bad when it first came about. Third, c…
/r/MensRights10/10/13 05:07 AM
0

It is a massive hive mind like most subreddits that mass up votes certain ideas and down votes others. What gets the most votes in Reddit should never be used to show what is normal in the real world.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 02:45 AM
-1

Both this subreddit and /r/feminism are extreme examples of the two communities- hiveminds are rarely indicative of what is going on with typical people in the movement and with the academic/political sides.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 12:28 AM
1

Many feminists would agree that these effect both men and women and need to be addressed for both genders, not just for women. However, they would argue that the problem is patriarchy, which is oppressing both men and women. So they don't think only females need to be helped. They think that patriarchy is the issue with these problems.
/r/MensRights09/10/13 11:36 PM
9

I would agree with the current law that the woman should be allowed to get an abortion with or without the father's consent- after all, it is her (not his) body that has to go through a lot. That being said, of course he should be able to sever all rights/responsibilities if he doesn't want the child.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 05:37 PM
1

Don't know about NASCAR in particular. But it looks to me like she was in a "crew" area. This would mean that she was only there because she was invited by him- even if she had no real role, she was officially part of his team. If this was a place open to the general public, instead of invite-only, then I agree she is the only one responsible.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 05:54 PM
8

If it was in other contexts, I would agree with you. But in this case, he should be responsible for her. Not because she is his girl friend, but because she is a member of his team. Kind of like how a golfer can be penalized for the actions of his caddie, a driver should be penalized for the actions of his team.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 05:32 PM
1

very, very rare for a man to leave his wife and children, however it's very common indeed for a woman to decide she's dissatisfied and divorce her husband. [Citation needed]. I don't buy the /r/MensRights rhetoric that women are scheming horrible people who are at fault for all things wrong in families- that is no better than radical feminism blaming all men for what is wrong in society. You need some evidence if you are going to make an inflammatory claim like that. Let's say you marry a woman …
/r/MensRights29/08/13 05:17 PM
0

Note that I am not saying alimony makes sense in all situations. Only in ones where a person makes very real sacrifices to their career or financial position, after a mutual decision with their partner, with the expectation in sharing in future earnings with their partner. A couple make a life long commitment to each other- when they sign the legal paper work, they say at the same time "this is for life." As a direct result of that commitment, they become financially interdependent. Both individ…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 07:34 PM
0

I mean "allow them to make the choice" in the sense that I might allow my friend to walk into the bathroom stall that I know will gross him out in a hilarious fashion. This is just language for "not disabusing him of the notion that the bathroom stall is great." By not telling him there is something nasty in there (ie: allowing him to continue as if everything is good), I am not impinging on his sovereignty or self determination in any way. Give me better language and I will use it. What I mean …
/r/MensRights27/08/13 05:43 AM
-1

In terms of your career and future earning potential? Absolutely it is a sacrifice. And I love my kids dearly. But I wouldn't enjoy leaving my career which I also love in order to feed, put for naps, cook, clean, chauffeur, etc... Playing with my kids absolutely isn't a sacrifice. But doing all the work involved with kids- especially the work that isn't face-to-face time, like cleaning a toddler's breakfast up- certainly isn't pure joy.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:02 AM
-2

Well, when the ceremony involves language something like "until death do us part" (like every single ceremony I have ever witnessed), then I think people should pick up on its assumed life time commitment. Seriously, what do you think "until death do us part" and other similar phrases mean if not "for life"? Also, the legal assumption is taht marriage is for life. This is why things like alimony exist. If you have no idea of the legal ramifications of marriage, you are not adult enough to be get…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 12:44 AM
-1

Allow? Excuse me, but women are independent, equal creatures and shall be treated as such. I have no power, responsibility nor obligation to allow or disallow them anyhting... do I? This has nothing to do with whether or not the spouse is given permission to do something. It has to do with the assumptions they have when they take it. Every marriage ceremony I have witnessed promises life time commitment. By default, marriages are life time legal arrangements. It is assumed that you will be entan…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 12:41 AM
-4

Umm... out of the 60 or so marriage ceremonies I have personally witnessed, every single one assumed a life time commitment. And I know of no jurisdiction in North America where marriage has a time limit other than "until one of you dies" put on it.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 12:22 AM
-1

And how is an agreement that future assets will be shared not explicit when a couple is in a legal arrangement that entails the sharing of assets for life?
/r/MensRights26/08/13 11:12 PM
1

So you actively allow someone to make sacrifices with the promise of being rewarded for them in the future, and then expect them not to reap the rewards after making the sacrifice? You make adult decisions with another adult, and refuse to follow through with the commitments you made? Sorry, but that sounds way more childish to me.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:36 PM
10

When going through school, my wife and I made a decision together that I would finish school, she would support me, then I would support her when she finished school. We never sat down and made a contract, but we made this decision together. Absolutely she should've been entitled to compensation for putting her schooling on hold (and thus impacting her earning potential for the rest of her life) if I left her after I was done school. We have a kid. We have made the decision together that she wil…
/r/MensRights26/08/13 09:35 PM
26

I have a friend who was a professional football player- he was decent, but not good enough to be super famous. So he had no chance of making his huge football salary for more than a couple years or spinning his footballing into another huge paying career. But did his alimony and child support payments take that into account after he was no longer able to play football? Not until a very expensive, 6 year legal battle.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 04:34 PM
1

Sure, I guess we can play "no true Scotsman" game if you want. But I really don't see the point. Especially since it can be turned around to say "if they are fighting for equality, they are not MRAs, they are mislabled.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:42 AM
5

And the man is the legal guardian of the child. The doctor should have no obligation to with hold information. Heck, the doctor should be ethically compelled to give any information he has. I have a 15 month old. He cannot make any decisions more complicated than what toy to play with next. When we are at the doctor's, he doesn't know what is doing on beyond "ooo shiny thing" and "ow, that hurt." Even if he did know what was going on, he would have no way to communicate what he knew. He is compl…
/r/MensRights29/07/13 01:21 AM
-5

Well, yes, when it first started as a school of philosophy, feminism made this assumption that women are subjugated. But I can't say that they were wrong at the end of the ninteenth/beginning of the twentieth century. Also, early feminists spent a lot of time differentiating sex (biology) from gender (sociology). For many of them, it was gender (sociology) that was the problem, not sex (biology). I haven't seen much (any?) actual feminist philosophy that says "if you have a penis you are bad, if…
/r/MensRights28/07/13 08:54 PM
7

Giving the straight facts of the baby's paternal DNA is just saying something from the baby. Sure, the man will infer something about the woman from that. But the doctor is still only giving information about the baby and the father.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 06:53 PM
16

No he wouldn't. He isn't giving any information about the woman. He is giving information about the child. The child that the man is the legal (if not biological) father of. The father has just as much right to know medical information as the woman knows. For example, I take my son to all his medical appointments. Our doctor is not violating my wife's privacy by talking to me about our son without her consent.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 06:37 PM
15

It demonstrates that the MRM is the true movement for equality because it views men and women as equally capable of both good and bad, unlike feminism. Sorry, but I have to call bullshit on this. Neither movement is a single, cohesive unit. Their are feminists who are actually fighting for true equality. There are also MRM advocates who view women as evil people out to do nothing but screw over the innocent men folk. Both movements have their reasonable, centrist (for lack of a better term), san…
/r/MensRights28/07/13 06:03 PM
10

Which is a far cry from the 10-15% TheRadBaron claims.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:35 PM
14

I can understand why ethically he would not be required to say anything.* But it is messed up that he is ethically banned from saying anything. As long as the doctor is A) telling the truth and B) not violating the privacy of another patient, a doctor should be able to say whatever he wants to a patient.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:35 PM
1

If the mom is married to man A but is impregnated by man B without man A even knowing, I think many B being the kind of person who will become a loving father is very small.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:31 PM
11

But in most courts, the biology doesn't matter. The sociology (ie: who has been acting like the father) is what matters. So, once the child has been taken home from the hospital for a reasonable amount of time, the paternity test becomes irrelevant.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:27 PM
11

The issue isn't men who want the test and are too wussy to demand it. The issue is men who never even suspect that they should ask for a test.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:24 PM
48

That is messed up. I don't get how any ethics can demand keeping information from a patient. As long as the doctor is not breaching anyone else's privacy, he should be able to tell the patient whatever he wants.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:22 PM
9

Got a source for that?
/r/MensRights28/07/13 05:20 PM
1

To be fair: Swifts likely isn't doing this at all. She probably is very removed from any details of something like this.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:26 PM
1

Most people who have issues with this subreddit would agree. However, just like feminisim, MRM has some radical, some juvenile, some trolling, and some just plain idiotic members. It is their antics that get complained about.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 09:58 PM
5

To be fair, she says nothing about weight. It is quite possible for someone to dress nice, smell good, etc... while being overweight just like it is possible for someone to be a very healthy weight but still be sloppy and unkempt.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:41 PM
21

It also seems to me that it is also both more accepted and more common for a man to date a better looking (or skinnier or younger or poorer or less educated) woman than the other way around. When the attitude of the right comic is present, I think it is more to do with how uncommon that situation is vs the situation on the left.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 06:38 PM
3

You must live in a scary world. After all, by your logic, your doctors are out to make you sick so they can get a profit. If your house ever catches on fire, the firefighters are going to spurn it on so that they can create work for themselves. If you ever need your car fixed, your mechanic is going to sabatoge it to get himself more work. Etc. Etc. Stating that a lawyer must be out to make divorce as bad as possible so that he can make a profit is not "just stating facts." Is it because every p…
/r/MensRights24/06/13 03:31 AM
5

You are right. "Prebuescent angst" may be more accurate. Still, sooooo cute.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 03:15 AM
4

Your temper tantrums are sooooooooooo cute.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 03:07 AM
4

You started it, not him, by basically saying straight out that he is lying and he is a scum bag who wants peoples' divorces to be as messy as possibly.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 02:19 AM
4

What a professional charges per hour does not equal what a professional makes per hour of work they do. Not even close.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 02:17 AM
1

You are suggesting that there was a legally binding contract that she threw away. [Citation needed]. Assuming that a judge presided over the breaking of a contract with no legal grounds is a pretty big leap.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 05:17 AM
1

You are arguing that the judge made a wrong interpretation of the law and this case. That she had no legal right to the money. You are the one drawing huge conclusions.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 04:22 AM
1

They are a legally binding contract. So you, whose information is based on on article and a whole bunch of supposition, are better able to judge the legal ramifications of the either the divorce agreement or the divorce judgement than a judge who actually presided over a trial discussing it?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 02:44 AM
2

Saying "he didn't receive compensation for the pain and suffering [of being imprisoned], he received it for being imprisoned" is semantics. I don't care what we call it. He received over and above the income he lost. She didn't receive any of that "over and above" compensation- she just received compensation for lost income that would've been split between them if he had earned it. The 150k is more then enough compensation for the small burden she carried. Where did I say otherwise?
/r/MensRights18/06/13 12:15 AM
1

This isn't alimony. This is splitting of marital assets. When splitting assets, the total assets matter, not the income of the two spouses.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:54 PM
1

Second - This is correct, but how much she deserves (if any at all) would be determined by the standing procedure - in actual fairness SHE might have owed HIM money if before his incarceration she had the potential to be earning more then he did. This makes no sense. She received no compensation for lost income, so how could she owe him any of that compensation? Thirdly - Same as first point. Just because your married doesn't mean squat. What you do with that marriage and how you treat it does. …
/r/MensRights17/06/13 10:37 PM
1

It was for assets that she lost out on too. Why shouldn't she be compensated for them?
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:55 PM
0

Child support is to help raise the child. If the child is no longer being raised (after 24 years, it seems that's the case) then there's no child support. Because of the tens of thousands of dollars she [presumably] invested in the child, her financial position is worse now than it would have been had she not been raising their child. The child has not weakened his financial position at all. It is fair that he pay his share of the child rearing costs by compensating her, even if it is retroactiv…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 07:00 PM
2

Also, note that she wasn't awarded for "pain and suffering" or anything like that, despite the fact that he received compensation for that. She was only awarded her share of the lost marital assets due to the incarceration.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 06:54 PM
0

Well, the award she was given was only for financial suffering (he received an award for more than financial suffering). And those are relatively easy to quantify.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 06:51 PM
1

This is the equivalent to a 5 year old interjecting into an argument "you are wrong because you are a poopy head!" If you want to converse like an adult, I would be happy to do so.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 04:01 PM
4

Because I see it that money was paid to him to make up for the suffering him and his family experienced. She was his family, and she suffered too if not to the same extent as him. It makes sense that she get a small (in this case 2.6%) portion of the compensation paid to care for him and his family.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 03:59 PM
1

No way did she suffer to the same extent as him. But having a spouse in prison certainly would cause suffering.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 03:55 PM
8

First, this isn't someone "just being nice" out of the goodness of their heart. This is someone fulfilling the public vows. Someone who is stuck in the situation. Second, she was raising his son. She has a well established right to receive reimbursement for this. Since he can afford the reimbursement, it makes sense for him to pay it. Third, spouse isn't a random person. They are a victim too, and also forced to suffer. The spouse doesn't suffer as much as the falsely convicted person, but they …
/r/MensRights17/06/13 05:49 AM
21

The divorce, she said, had been requested by Phillips, who grew distant and wanted her to move on. Also, why shouldn't she be compensated for this? She said she spent the next decade visiting him in prison, raising their son, sending money for items her husband needed, and hoping to find a way to get him out.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:39 AM
1

I don't agree that fears of slipper slopes make valid arguments when it comes to policy.
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:37 AM
-4

Because a "father and son" event where everyone is there with their father while the kid is there by himself will be just great, right? Note that I never said the event should be canceled. I just pointed out that this may not be the mother protecting her own ego.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 03:45 AM
-7

"Yeah, fuck kids who don't have dads. Let's not show any sensitivity, but instead punish them. Am I right guys?" She is an adult, and she got to make choices about her lifestyle. She can cope. But they should've looked for a way to help the son- a kid who didn't get any choice in his family- to participate if they did not.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 02:54 AM
1

Are you deliberately misreading my comment? Go back and read my first two sentences.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 12:02 AM
7

Do children need live at home caregivers of both genders? No. But I strongly believe that they need nurturing adults of both genders involved in their lives. If they don't have a mom or dad (or if they have a really shitty mom or dad), they need other adults to step in.
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:20 PM
19

There is the possibility that her son was the one hurt, not the mom. I grew up with a single mom. There were "father and son" school and community things going on occasionally that my friends went to and I hated missing because I didn't have a dad. I know I would've been allowed to go with other male adults than my dad, but as an eight-year-old, I found that prospect daunting and depressing. After a trip that I was particularly hurt to miss, my mom actually made a big stink about this, and got t…
/r/MensRights01/06/13 09:18 PM
2

I cringe when I hear well educated, successful women refer to their "choice" to spend more time with kids rather than stay on a high-powered career track. They should never have to make that choice in the first place. I also cringe when I hear that It is sad that this is becoming more and more the norm would have meant 60-plus hour workweeks, 24/7 availability, and at least some travel. I do agree with her that the expectations being put on in many work places are unreasonable, and we need to be…
/r/MensRights28/05/13 12:15 AM
2

Yeah, because there has never been a minority that was actually oppressed and never been a group that fought that oppression logically/non-hypocritically. /s
/r/MensRights18/05/13 09:29 PM
2

Thanks. I enjoyed the conversation too!
/r/MensRights09/04/13 09:47 PM
1

that it was permissibilbe to throw a 16 year old out onto the street for the emotional comfort of an adult. Where did I say that? Let me re-say the very first comment I made. Depending on the arrangements (example: communal sleeping or showers), I think there can be valid reason for a shelter to only accept one gender. That being said, the OP's story is not ok and if there are women-only shelters, there should be enough beds for men in other shelters.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:14 PM
1

Note that I said that this only makes sense if there are enough beds for everyone. I'm not proposing having segregated shelters if it means one gender has to sleep on the street.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:13 PM
1

You are saying we have not gotten rid of gender segregation in other places? Like medical schools, Rotary Clubs, Little League baseball... But those are different than communal sleeping and hygiene and sleeping facilities. We still have gender separation at kids camps, washrooms, change rooms, hostels, etc... If you think it is important to take away separation, start at those places. Not homeless shelters. This 16 year old is a male child, not an adult. Once again, I am talking about the genera…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:54 PM
1

Morning Freudian slip. What you mean comes through loud and clear. You are the one that started the idiotic comments and felt the need to lash out. Not me. If you want to get back to a real conversation, I am happy. I am not going to continue this idiotic flame war you felt the need to start.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 02:48 PM
1

You are the one putting hateful words in another person's mouth. Just like they do on SRS.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:23 AM
1

We have already gotten rid of gender segregation in other places. It's time to bring equality to homeless shelters, too. No we haven't/ Start with public washrooms, hostels that have gender segregation, gyms and other places that don't deal with vulnerable people at a low point of their life. Having segregated spaces still means boys, but not girls are divorced from their families. Adult men would be segregated (if there is room and if there is women in need who want it), not little boys, in a w…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 05:20 AM
1

We can accomplish the same thing be ignoring the narrow-minded idiots who are uncomfortable with males. We live in a society where people have mores around gender because we seperate genders (changing rooms, sleeping arrangements as kids, public washrooms, etc...). If you think that needs to change, fine. But a homeless shelter is not the place to lead the front on social innovation. Get rid of segregation in other areas and help people to get comfortable with the idea in society before you forc…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:22 AM
1

Lol. You are just like an SRSer. "Who needs adult conversation when I have outrage!"
/r/MensRights09/04/13 04:16 AM
1

I definitely didn't communicate this clearly in that comment- I've gotta stop posting early in the morning. What I meant to say is: I'm not worried about the physical safety of children not because I think it is unimportant but because I think the likelihood of a child being assaulted by a stranger when the mother is sleeping right next to them is very low. So I am not concerned with people actually being unsafe because I think they are safe. I am, however, concerned with people feeling unsafe.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:26 AM
2

Totally agree with that last paragraph. But, unfortunately, until that happens, judgement calls need to be made on what is the best use of resources. If we are willing to provide co-ed shelter services across an entire town at the macro scale, then why not do the same thing with each shelter on the micro-scale? If it is doable, no reason not to. However, space and financial limitations may not make this possible at the micro-scale. Providing there are spots to spare, absolutely. If there are not…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:22 AM
1

Where did I say that? Hint: nowhere.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 03:16 AM
1

As our society becomes more logically consistent with the notion of equality, we will one day find that as horrible. Perhaps. But pushing social convention to become "more logically consistent" makes people uncomfortable as they are forced to disregard strong mores they have been taught since birth. A homeless shelter with vulnerable people at low points of their lives is not the place to be on the cutting edge of social innovation. you still have to have a men's restroom, and very few people wo…
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:28 AM
1

??
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:08 AM
0

You don't feel safe in a shelter. Which is even more reason to make it feel as safe as possible. Imagine if you had a sheltered that banned a certain race for the safety of the other. The differences between genders are different than the differences between races. Imagine the uproar if we segregated washrooms based on race. Yet they are routinely segregated based on gender.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:08 AM
0

Wow. Just like an SRSer Go back and read the threat again. We got away from talking about the OP's particular story and to the idea of having segregated shelters in general. I would agree that the OP's story should never have happened.
/r/MensRights09/04/13 12:05 AM
1

I think it is one of those things where hard and fast rules just don't work. Sure, guidelines and general practices are good. But staff need to have the freedom aand wisdom to make occasional adjustments to policy for specific cases.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 07:26 PM
2

I am not suggesting we do such a thing. Rather, I am arguing that given the choice between sheltering the maximum number of people in a less comfortable setting versus sheltering a smaller number of people a more comfortable setting, that the former is preferable to the latter. I would agree with that for the most part. There are certain situations where I might not agree all the time. For example, it would be a shitty choice to make either way, but I think I would be ok with loosing a few shelt…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:44 PM
-1

Women and children only shelters are bad when they cause families to be split up merely because one member of the family is male. Note that the thread diverged from the OP's story when I first commented. I was talking about the idea of women/children only shelters in principle. Not how the principle was applied in the OP's specific case. rather I was making a comparison using the statement made by aardvarkious while changing the shelter to another form of public accommodation so that you can see…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 06:24 PM
1

"Extra costs" is a shitty reason compared to "vulnerable people don't feel safe enough accessing a service meant to help them at a low point in their lives."
/r/MensRights08/04/13 05:54 PM
2

I would agree with you. Note that I was talking about the idea in general, not how it was applied in the specific case of the OP.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:57 PM
-2

I have been in one that accepted women and children, and the bathrooms and sleeping were somewhere between communal and semi-private. I can see why a woman would be uncomfortable with men in it...
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:56 PM
-3

Yep. And most co-ed shelters house a large majority of men. That might actually produce more demand for shelters that are women only and less demand for shelters that are men only. I could see some people feeling fine in a co-ed shelter where their gender is the large majority but not in a co-ed shelter where their gender is the small minority.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:55 PM
0

Like I said above: That being said, if there are women-only shelters, there should be enough beds for men in other shelters. You are right, when it comes down to not giving people beds, it isn't ok. But when there are enough beds and this can be accommodated, why not accommodate it?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:24 PM
-5

I never said that men should be treated as threats. I am more concerned with perceived safety than emotional safety.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:21 PM
-10

I think there can be valid reasons for a shopping mall to only accept people that can walk. Such as? We can similarly require homeless shelters to make whatever alterations are needed so that 16 year-old boys can remain with their families, like 16-year old girls do. I would agree that the specifics of how this rule was implemented are off. But I don't agree that the idea of having "women and children only" is necessarily bad.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:20 PM
-4

If women are uncomfortable on airplanes with the vast majority of passengers are male, can we implement some female only flights and refuse to carry male passengers? Oh please. An airplane is a hell of a lot different than a shelter. The mere mention of a woman possibly feeling uncomfortable seems to get them any accommodation they want at the expense of men. I said there still needs to be enough space for men. Also, if there is demand for it, I would say there should be men-only shelter space.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:18 PM
1

but it seems to me that given the choice between x people being more comfortable versus y people gaining shelter, that y takes precedence. Depends on the situation. For example, if you have three shelters in town, you could leave one co-ed, make one female and one male without sacrificing space. with the absolute greatest due respect, I really don't see the people in group x turning down what may well be their only possibility of shelter simply because they find proximity with the opposite gende…
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:16 PM
-2

You can't make everyone comfortable. That is no reason to not make the best choices you can to make the most people possible comfortable.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:13 PM
-5

Screw saying the low point insomeone life should be a time where they "suck it up and make tough choices." If shelters can make them feel safe and comfortable (once again, while still having beds for everyone) why the hell shouldn't they?
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:03 PM
2

That is what I am saying with that quote: a man abused by a woman also deserves a bed. Sorry if I was unclear.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 03:01 PM
5

Which might actually be another reason to have women only shelters. I would imagine many women would be a lot more comfortable in a communal room where ~50% of the people were women than in a communal room where the vast majority of people are male. Of course, this would be a reason to have some female-only shelter space. Not a reason to have predominantly female-only space.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:24 AM
-7

Because some people are uncomfortable changing, sleeping, etc... in front of people of the opposite gender. Also, if a woman and children are getting away from an abusive male, not being in super close contact (like sleeping in the next bed over) may make them feel more secure. Likewise if a man has just gotten out of an abusive relationship with a woman it is good if he has a non-female space. EDIT: made the last line clearer
/r/MensRights08/04/13 04:21 AM
36

Depending on the arrangements (example: communal sleeping or showers), I think there can be valid reason for a shelter to only accept one gender. That being said, the OP's story is not ok and if there are women-only shelters, there should be enough beds for men in other shelters.
/r/MensRights08/04/13 02:42 AM
1

The thread progressed to talking about personal massages. I would agree that when you are training to be at therapist, the classroom is different. An individual can hire a contractor for a private service based on whatever criteria they want. It is businesses that are subject to discrimination laws. And once again: fuck you for being a judgemental asshole to someone who spent 16 years facing horrific abuse. He has been in therapy for years and has never ever hurt anyone. And how the hell do you …
/r/MensRights06/04/13 06:37 PM
1

Fixed thanks. Stupid phone.
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:53 PM
1

A person can hardly be blamed for any Pavlovian conditioning they have acquired from traumatic experiences. On behalf of my friend who suffered horrible abuse, recognizes how screwed up it has made him, and has been working hard for years to overcome it: fuck you for saying his problems are "questionable" and putting "valid" in quotation marks. Now that I am done with the obscenity: forcing yourself to get over it in a work setting is a lot different than forcing yourself to get over it in a per…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 03:36 PM
10

There are many reasons that are not sexual that a man would prefer not to get a massage from a man. I have a friend who was abused by his father, uncle, and older brother. Not sexually, but emotionally and physically. He gets really tense when a man touches him. He will not get a massage from a guy because he just can't force himself to relax during it. Is he a homophobe? I have another friend who prefers massages from women because he has troubles telling a man "lay up, that hurts." Say what yo…
/r/MensRights05/04/13 07:55 PM
1

I like the massages that really hurt. Well, I hate them. But I like the result. I know it is stupid macho pride, but I find it easier to take the pain from a man than from a woman. For this reason alone, I prefer a male.
/r/MensRights05/04/13 07:49 PM
1

Ok buddy.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 08:43 PM
1

If you disagree with their wording, fine. But it is a common phrase in the counselling world: I am just explaining what all the professionals I have heard use it mean by it. It is a professional phrase, and everyone being trained or already in the profession knows what is meant when it is used.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:30 AM
2

We are talking about lying. The exact phrase we are discussing is "clients never lie." I am explaining what at least the psychologists I have worked with and under would mean when they used that phrase. Being wrong about what happened but honestly stating what you think happened is not lying. Lying is when you state something happened that you know didn't happen. When the psychologists I have been around (and I think the same would apply for most people) say "the client never lies," they do not …
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:02 AM
1

Assuming they are lying is different than assuming they have a wrong view of reality. Assuming they know there are not aliens in their nasal passage but are pretending there are is a lot different than assuming they actually believe aliens are in their nasal passage (despite the fact we know there are no aliens there).
/r/MensRights27/03/13 09:03 PM
4

They are not likely to believe you when you say "Barack Obama was not in the room" and this can break any relationship you have with the client. Telling the client "your interpretation of reality is wrong" isn't going to accomplish anything beneficial. At least according to many schools of thought. Also, you are assuming that the therapist knows the truth. Usually, that is not the case- the client usually isn't saying something as preposterous as "Obama watched me get raped."
/r/MensRights27/03/13 06:30 PM
8

When I was training to by a psychologist, the idea that "clients never lie" was drilled into my head. It wasn't that every client recollected an accurate representation of what actually happened. It was that you trusted them to give an accurate account of what they think happened.
/r/MensRights27/03/13 05:46 PM
15

[citation needed] I know it is illegal for the media to publish the names of minors being accused here in Canada. If the media broke this publication ban, it would be held accountable. But I have no knowledge of any law that would make it illegal for someone to view that article. Even if a law like that exists (which I seriously doubt), does it actually apply to the names of foreigners being tried in foreign countries by foreign media?
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:15 PM
6

That is a bullshit reason to release the names. Just because their names are common in the community right now doesn't mean their names will be linked to a rape accusation in internet searches years from now. Well, now their names will be linked to that thanks to Reuters.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:14 PM
1

"Is as good as confirmed" is not the same as "found guilty in a court of law." I really do believe their identities should be kept secret until they are actually found guilty.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 07:12 PM
1

Do women cost more for healthcare because of child birth, or for other reasons? If it is because of child birth, I don't think this is a fair argument.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 09:59 PM
0

A very important addition. Not really. A person who works in a bank and is happy staying as a teller for their life isn't ambitious. A person who works in a bank and wants to become a manager is ambitious. To suggest that women don't want to advance in their careers when they are working for a bank is to say that women don't have ambition. It means less women bother trying to become managers, and as such less women have the necessary skills. But you haven't been talking about women who are not m…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 02:26 AM
0

I am just holding you to the plain meaning of your exact words, which are: very few women (relative to men) seem at all interested or qualified to become managers, What does "very few women (relative to men) seem at all interested to become managers" if not "women, in general, have less ambition [to become managers] than men?" What does "very few women (relative to men) seem qualified to become managers" if not "women, in general, have less abilities than men [as managers]"? Your plain words are…
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:10 AM
0

That is exactly what you have been saying. You have just been using slightly less blunt language to hide your chauvinism (that is the first time I have ever used that word, but it fits)
/r/MensRights13/03/13 12:43 AM
1

You are saying less women have ambition than men, and the ones who do often suck as managers. Bullshit.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:42 PM
1

What I said was that very few women (relative to men) seem at all interested or qualified to become managers What do you mean by that if not "women generally suck at management" and "less women than men have ambition"? Also, [citation needed].
/r/MensRights12/03/13 05:15 PM
0

You are saying this ratio can't be accurate because women suck at management I only know of 2 women who are anywhere decent managers, and crap tons who are horrible. Oh yeah, and there can't possibly be enough with ambition It's suspicious for a bank to have over 50% female managers, considering how few women seem to want that kind of a job. Bullshit. This is no better than SRS.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 04:33 PM
0

I see no reason to talk to someone about gender equality who thinks one gender is incapable of certain jobs. Have a good day.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 04:08 PM
1

You seem to have lost me... Here is what I am saying: even if the hiring processes are gender neutral, you would never expect every company to have a 50/50 man to woman ratio. Indeed, a statistician would be suspicious of any company that was perfectly split 50/50. Standard deviations are expected. 65% of managers being women is well within what one would expect for a standard deviation. It would be suspicious if there were no banks that had 65% women managers (it would also be suspicious if the…
/r/MensRights12/03/13 03:52 PM
1

That's a fucking horrible company that would have gone out of business within months. I am not saying any company would ever do this. I am saying that, statistically, we should expect companies that completely ignore gender in their hiring to have ratios like this. We shouldn't expect any but the very largest companies to have near perfect 50/50 rations. This doesn't quite make sense. I mean, if the general environment was better than there would also be more men applying, albeit not as much of …
/r/MensRights11/03/13 04:46 PM
1

Those numbers are not necessarily because of AA. There are a bunch of other reasons this can happen. If candidates are picked to fill jobs completely at random, I would expect to see some companies with gender ratios like this. In fact, I would be way more suspicious of AA if those numbers were all very close to 50%. There is also a possibility that they just create a better environment for women than their competitors, so they attract more women candidates. For example, perhaps they have really…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 05:20 PM
2

Bullshit. It is quite reasonable to assume that someone who is continuing to kiss and offering no sign of displeasure during sex wants to, you know, have sex.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:27 PM
1

When you continue making out with someone and go with them when they move to actions beyond kissing, you are showing that you changed your mind.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:56 PM
11

And then she gave every indication she changed her mind. Say a man is at a woman's house. She says she doesn't want to have sex. A few hours later, she goes and changes into something sexy. Without saying anything, she comes out and initiates sex with the man. Would that be the man raping her because "she made her desires clear at the start." Of course not. Someone can change their mind. And with these things, desires are often communicated with actions. If someone says one thing, then later act…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 06:03 PM
2

Even if people have a neutral view of PUA, I don't think you want them associating it with MRA if for no other reason than they have nothing to do with each other and you generally want people to have an accurate view of any movement you support.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 05:47 PM
7

What is wrong with what she is saying? I am pretty confident that men who are raped would face somewhat different problems and would want support from different people than women who are raped. It makes sense to setup support systems and groups for men to get the resources they need...
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:55 AM
14

There may not be anything wrong with it, but there is lots that can be wrong with it being associated with MRM. You don't see why people thinking MRM is the same as men trying to get women to have sex with them is a bad thing?
/r/MensRights18/02/13 02:53 AM
2

Where I am, the age of consent laws are actually sane- two teenagers can have sex here without either one facing lifetime legal consequences.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 03:06 AM
2

Two things from the article: First, the real issue is that he was having sex with a teen. Second, the law has already been found unconstitutional and therefore no one can go to jail for it anyway.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 01:42 AM
1

And I am saying that ignorance should never be an excuse to get out or being prosecuted. Because how is it ever going to be proved or disproved that someone knew about a law? Did you know that you can go to law school for 3+ years, study for the bar for several more, practice one type of law for well over a decade, and still not know all the laws that pertain to your special expertise? Which is a great reason to simplify and eliminate many laws. Not to make ignorance a defence. The average perso…
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:40 PM
1

What I am saying is that it is one thing to get rid of a law, quite another to say "this is only illegal if you know it is illegal."
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:14 PM
1

Ignorance not being an excuse is a fundamental cornerstone of our law. You can't go against this idea just because there are a few laws you dislike.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:12 PM
1

Intending to do an action is different (and easier to prove) than knowing a law against it exists.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 10:11 PM
1

And I am saying that ignorance should not be an excuse in any case, because it makes the law unenforceable and therefore pointless. And why have a pointless law on the books? That being said, there are plenty of dumb laws that should be eliminated. But if the law exists, ignorance should not be an excuse.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:50 PM
1

Judges' hands are tied. They have to follow the will of elected officials. Since judges are usually appointed, this is a very good thing. The elected officials who let this slide, however, could have the title "piece of shit" applied to them.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:42 PM
2

Although: when was the last time anyone was prosecuted for anal sex in Canada?
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:39 PM
7

I do youth counselling/mentoring. When parents of the kids I work with find out their son is having sex, it is a big deal most of the time.
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:36 PM
4

The problem is, if you allowed ignorance to be an excuse, then the law would be unenforceable. How do you possibly prove that someone knew about it?
/r/MensRights17/12/12 09:33 PM
9

I think it comes down to what the people around you are wearing. For example- a bikini beside the pool at an all inclusive resort? Not that provocative, and hopefully you aren't getting too many stares. But wear it downtown, and you will get stares. A miniskirt and low-cut shirt may be super provocative in an office, but not in a club. There are some places where it would be incredibly provocative just to show your calves or your hair. Context is everything. In the context do your clothes match …
/r/MensRights21/02/12 07:18 AM
3

No doubt. But if a woman catches a man looking at her in such a way that it is obvious he is thinking about sex with her, he is almost certainly leering.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 05:33 AM
12

I can certainly see why a woman would not enjoy being leered at too often. Of course, I only have empathy for them if they dress modestly.
/r/MensRights21/02/12 05:20 AM
4

You can do that without bringing weed into the equation. No, you can't, because legally they are both the same thing: illegal. It doesn't matter if you are ok with one and not the other. There are some people who are ok with the other one but not with weed, ok with both, or not ok with both. If rhe admins suddenly decide one sort of illegal subject is ok but the other is off limits, they are making an arbitrary decision. Maybe not a bad decision, but an arbitrary one. And then that opens the doo…
/r/MensRights17/02/12 06:56 AM
29

I am with you. I really don't understand why a divorced parent is forced to pay for college while a married parent is not. I also don't understand why a kid from rich parents who refuse to help pay for college should be refused financial aid.
/r/MensRights06/02/12 01:16 AM
2

If this is true, it is irrelevant. We are talking about abuse to other people's children, not to their own children.
/r/MensRights27/01/12 07:24 PM
3

I cannot believe it is $100 just to get in. If I went out with one other person, I would feel guilty if I spent $100 total the whole night while paying for both of us.
/r/MensRights20/01/12 01:29 AM
4

The reason I think we don't have female elementary school teachers is because of decades past. For whatever reason, it didn't used to be acceptable for males to teach elementary school. Now, at least where I am, schools actively pursue male teachers: they want them. And there are males who want to teach. But then they get a job, figure out being the only man working in the school sucks, and quit. Then the next guy gets hired, and he is the only guy, so he quits too. It takes time to overcome suc…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 04:38 PM
1

Relying on one income source is a terribly risky strategy Not really in this day and age. Which is why people make the decision. Like I said, I would be ok with changing the marriage laws to what you are proposing. It wouldn't be my preference, but I also don't think it would be the worst thing ever. However, I would be VERY opposed to changing it retroactively for couples that are already married. Those spouses staying home now made a decision based on existing laws. One that wasn't terribly ri…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 02:55 PM
1

First, we don't have our marital property and spousal support laws to "compensate" stay-at-home parents for work done or promises made. I know that is not the language used. However, I would argue that this is how most couples see it. At least, most couples who have an understanding of what legal marriage actually is (I know some don't: I will get to that). When one spouse decides to stay home, both [presumably] anticipate being together for the remainder or their lives. They intend on splitting…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 04:26 AM
1

Once again, I am sorry that your wife turned out like that. However, at least where I am and with the people I know, the stay-at-home parents (about 25% of them are men) are certainly working very hard for their families. Probably about 25% of them also don't really want to be at home, but feel they must for their families (although about 50% of THOSE have special needs children, which is a different situation). I agree that famil laws are being abused in many jurisdictions, often in a sexist wa…
/r/MensRights01/11/11 12:35 AM
1

As to your first point, most stay-at-home-parents stay home because they can. You know very different stay-at-home parents than I do. I am sorry to hear that your friends are selfish people who make decisions based on what they want instead of on what is good for their family. There is simply nothing that says having a parent around all the time is good for kids. I have seen several studies indicating that spending lots of time in day-care negatively impacts children. And we are not just talking…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 08:51 PM
1

There's a very simple solution here for the would-be stay at home parent - WORK! Many couples decide not to do this. They feel it is best for the children, and the working spouse appreciates not having to equally split house work and child rearing. One spouse staying home is what is best for both of them. They should be able to do this. And tell me this, shouldn't it matter who files for divorce? Should it matter who files for divorce? No. Should factors that lead to the divorce be considered? A…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:38 PM
1

There are two different concepts here: splitting of the assets acquired during the marriage, and alimony. As for assets acquired during marriage: the partner (person B) who stayed home gave up drawing an income in order to do all the house work and child rearing for the other spouse (Person A). Person B gave up any chance of acquiring assets on their own. They agreed to do this because the agreement would be that they would share in the assets the working spouse acquired. They would probably nev…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 06:02 PM
3

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, many couples decide that it is best for one parent to stay at home. Not only do they feel that this is better for their children, but the wage-earner enjoys not having to put as much time/energy into child rearing, house keeping, and cooking. There is also nothing wrong with this arrangement. Couples should feel free to choose whatever arrangement they like. And it isn't marital welfare to have one spouse stay at home. It is an economic agree…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:44 PM
1

Person B agreed to stay at home instead of earning income. In return, Person A agreed to split the income they earned while person B was staying at home and supplement person A's income in the future, making up for Person A's lost earning potential from being out of the workforce for many years. If they split up after person B stays home for 10 years, person B has already lost 10 years of income, and their future income will be reduced. If person A takes all of the assets earned during the marri…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 05:40 PM
1

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this. "until death do us part" does not imply "with half do I part". They are saying they intend to be in the marriage until they die. They are intending to share resources and income until they die. So, when one spouse stays home, they are doing so with the assumption and agreement that they will continue to share their partner's resources until the day they die. Prenups can be thrown out. Even if they were set in stone, there is a prenup state and a default …
/r/MensRights31/10/11 04:55 AM
1

Do I think most people get married with the intention of sharing all their assets for the rest of their lives? Do I believe that when one spouse stays home, both have the expectation that they will be compensated by sharing in the other's salary? Yes, absolutely, this is most people's intentions when they get married. That's what marriage is- a promise to share your entire life and assets with one another "until death do us part." If you want something different, get a prenup. Now, are there iss…
/r/MensRights31/10/11 04:09 AM
2

Perhaps. Although this is certainly the understanding most people have when one person stays at home- they expect to stay together and split assests for the rest of their lives. Is it a realistic expectation? Perhaps not. But it is usually the one both parties have. And it is in the verbal promises people make when they get married- to be together until "death do us part."
/r/MensRights31/10/11 03:10 AM
1

See here.
/r/MensRights31/10/11 01:17 AM
6

If person A purchased the house before the marriage with person A's only money, then yes, the house should remain with person A. However, person B gave up a career that was approximately equal in salary to person A in order to cook, clean, care for children and do everything else necessary for person A to focus on their career and earning money, then I would say that they have an equal share to the assests earned throughout the marriage. After all, that was the contract they made. Person A said …
/r/MensRights31/10/11 01:15 AM
5

On the flip side, you could have a couple where person A decides to give up their career/job in order to do all the work necessary to support person B and allow person B to put as much energy as possible into their career. Person B is only able to live the life they want to live because of the very real contributions/sacrifices made by person A. They have a contract that this is how they will split labour. And then person B decides to leave person A. It's fair that the contract would be upheld, …
/r/MensRights30/10/11 10:45 PM
6

I don't think so. If they made an agreement that he would put his career on hold and not earn money for their mutual enhancement, she should be held to her end of the agreement. Certainly divorce law needs reform, and the way it applies is often unjust. However, part of marriage is that it is a legal contract to split work and split assets. It often involves one party, with the consent and will of the other, making large sacrifices. It makes sense for that contract to be upheld to a degree.
/r/MensRights30/10/11 10:39 PM
0

Thanks for doing that. It really helps make my point! The sentence google quotes from the first link says: Mr Godsi believes the increase in female violence merely reflects the general rise in violence since the mid-80s Later in the article, it says that women only commit 90% of violent crimes. The article then explores some of the reasons we are seeing this increase. Hint: it has nothing to do with women thinking they can get away with it.
/r/MensRights17/10/11 06:36 PM
1

Women, as a general rule, don't have reservations about attacking someone? Really? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that suggest this is the case?
/r/MensRights17/10/11 05:42 PM
-2

Men generally know better than to attack formidable adversaries, and the majority of young men are, when compared to women, quite formidable. As a man, one assumes that attacking someone could have severe – even deadly – consequences. Women, however, do not appear to have such reservations about physical altercations. Despite years of exaggerated propaganda depicting men as monsters who regularly attack women, women have lost restraint over the last generation. This is because women have picked …
/r/MensRights17/10/11 03:34 PM
3

Could never happen, since women can't rape men. /sarcasm.
/r/MensRights13/10/11 07:57 PM
1

Why shouldn't things be focused on money? I'm not saying money should not be an important factor to consider. But it is certainly not everything. And I am sure we agree on this. The real question is how big a determining factor it should be. In many many studies that children that are better off when raised in environments where they are marterially provided for, regardless of any confounding factors. Please link to these studies that show money being a determining (not correlating) factor in ef…
/r/MensRights30/07/11 02:14 AM
0

Who knows what factors went into providing custody. I do think that the courts obvious bias to favour women is unjust. However, I don't think this subreddit's tendency to only consider money is the way to go either. And, like I said above: it's not like he didn't know what he was getting into. I'd love to see some reforms in the law. But I have troubles feeling sorry for someone who entered into a legal contract [ie: marriage], and either knew or should've known what that legal contract entailed…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 06:49 PM
-1

Just because he has a house? I sure hope custody is determined on more than financial status.
/r/MensRights29/07/11 06:23 PM
0

'No part of a personal injury award is sacrosanct. No part of the award is ring fenced, not even that part awarded under the heads of pain, suffering and loss of amenity,' Mr Todd said. 'When he took on the responsibility of a wife, and they decided to have two children, he knew that the capital would have to be used for their benefit too. And this is the part where I can kind of see where the judge is coming from. I may not agree with it, but I see the viewpoint: this man did or should've known…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 05:12 PM
21

12-year-olds are self centred and unable to weigh consequences. It's part of who they are biologically. I don't say this to excuse the girl or suggest she doesn't need some serious help. But I don't give her the bulk of the blame either. I think most of the blame should go to the adults who didn't seriously consider the accussationgs of a pre-teen girl. To me, this was the most atrocious person in the article: Police declined to allow Nicole Christian, the lead detective on the case, to be inter…
/r/MensRights15/05/11 03:31 PM
2

Agreed. But explaining why something happened is not the same as making excuses. "I was hormonal and need to learn how to control that better" is quite an okay statement.
/r/MensRights07/05/11 03:03 AM
42

There is a difference between offering a reason and offering an excuse. "Sorry, I think it was PMS, but it was still inappropriate of me to behave this way" is okay. "It was PMS: deal with it" is not.
/r/MensRights05/05/11 07:50 PM
2

Actually, the guy that had the specific numbers I was talking about had just immigrated to Canada from North Carolina. This happened to him in the US.
/r/MensRights11/04/11 03:29 PM
2

They lived on the streets so they could pay alimony! Wow, you've quite the imagination. They lived on the streets to pay their alimony plus there exceedingly high legal fees to change their alimony. This was because they were told that if they didn't pay their alimony, it would be harder to get it reduced. It is kind of hard to pay $50,000/year in alimony plus legal costs when you make under $60,000/year. So they sacrificed in order to not be ruined financially for a very, very long time. Spouse…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 04:14 AM
2

If someone starts making less money they can go into court under changed circumstances and prove that they legitimately got laid off, fired, can't find a comparable-paying job et cetera. Easier said than done. I know of two men who literally ended up living on the streets for a long period of time because they were paying alimony that was so high. But a spouse doesn't have the right to divorce and then take a lower paying job in order to deny their ex alimony Any person should have the right to …
/r/MensRights11/04/11 12:39 AM
2

Are you done calling me names and ready to read what I have actually been writing? Because you are arguing against claims I have never made, and have explicitly said I don't hole. I have no problem whatsoever with someone having to share their resources with an ex-spouse. If someone is making $125,000/year, I am okay with them paying a large alimony, for the reasons you have laid out. However, if someone starts making less money, alimony should also be reduced. When married, they do not have a l…
/r/MensRights10/04/11 11:53 PM
2

At least from where I am from, you can't sign away your basic human rights through any sort of contract. So why should the marriage contract be any different?
/r/MensRights10/04/11 05:36 PM
2

So laws should stay exactly the same forever and always. Citizens should never be outraged by, and should never take action to change, laws that are unjust. Gotcha.
/r/MensRights10/04/11 01:31 AM
2

In a marriage contract, you promise to share your resources with the other person. You do not promise to earn a certain amount of resources. When a man is married, his wife cannot force him to keep the high pressure (but high paying) job to "maintain her lifestyle." Why should she have even more power over him after they divorce? I have no problem with the concept of alimony. I do have problems with alimony based on past, not current, income.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 08:38 PM
5

Likewise, if you quit your $100,000 a year job and start working at Burger King you're still going to pay your wife alimony at the previous level. Although I think this is an absurd concept. No person should be forced to work a certain job for life. If a guy decides to quit his high pressure job that pays $100,000/year in order to get a lower pressure job that pays less, he should be entitled to do so- making him stay in the higher paying job is akin to slavery. And if he looses the $100,000 job…
/r/MensRights09/04/11 03:00 PM
10

If they had incidents of black people causing problems in the section and started not allowing any blacks to look at children's books, would that be okay?
/r/MensRights30/01/11 02:47 AM
3

I don't think you understand statistics. No person who did would assume such a thing. All things being equal, if you polled hundreds of people serving on dozens of boards, yes, you would expect a 50/50 split. But the smaller a group is, the more likely it is to defy statistics. When you have hundreds of groups of about 10 people, without a doubt some of them will defy this this 50/50 split.
/r/MensRights31/12/10 06:05 AM
4

This applies to more than just crown coporations. And crown corporations in Canada are absolutely vital to the country. They especially should be run by the best qualified people possible- whether the best people are 30% female, 50% female, 80% female I don't care. I want the very best, not just the five best men and the five best women. The idea of equal representation on the board seems reasonable. The people on the board aren't there to represent women and represent men. They are there to rep…
/r/MensRights31/12/10 05:49 AM
1

I would agree that there are probably an equal amount of women who are qualified for corporate governance as there are men. When you take all the boards and add them up, so that you are counting thousands of individuals, I would hope that the best individuals would be on the boards that there would be a pretty close to 50/50 split of males and females. However, every individual board is a microcosm: it is a small group, and its members need qualifications and experience that are unique to that p…
/r/MensRights31/12/10 04:39 AM
10

That is banning a certain activity in a public area, which is very different than banning a certain subset of the population.
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:49 PM
3

You were treated like shit. That being said, I do think that it is reasonable to lock the doors until just before school starts. [Atleast where I am] Teachers work very long hours and either are at school late or very early getting ready for the next day. It is not reasonable to ask them to showup even earlier to supervise kids.
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:07 AM
2

In some situations, what you say about the woman needing is true. Certainly not in all or even most.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 10:30 PM
2

Where did I say that? The father is absolutely important to the social development of a child. However, from a pure biological sense, the father's health is unimportant and the mother's health is very important through gestation until the child is weaned.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 07:26 PM
8

The mother's health is more important to a very young child than the father's.
/r/MensRights23/09/10 04:40 AM
6

Rent, power, gas? Maybe something to cover if dad is homeless. Otherwise both parties have those bills to pay. Presumably the costs for all of these things are higher for the parent with custody. Apartments tend to cost more if you need an extra bedroom. And kids tend to use power, water, and gas.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 05:59 PM
3

Why are you all downvoting this? It's a fair question. And one that led to some great information coming out.
/r/MensRights08/04/10 02:53 AM
1

Yeah. And you are completely changing what she is communicating. Physically restraining someone or blocking their freedom of movement when asking for consent can communicate that the only choice that other person has is how unwanted sexual contact will happen. She is not saying that charming someone=rape.
/r/MensRights20/08/09 03:38 AM
0

I would hate to have you as a judge if you only look at one sentence someone says. "Physically restraining someone or blocking their freedom of movement when asking for consent can communicate that the only choice that other person has is how unwanted sexual contact will happen." Yeah, she see charming someone as rape. Not. She is talking about something completely different. This is not a well thought out policy statement that has been re-hashed and re-hashed. It is a blog post. Some effort sho…
/r/MensRights20/08/09 03:37 AM
4

And read the original context of the quote- it is no where near as extreme as the poster would have us believe.
/r/MensRights19/08/09 05:54 PM
4

If you read it in context, the original writer clearly does not mean this: So if you buy her dinner, or treat her nicely, or promise to go visit her mother with her, or agree to fix her car in an effort to "eliminate rejection" or "overcome [her] indecision" and thereby increase your chances of taking the relationship to the next level, you are acting out "a strategy of sexual assault." But, wait a minute, if I'm reading the one little part of your comment that I choose to pick out, it seems we …
/r/MensRights19/08/09 05:03 PM
4

It is under the What you should know section of the August 14 entry- I just searched for it. Don't you love how trying to figure out what the person actually said before getting indignant with them earns you downvotes? Way to show that you're the reasonable ones everybody!
/r/MensRights19/08/09 04:18 PM
7

Any evidence that this is "mainstream feminist propaganda?" I mean, if you google that phrase, it only turns up this article and the blog it is referencing. Also, this is a lot less inflamatory when read in context. I still wouldn't agree completely with the blog post, but it certainly is far, far less extreme than this article would have us believe.
/r/MensRights19/08/09 03:18 PM
5

I agree that the accused should be given anonymity until convicted. However, I don't see why you need to name the accuser until the trial is over. If a rape happened, their privacy should be protected. If it didn't happen, then you can name them.
/r/MensRights08/04/09 04:37 PM
35

The woman, who can't be identified for legal reasons I'm all for giving victims all the protection/privacy possible. But when they are found by a court of law not to be victims, why do they need protection?
/r/MensRights08/04/09 02:30 AM
0

You want to make "marriage" into an all-encompassing financial agreement (of some sort) that includes future earnings of both partners until death. I don't believe I have ever said that. I have said that where there is an agreement, it should be enforced. I know two couples who are in exactly the situation I am describing- one where the man put the woman through school, and one where the woman put the man through school. Even though it was not in writing, in both couples both parties agree that …
/r/MensRights13/02/09 04:59 AM
0

you are making up some sort of financial agreement in your head. Not really. When you get married (often) you begin sharing things like a credit card, a mortgage, food bills, etc... Seems like a financial commitment to me. if I gave someone a text book for a class I would now be entitled to some percentage of that person's future earnings. If I paid to help someone build efficiency into their business, I would be entitled to some of those future earnings if that was the term that we agreed to. I…
/r/MensRights13/02/09 12:53 AM
0

And if she helps him pay tuition? If she put much of her financial resources towards helping him get that higher paying job? Then absolutely she deserves some compensation. Especially if they had the understanding that he would reciprocate when he was done school (as I have seen in two real situations where the husband leaves). In some ways, marriage is a financial contract. There is no problem with it being treated as one in some regards.
/r/MensRights12/02/09 03:32 AM
-1

I don't know, I can see it in certain situations. For example: a wife supports her husband while he goes through school. He graduates, gets a high paying job, and soon after divorces her. I think it would be appropriate for him to pay her some sort of compensation (although the idea that he needs to support her for life is ridiculous).
/r/MensRights11/02/09 02:24 AM
18

How do you know that? I have a close friend who is divorced. He used to be a professional football player. He had a kid with an old girl friend. Despite his best efforts and tens of thousands of dollars, he hasn't seen the kid in years and only talks to him every few months, because his ex-wife and her lawyer's won't let him get close to the kid. There was no abuse history on his part, but there was on her part against the kid. Yet he is the one who can't get access. 8 years ago he left the CFL,…
/r/MensRights15/12/08 06:38 PM
1

Want to cheat with me. Oh, wait, your said except "does he have a lot of money." Never mind.
/r/MensRights26/11/08 09:35 PM
1

That is exactly how this used to happen. However, it doesn't work anymore if the guy moves and the local cops don't know his old local cops. It also doesn't work with police departments that have hundreds of officers. But you are absolutely right, there is potential for abuse that must be very carefully guarded against.
/r/MensRights26/11/08 07:57 PM
1

Most governmental agencies keep records of their interactions with citizens. I don't really see why law enforcement should be different. Whether or not there is proof behind all of them, if a man faces multiple accusations from multiple women, there is a pattern there that should not be ignored. My mom and I were abused by a man when I was a kid. The cops didn't really believe my mom because she had problems, this guy seemed like a well behaved citizen, and there was no proof. Finally, when they…
/r/MensRights26/11/08 04:21 PM
1

In order for the cops or anyone to know if there have been multiple incidents, there must be a record, and if there's a record, it's quite likely that it will be used against the accused when he applies for certain jobs and perhaps other things that involve a background check. And why can't you create a database that is not applied to background checks, but is only available to law enforcement? Cops sometimes have their own agendas and prejudices when it comes to domestic violence as well (e.g. …
/r/MensRights25/11/08 05:48 AM
1

You're right, a guy shouldn't be punished for dating a crazy sociopath. A singular incident should have absolutely no effect. However, if a guy has multiple incidents, then I would say there is a pattern involved, and the guy (or woman) deserves closer scrutiny. There is nothing wrong with the cops knowing whether or not this increase scrutiny is warranted, IMO.
/r/MensRights25/11/08 02:50 AM
1

This isn't a bad thing in theory: it is a good thing if police and social workers can see whether or not there have been several of these in the past. However, something does need to be done so that they don't have negative effects when they are singular incidents.
/r/MensRights25/11/08 01:13 AM
3

The same can apply to men I don't think that productivity is effected as much by what is going on at home as by how well you can stay on task. A woman worried about her babies but working all day will likely be way more productive than a bachelor on reddit all day. And evidence I've seen actually suggests that women do a better job of staying on task then men.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 12:52 AM
7

Time in the office (for most professions) hardly measures productivity.
/r/MensRights22/09/08 12:35 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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