TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

birdiefellows Archive

View 2 posts and 71 comments by birdiefellows on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
12

Questionbirdiefellows/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:05 PM
4

Discussionbirdiefellows/r/MensRights23/02/15 08:41 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

The kids actually react really well to it. 100% of the 12 year olds I teach already know what sex is, thanks to their friends. Unfortunately, only about 10% of those kids say that their parents have given them "the talk", and that number doesn't change with older kids. That's why schools/non-profits need to step in, to correct the misinformation. Additionally, all reputable sexual health classes are structured to encourage anonymous question asking, most often in the form of a discreet box at th…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 10:56 PM
1

I'm sorry you had to go through that, divorce fucking blows. Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to taxpayer funded support. I'm a socialist, and my work takes me to schools in impoverished areas pretty often. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if it meant that the kids I work with will always have warm winter clothes. I just mind the attitude of, "I don't want to pay child support for my kids OR taxes for other people's kids!" that I hear so often. You know what I mean?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 10:43 PM
1

Well, it's obviously not best for the kid to only have one parent, just because that parent makes more. If your wife made 2x what you do, and thus automatically got full custody, would you think that was in your child's best interest? I agree with your last point, that could definitely be a workable solution. Although I don't like the idea of a parent being able to abdicate all responsibility towards their child, it's better than most ordered support going unpaid, which is what we have now.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 09:36 PM
1

This just isn't something that we will agree on. I don't feel like money should dictate who gets custody. The idea that the parent who makes more should get the kids benefits only the parent, not the child. Best wishes for navigating single parenthood, I hope everything turns out ok for y'all.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 09:17 PM
1

I agree 100%, but I'm curious about what you said about Ontario's new sex ed program. May I ask why you feel that way? I ask because I actually teach sex ed in the rural (American) south, and my co-workers and I dream about having that kind of freedom with the material. (For example, saying anything positive about contraception to students is an imprisonable offense in my state.) I'm admittedly not incredibly familiar with their curriculum, but from what I've read, I think it's spot on. Kid are …
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:54 PM
1

If you don't mind me asking, what would your ideal situation be? Support is calculated in order to keep the child at the standard of living s/he enjoyed before the divorce, because living a middle class lifestyle with one parent and poverty with another is emotionally damaging to a child. Do you feel like income should dictate one's right to spend time with their child? I really don't mean to minimize your situation (my sincere apologies on your divorce), but I'm curious how it's relevant to leg…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:44 PM
1

Yes, all very good points. Such a sad, difficult, and unique crime. On the one hand, even one person falsely imprisoned is too many. But only the other hand, only a small percentage of rapists leave concrete evidence, so investigating only them would be giving a staggering number of rapists carte blanche to offend without consequences. Neither is a good situation.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:34 PM
0

Can you explain this? Because the NY custody website reads that there is no perference of custody in the state, whether it be income or gender. It also reads that a lawyer is appointed to the child in question to ensure that the resulting custody and support agreements are adjudicated in the best interest of the child, regardless of the needs or wants of either parent. Furthermore, you are completely ignoring the time cost of raising a child. If Joe has 100% custody of his daughter Jane, then he…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 08:11 PM
0

The parent who makes less money is automatically deemed the custodial parent in your state? What state is this?
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:58 PM
-1

I personally do not have a problem with my tax dollars taking care of kids. What I have a problem with is absolving half the population of any consequence of sex. Most sexually active women are using birth control, which can have severe consequences, including death. This is seen as a worthwhile risk, because it prevents having to deal with the negative consequnces of sex. It doesn't seem morally right to me to say, "ladies, if you don't want to get pregnant, you need to take these pills that co…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 07:01 PM
-1

I make 20/k per year, but I don't feel that that's relevant, especially since asking strangers their income level is widely accepted as a rude practice. I really can't understand what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're advocating disbanding the social safety net (SNAP, welfare, Medicade, etc.) and mandating that individuals cover the basic living expenses of poorer strangers. Can you explain to me how that would be a better system than the one which we have now, which only holds parents…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 06:50 PM
3

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but it sounds as if you're counting every single "unsubstantiated" claim as a false report. Am I reading that correctly? Because if so, that makes absolutely no sense. "Unsubstantiated" assault claims are deemed so because there is no concrete evidence either way, i.e. a positive rape kit or an alibi for the accused. By counting every unsubstantiated claim as a false report, you're essentially saying, "there's no proof either way, but I'm going to believe …
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:42 PM
0

It is absolutely a valid point. Eliminating paternal responsibility to make up for the fact that men are not born with uteruses would increase the American tax burden significantly. The amount of money that the federal government spends to re-home surrendered newborns (a negligible percentage of adopted infants) is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive tax increase you're proposing. Furthermore, the legal system goes against voter opinion in order to do what's "fair and right" only when i…
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:22 PM
1

Well, I already do donate to Heifer every month, so writing a check to help support a poor family every month is clearly not something I object to. But, as a whole, I see where you're coming from. However, we will always have poor children. We will always have parents whose situations change. If Jane has a good job and a baby and then gets into an accident and cannot work, we don't just let Jane and her baby starve to death, we allow them access to public support. If no father ever has to pay a …
/r/MensRights25/02/15 03:58 PM
-3

Yeah, I never really understand this either. Child support isn't ordered for funsies, it's ordered because the custodial parent needs it to feed their kid. If non-custodial parents stopped paying child support, custodial parents wouldn't magically be able to come up with that money (if they could, support wouldn't have been ordered in the first place), they would need additional government services (SNAP, Medicade), which US taxes would have to rise significantly to pay for.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:51 PM
2

Yeah, I've actually been reading over DV stats for a work project today, and even the most egalitarian peer-reviewed journals haven't found such a stat. I would guess that that the 70% stat is based on anecdotal evidence and numerical guesswork. (Much like a lot of the rape stats in this country.)
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:41 PM
1

The findings at a glance is fantastic resource. Again, many thanks! I really appreciate you taking the time to connect me with this information. Please know that it will go to teaching young people about healthy relationships and recognizing symptoms of teen dating violence.
/r/MensRights25/02/15 02:16 PM
1

Yes, they unfortunately have. I graduated in 2009, and the environment that I teach in is significantly different from that in which I was educated. When I was in training for this job, I accidentally used the phrase "worked like hell" in a class I was student teaching, and both the head teacher and my evaluator were absolutely appalled. I teach in the rural south, and that adds an extra layer of difficulty to almost all of what I teach. I've watched a few of her videos now, and I'm planning to …
/r/MensRights25/02/15 05:44 AM
0

Are you seriously suggesting that Russia will attack us with nuclear force in the next 20 years? Why do you feel this way? Russia currently has an active draft, and it still is not a threat to the US even in peacetime. Can you explain why you believe the world will be embroiled in a nuclear war within 20 years? The custody debate is exactly like the wage gap debate. The difference is based on personal choice. If someone chooses to do 1% of the parenting during the relationship, then that's their…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 10:56 PM
2

Thank you so much for your sincere and informative reply; this was exactly what I was looking for. Your edit was especially helpful. The idea that the narrative of men as abusers can blind men to their own risk is something that I will absolutely be using in my new curriculum. Would you mind extrapolating on violence by proxy? I've done some research on it, but I would love to hear a man's voice on it. Would you say that this is a common problem in DV perpetrated against men?
/r/MensRights24/02/15 10:45 PM
1

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond! I love the way these videos are presented, but since I usually teach in public schools, I can't use materials with any cursing in them, even "hell". I wish I could show the Sally vs. Sue video to some of my girls, but again, cursing. However, this did compel me to do some research on the term "threat narrative", which I feel will definitely add to my DV lessons. Thanks again!
/r/MensRights24/02/15 10:36 PM
0

In terms of laws that discriminate against men solely for their gender, I can't begin to imagine what you're talking about. It can't be the Selective Service, because for the Selective Service to discriminate against the modern American men, there would have to be a credible threat of a draft while he is still in fighting range, which would be a max of 22 years. Otherwise, he's just signing a piece of paper. Because the US is a nuclear power, the draft is politically unpopular, and the US avoids…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 10:27 PM
2

Do I believe that there is some kind of shadowy conspiracy out there that colludes to oppress women? Absolutely not. I believe that in some areas of society, traditional gender norms can hold people back from persuing activities that are non-traditional for their gender. For example, there is still a cultural ideal that women somehow make "better" caregivers, and that idea obviously hurts men and women, but in different ways. How is that relevant to your claim that I am working to oppress men?
/r/MensRights24/02/15 07:54 PM
1

I don't believe that that could be true. What kind of harm are you proposing I have committed against you? I pay my taxes, give blood and plasma, and teach a class to highschoolers on dating violence among teens, in which I emphasize that DV affects men equally, and that the forms of DV most women use are often more insidious and difficult to recognize than those of male perpetrators. I feel that I do more than most to stand up for men. What additional work are you proposing that I do to help me…
/r/MensRights24/02/15 02:14 PM
-1

No. Millions of women identify as feminists because they believe in equality under the law, and that is a valid belief. Saying to a person "other people have done bad things in the name of your belief, so it is therefore a bad thing, and if you still believe in it, you're bad, too" doesn't work for feminism, just like it doesn't work for Christianity or Islam. Other women have used feminism to enact policies that have harmed men, but that doesn't invalidate MY belief in feminism. I believe in eq…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 10:29 PM
2

Women living in poverty and/or in rural or conservative areas often face significant hurdles while attempting to terminate a pregnancy. Having to drive 500+ miles on multiple days, fees being financially devastating, etc. I agree with you, I'm just (honestly) curious who you think should be paying the money the dad doesn't pay?
/r/MensRights23/02/15 09:16 PM
-1

Again, I do believe in 50/50 presumptive custody, but I don't think they're trying to make anyone the bad guy. If a couple is going through a bitter divorce, how is one parent being saddled 50% of the time with children who are strangers to them best for the children? Sure, it may be what the parent wants, but it's not necessarily best for the children. That's what they're trying to say. The biggest issue for feminism right now, in my opinion, is paid parental leave time. Not maternal leave, par…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 08:57 PM
-1

I'm not trying to disagree with you, I also believe in 50/50 presumptive custody. They aren't trying to paint men as the bad guy; they don't mention parental gender in their postion at all. Women are given majority custody more often because they are the primary caregiver more often than men, it's not simply because they're women. The same goes with abuse. Women are more likely to abuse children than men because they are more likely to be primary caregivers than men, period. When you break down …
/r/MensRights23/02/15 08:06 PM
0

The full swing of the MRM is too new to influence legislation, period. However, I can look at the attitudes espoused by many of their figureheads and see that I disagree with them (ex: Roose V beleiving all rape on private property should be legal, Paul Elam believing that rapists shouldn't be prosecuted, Paul Elam believing that domestic abuse should invalidate parental responsibilites), and still decide that that doesn't invalidate my belief that the MRM is a valid movement. The same goes with…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 07:00 PM
-1

I do see where you're coming from, but again, we're talking about "dictionary definition" feminism, which is that both genders should be equal under the law. If you believe that both genders should be legally permitted to work and take out personal lines of credit, then you believe in feminism, just as if you believe that knocking a cup off of a desk will end in it hitting the floor, you believe in gravity.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 06:08 PM
0

Well, the poster I replied to specifically mentioned "dictionary definition feminism", i.e. the belief that both men and women should be permitted to hold jobs, have lines of credit, etc. Just as people high up in the MRM have views that you disagree with (such as Roosh V believing that all rape on private property should be legal), organizations high up in the feminist movement (like NOW) have views that I diagree with. I do absolutely believe that 50/50 should be the default in every state, no…
/r/MensRights23/02/15 05:50 PM
-4

Yeah, I don't really understand this either. Do you enjoy having the right to work? Do you enjoy being able to get a line of credit without having a male co-signer? Then you're a feminist. But radical feminism has given feminism a REALLY bad name, and you have to be extremely close-minded not to realize and accept this. Why can't some feminists understand that most other feminists won't take on the label because of the negative cultural ideas about it? Shaking my head.
/r/MensRights23/02/15 04:33 PM
0

I have, actually. That's a lot of why I don't believe domestic abuse negates parental responsibility. I do think that if you bring a child into the world, you owe it to them to do everything in your power to ensure they have a happy, healthy life. I do not think that it is morally sound for an adult to leave a helpless child with a known abuser and not even have the decency to call CPS. Your story, while admittedly very sad, is not relevant. You were not the biological father of that child, so n…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 06:48 PM
1

http://www.cmlaw1.com/retroactive-child-support-pennsylvania/ http://www.vladimerlaw.com/Practice-Areas/Child-Support.shtml Here are some sources to support my statement that retroactive child support does not exist in my state. However, after additional research I have found that it DOES exist in some hyper-conservative states that adhere strongly to traditional gender roles, like Texas, for example. So, it looks like we're both right. It exists in some states (up to four years), but it doesn't…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 04:08 AM
1

Are you trying to say that someone can collect CS from a time before there was a standing court order? Because that does not make any legal sense. You can't be forced to pay money from before an order was issued against you. And may I ask what state it was that you got this information? If it was South Carolina or Florida, then my apologies. There are absolutely some states with family court language that is not gender-neutral. I guess my stance is this: I lived in a state with gender-neutral fa…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 03:43 AM
1

Yeah, I hear you. I'm sorry you're in a shitty situation with your kids/ex. Can I pick your brain a bit, though? I have a few questions about how you personally feel about your situation (I came from an opposite one), but I don't want to be nosy.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 03:04 AM
1

Well, thank you. But I really don't think either one of my parents were lying about their experiences with family court. That's why I don't really follow what you're trying to say. Can you show me where you read that the spouse initiating a divorce can recover legal fees from the other spouse? Because that's not legally sound, at all. And why are you defending people who don't even care enough to push for custody? I don't think someone who sees a custody battle as "a waste of money" has any busi…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:53 AM
1

I'm not trying to be combative, I really am curious how you feel about it. I see people advocating legal paternal surrender, or "financial abortion" on here all the time, and while I do totally support that in theory, I don't how that would work in practice. What do you see as an alternative to child support? I can't think of any kind of system that wouldn't put the father's cost onto the taxpayers somehow, and I have a feeling that most people on this sub wouldn't want to pay more taxes to pay …
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:39 AM
1

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Someone brought up the topic of fathering children and abandoning them, and then you compared that to making a false rape report, for some reason. Can you explain why you think the two are similar? I mean, you're calling her, the ex-wife, abusive. Even if those children aren't his, he still knowingly left vulnerable children in the hands of someone he felt had abused him terribly, and apparently never looked back. That's why I think he's a bad face f…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:26 AM
1

My parents did, in the interest of full disclosure, but since we got the same story about it from both of them, I've always believed it. They had a really high-conflict divorce in 2007 in PA, which is a pretty egalitarian state, as far as family courts go. Both of their lawyers told them that unless they had tangible proof that the other one had abused us kids, going for more than 50/50 would make them look petty and vindictive to a judge, really not what they like to see. I know some states, li…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:14 AM
0

That man, exactly. One man is being unfairly saddled with an unfair burden, and it's news. If it were happening every day, why would it be news? Wives getting restraining orders against their husbands is not the norm in the three months after they give birth, so I don't see how it's relevant to the average man being able to surreptitiously carry out a home paternity test. Are you saying that the average father already has the deal with the dissolution of his relationship with the mother in the f…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 02:00 AM
1

http://www.divorcepeers.com/stats18.htm Sir, I've found you a site with significantly newer statistics on the matter. It also has a white background, which you will find is significantly less painful to the eyes than the blog post you provided.
/r/MensRights10/02/15 12:22 AM
1

Sir, in regards to your second point, I do not understand why you are putting words into my mouth. Are you trying to say that people should be permitted to bring children into the world and then abandon them? That is not a legally or morally defensible position. I do not understand why you would think that any person should be permitted to bring children into the world, and then foist them onto others to take care of. The cost of raising a child to age 18 is roughly $240,000 USD. Are you proposi…
/r/MensRights10/02/15 12:11 AM
1

What do you mean? It's not the kind of crime where you either have physical proof or are lying. False rape claims are a TRAVESTY, but what alternative is there? Do we stop punishing people for rape and create a system where serial predators can offend with no punishment, or do we swing the pendulum in the other direction, and slap each supposed victim with a defamation of character/filing a false report suit if they were not able to get a video recording of their attack? I'm really not trying to…
/r/MensRights09/02/15 10:36 PM
2

Dude, that makes absolutlely no sense. Fathers rights is a central tenet of the MRM; conflating making false statements to law enforcement with bringing a child into the world and then leaving it with someone you claim is unstable and abusive does NOT make the MRM look sympathetic. This kind of language alienates potential supporters of the MRM and ultimately does it a disservice.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 09:57 PM
1

So many people on here love to use anecdata to "prove" that the family court system hates men, but are mysteriously silent when you point out that 70% of child custody cases are settled out of court, or that fathers who push for full custody get it MORE than mothers who do so do. SMDH.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 09:46 PM
1

You didn't "beat" her at all. It's obviously a legal travesty that men can be forced to pay support for children who aren't biologically theirs, but it's disgustingly easy to prevent that from happening. DNA tests can be bought from any drug store for $20. Even if you DO suspect your kid isn't biologically yours (which you have only a 33% chance of being right about), you can secretly confirm that in five minutes. Most states give husbands three months after birth to claim paternity fraud. In th…
/r/MensRights09/02/15 09:36 PM
0

I've gone through the family court system, and in my experience, the people who work in support enforcement are more than willing to work with people in hardship situations and help them get onto the right track. They deal with so many straight-up assholes on a daily basis, the "well, I decided to start a new family, so making me pay to help feed the kids I had with my first wife is MISANDRY" kind of people, that when someone comes along who is trying to do the right thing, they are extremely sy…
/r/MensRights09/02/15 09:14 PM
1

Exactly. Even if he didn't want them, if he knew that they were in the hands of an abuser (as he says he did), why couldn't he do the bare minimum and call CPS? I don't see how saying, "well this woman is totally going to abuse my kid, but it's better than paying child support!" is a morally defensible position.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 08:58 PM
2

Thank you. Fathers rights are a huge part of the MRM, and having this deadbeat dad representing wronged fathers is so illogical.
/r/MensRights09/02/15 08:47 PM
0

Are...are you calling supporting your child "propaganda"?
/r/MensRights09/02/15 08:21 PM
1

As far as I know, a big part of it is that claims that prosecutors know can't lead to conviction are usually dropped as "lack of evidence". Doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen, just that there is no physical/video evidence (no rape kit, etc.). If every case that was dropped for lack of evidence was punished as slander or character assault or something like that, a) tons and tons of men and women with legitimate assault claims would be punished, and b) no one would ever come forward an…
/r/MensRights09/02/15 07:31 PM
0

Each drop of pre-ejaculate contains between 20 and 40,000 sperm cells. It only takes one, man. 18 years of child support is a big risk to be taking.
/r/TheRedPill06/02/15 05:47 PM
2

You're absolutely right, but I think part of the issue is that many find him to be a polarizing figurehead of the men's movement, and a polarizing figurehead could be less likely to recruit new members than a more relatable or charismatic one. Fathers' rights are a core tenet of the MRM, and if he does admit to abandoning his two children, he might be hard for fathers who've been discriminated against to relate to.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 04:40 PM
0

Sir, the only study linked through that blog post is an NSFG study from 1995. That study does not control at all for the level of religious involvement that either partner has, which is a glaring error. Additionally, the 2002 study found that the more promiscuous the man, the more likely he was to divorce, just as it did with women. This refutes your entire claim. Also, divorce rates have nothing to do with "bonding". The evidence that YOU have provided proved in 2002 that the more promiscuous t…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 04:29 PM
0

I don't understand how you can take a study like that and say, "see, it's all womens fault!". It does stand to reason that divorce rates would be higher of women who engaged in pre-marital sex than those who married as virgins, but NOT because pre-marital sex makes women unable to bond with their husbands, as you're claiming. Most women in the US who remain abstinent until marriage do so because of religious beliefs, most often traditional Christian beliefs, and of course women who observe tradi…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 03:56 PM
1

This is a very good point.
/r/MensRights06/02/15 03:45 PM
1

I am not white knighting at all. You are claiming that female sex hormones destroy oxytocin and dopamine receptors in the brain, with absolutely no evidence to support it. You then claim that I must be wrong, because I cannot prove a negative. You are also wrong in asserting that I know nothing of how DV is handled in the US. One of my closest friends is a DA working in the DV system, and we often discuss the nature of the job. How are you more qualified to speak on the nature of DV in the US th…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 03:29 PM
1

Because why does matter. It could be just as likely, as I stated earlier, that those marraiges fail because the husbands cannot handle jealousy as constructively as women can. That men make up the majority of people sentenced to mandatory anger management classes would easily support that assertion. Were that the case, the cause of those marriages ending would not be the women engaging in pre-marital sex, but those women choosing to marry men who could not constructively handle jealousy, and the…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 03:01 PM
1

The cause matters in this context, because you claimed that women who have pre-marital sex are statistically unlikely to be able to bond to their husbands. I asked you why that would be, and you offered no response. You only said that divorces involving women who've engaged in pre-marital sex are higher than those involving virgin brides, which is true, but not relevant to your claim that women who have pre-marital sex are statistically unlikely to be able to bond to their husbands. Sexual dimor…
/r/MensRights06/02/15 02:39 PM
1

Of course the cause matters. There's no reason for anyone to believe that those marraiges are ending because those wives can no longer bond neurologically to their husbands, especially when it could just as easily be argued that those husbands are unable to deal with jealousy over the existence of previous sexual partners as constructively as those wives can, and that is the root cause of those divorces. Here, the cause is especially significant because just above, you claimed that a woman with …
/r/MensRights05/02/15 11:47 PM
1

My understanding of what you've been saying is that men are drafted and not women because society views men as "disposable" because they are incapable of giving birth. Have I been misunderstanding you? Also, could you explain to me how my points displayed a lack of empathy? You told me that disagreeing with the idea that men are sent to war because society values them less than women showed me to be youthfully ignorant and lacking in worldly knowledge. I explained why I feel qualified to speak o…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 10:51 PM
1

I don't disagree with the statistics behind your last point, but I disagree with the claim that pre-marital sex was the cause of that. How could pre-marital sex cause women to value marraige, but not men? Can you explain your understanding of how that would work? Because it sounds like you're saying that sexual activity destroys a woman's ability to bond to a future partner, but not a man's. How could that happen, neurologically? How could sexual activity destroy oxytocin and dopamine receptors …
/r/MensRights05/02/15 10:37 PM
1

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-02-04-do-you-stray-or-stay-humans-divide-promiscuous-or-faithful-groups This recent study, carried out by one of the most respected research institutions in the world, directly refutes that. Female and male brains are wired almost identically. To claim that sexual activity could destroy oxytocin receptors in female brains but not male brains is illogical.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 09:36 PM
1

That is a blog post that only contains opinion. Decades of scientific study have found that human beings tend to either be inclined to promiscuity or inclined to monogamy, and that gender made little difference in their inclination. The idea that frequent sexual activity could destroy the female brain's ability to release "bonding" chemicals, but not the male brain's, is absolutely absurd and not at all backed by scientific study.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 06:25 PM
1

Sir, PLEASE get a lawyer! Also, it could really, really behoove you to push for equal time with your children right now. Equal time with the kids will equal less child support, and it will help to ensure that you get the 50/50 custody that you and your kids deserve.
/r/MensRights05/02/15 06:14 PM
1

Can you explain why you feel she doesn't have the mental capacity to work at McDonald's? She has an extensive education that she completed entirely on her own merit (it's not like daddy was on the board of Yale Law). Clearly, she is highly intelligent. Maybe she would manage a McDonald's poorly, but she obviously has the brain power required to be a McSlave. A second Clinton presidency isn't an unfortunate possibility because Hillary is dumb, it's an unfortunate possibility because she is brilli…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 06:01 PM
1

I identify strongly as a feminist, and I feel that that this is a wonderful place to learn about the issues that men face today. It has certainly opened my eyes to many privileges that I enjoy simply because of my gender. I do not feel that this is a better space to discuss equality than a feminist space. In my experience, misandry is quickly called out on feminist blogs and message boards. Here, misogyny is also called out, but not as frequently, and for different reasons. Women who call out ot…
/r/MensRights05/02/15 05:50 PM
1

I don't see how anything I wrote was wrong. Men are more valuable for physical combat because of their sheer brawn, what is inaccurate about that? Men did not die in wars because there was a cultural ideal that they are "disposable" because of their gender, they died in wars because the elites waging the conflicts saw them as lesser. This is a class issue, not a gender issue. Take the Vietnam conflict for example. Upper and middle class men, the sons of the politicians waging the conflict, were …
/r/MensRights05/02/15 03:05 PM
1

Sir or Ma'am, I do not see any truth behind your assertion that it is somehow more difficult for men to see a physician, or that male combat mortality rates are a result of a cultural idea that men are disposable. When I lived in the UK, my GP's office was a twenty minute drive from where I worked. I've never before heard the claim that there is some sort of law that bars one from registering with a GP's office in whose catchment area one is located in, and in my (admittedly brief) search for an…
/r/MensRights04/02/15 11:06 PM
0

Well, even a cursory internet search would tell you that women elect to go to the doctor significantly more often than men do. It's just a fact. I get a yearly checkup, whereas my boyfriend hasn't been to a physician in 16 years, because it's a "waste of money". Thus, it is signicantly more likely that he will die of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. than I will. That's not sexism, it's statistics.
/r/MensRights04/02/15 06:33 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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