TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

gagaoolala Archive

View 0 posts and 95 comments by gagaoolala on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-2

I think it depends somewhat on the current employee count. It sounds like there are more guys than girls working. If that's the situation, then I'm not sure that you would have a case.
/r/MensRights27/04/11 06:13 AM
1

It depends a bit on what they're doing. A judge friend of mine told me that he always tried to get a stipulation in the child custody agreement that no non-family adult could spend the night in the house while the child was there (basically prevents the bf from staying the night). He was doing this from a conservative Christian point of view, but OP could theoretically get something like that added to his agreement. (He would probably have to give up something though... you really want that sort…
/r/MensRights14/04/11 05:27 AM
3

I'm much less concerned about people being a little overprotective and a little "call the cops happy" and much more concerned that the police didn't handle the situation better. Unless the girl matched the description of a recent parental abduction of a child, then it made little/no sense for the police to investigate. I don't see anything in the dispatch report that would indicate suspicion of any crime (had the concerned tipsters indicated that the girl was in distress or something, then it mi…
/r/MensRights31/03/11 12:55 AM
1

All very true, but I don't want to give up on the idea (at least theoretically) of having a reasonable work-life balance (talking on the order of 60-70 hour weeks for very top execs here). In my corporate experience, there is frankly an equal or higher demand for people to be in the office rather than producing results. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way, or we could at least have very efficient people working less but checking their iPhone every 45 min for email questions.
/r/MensRights30/03/11 03:45 AM
1

Some part of this sounds like shooting ourselves in the foot. If we could actually make jobs with a reasonable work-life balance and still maintain economic efficiency, wouldn't that be a good thing? It would perhaps implicitly benefit women because previously demanding careers would be more palatable to them, but solutions where we make things better for everyone are usually good to have happen. I think Malcolm Gladwell talks about something similar in one of his earlier books (might be thinkin…
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:57 AM
3

True, but in the "he wants it, she doesn't case" there are at least no legal/financial implications for the man and no emotional implications for the child. In the "she wants it, he doesn't case" there are at least 6 figure sums of money in play, with a lot of legal nasties to back it up, as well as the host of issues that might negatively affect the child.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 07:17 AM
1

Wow, that was a surprisingly inoffensive video. Aside from the Asian impression that she did and a slice of over-generalization, the video basically said "Asian students disproportionately talk on cellphones in the library."
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:44 AM
5

Maybe this is a factor of allowing people to bloviate too much on the internet, but frankly this post made incredibly little sense. Maybe the blog is intended for a small audience that keeps up with the various voices discussing irrelevant crap like this, but informative posts tend to explain things to a casual reader in some more depth. Alexandra Wallace got metaphorically raped BECAUSE she was a pretty white girl. AND all credibility is gone, forever. (A) It's offensive to the term "rape" and …
/r/MensRights25/03/11 07:34 AM
1

If you have a decent lawyer write it up, generally those aren't problems. The most common mistakes are not signing it far enough away from the wedding (you need a few months before) and each person needs to have their own lawyer look over the document and each person must pay their own lawyer (prevents potential conflicts of interest). Other than that, anything to do with any current or future children is off the table, and usually once you co-mingle funds, that entire account becomes community …
/r/MensRights07/03/11 08:26 PM
5

You can certainly ask for him to split the bill with you (totally reasonable). Many clinics like Planned Parenthood operate on a sliding scale payment system, so you might be able to pay on your own anyway even if you don't want to involve him or he refuses to pay. The most critical thing (if you've already 100% decided to go this route) is to make sure you go ASAP -- you can worry about the finances later. The procedure gets much more expensive/dangerous the later you wait, and legal complicati…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 05:36 AM
9

I get your concept, but there was a big gay-rights push for the repeal of DADT. I understand that most feminists are anti-war, but they could pick the low hanging women's rights fruit if that was their main goal.
/r/MensRights13/02/11 10:59 PM
3

Definitely go with "I'm rubber and you're glue"
/r/MensRights07/02/11 04:25 AM
1

I disagree on the priorities that you have. I'm not necessarily sure that I support generous paid parental leaves in the first place (but to the extent that I do, they should be gender neutral except for medical issues as we've discussed). Childbirth should be a relatively foreseeable event, so I have no problem pushing the short-term financial burden onto the parents. I'm much more concerned about the career implications and ability of both parents to take part in the very early care of their c…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 03:02 AM
0

I haven't ever seen a women wildly inconvenienced by pumps. This was fairly common among the women that only took the paid leave for pregnancy and consequently came back to work after a few months. It was generally understood that if one of the new mothers had her office door shut, then it was pump time. I think you also underestimate the childcare portion of parental leave. More equal leave between spouses isn't just about bonding -- men are equally capable of all childcare related tasks (excep…
/r/MensRights31/01/11 01:47 AM
1

We except NO excuse for any damage done to female genitalia. That's mostly because of some disagreement over the best way to combat FGM. Various Western medical groups and women's rights activists have floated the idea of trying to replace full FGM with the prick/piercing. From an epidemiological/public health perspective, we accept certain risks and pain to combat a disease. While the results are a bit ambiguous, the best case scenario for disease prevention is very impressive (http://www.cdc.g…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 04:21 AM
0

The glans clitoris is the female analogue to the male glans penis. As discussed elsewhere in the thread, the ceremonial nick is rather rare.
/r/MensRights28/01/11 02:56 AM
1

Similar descriptions of all types of procedures on both Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting] and Circumstitions.com which is against both male and female circumcision [http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defined.html] The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris The WHO's definition of Type II FGM is "partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora The WHO defines Type III FGM as narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation o…
/r/MensRights28/01/11 02:51 AM
1

Fair enough -- it just strikes me as more pro-FGM than anti-male cicumcision the way it's phrased (which I'm pretty sure is not your position).
/r/MensRights28/01/11 02:33 AM
-1

True, given the constraints of my other post on this thread (i.e. type IV symbolic procedures). I take some of your points on the second link. The epidemiological evidence on male circumcision has been argued both ways with somewhat ambiguous results which is why I attached the "arguably" modifier. I don't really agree with most of your points regarding FGM on that post. Namely, your discussion of orgasm rates among FGMed women isn't helpful -- if hacking off clits is good for orgasms, why not h…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:27 PM
-2

I think the benefit to male circumcision is that men are less likely to get infected when circumcised, and thus they are less likely to spread the infection. Women have a much higher probability of infection from most STDs for mechanical reasons, so "cleaning" the area around the vagina is less likely to have a substantial impact on infection potential. As far as I know, all FGM cases involve clitoris removal. There is a movement toward symbolic female circumcision which involves pricking rather…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:06 PM
-9

The two procedures are rather different. FGM is more akin to chopping off the head of the penis (or worse, depending on the specific type of FGM). There are also at least arguably hygiene and STD-prevention reasons for circumcision which don't exist for FGM.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 04:55 PM
-3

I think females at large (and some males) would get the benefit of men lasting longer rather than just feminists. On a more serious note, I've never heard "men lasting longer in bed" to be a major feminist issue. There are certainly some issues with circumcision, but again I would argue that those issues are more broadly cultural rather than feminist. In other words, if the broadly construed feminist movement were to compose a top 10 wish list, I don't see male circumcision being on that list.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 04:46 PM
4

Yeah... not seeing much there. The Barbara Kay referenced in the post seems to be a bit of a nut job, but frankly the only "feminist" point that she raises is in the last paragraph. I've never heard that argument before (that circumcision will limit the number of female partners that a man had because of the greater sexual endurance of circumcised men). First off, it seems like a dumb idea on its face. Secondly, this Barbara Kay sounds a little slow to say the least. In short, I don't see how ci…
/r/MensRights27/01/11 09:52 AM
18

I'm not really sure how circumcision is a feminist issue... If anything it seems to be a religious/cultural issue.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 08:53 AM
9

and if it's a hate crime, it's generally a guaranteed life sentence. Umm.... not so much. Usually the hate crime addition is an extra 2-5 years. (from the article) "The next day, Thomas, who had attended £12,000-a-year ($19,000) Sydenham High School for Girls, joked about the killing on Facebook." This is where my convictions against torture get a little wobbly. I mean, there's drunken horrible mistakes that deserve jail time and then there's drunken behavior that deserves the chair or worse.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 08:43 AM
2

Holy crap, I was under the impression that it was closer to $50-$100 per year at the most.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:22 AM
1

Did you consider getting some semen frozen prior to the procedure? It seems a bit easier that way if you eventually want to have children (more of the turkey baster method than strictly natural).
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:14 AM
7

Semi-sex offender status? I'm appalled that they even count that as a sex offense. Unless a man puts something into an orifice of a minor (or serially rapes people), I don't see much value in assigning sex offender status. Anything falling under the lines of public indecency, lewdness, or statutory rape are clearly not sex crimes in the same way that almost all states treat sex crimes. These restrictive laws should apply only to serial offenders and very mentally ill individuals.
/r/MensRights17/01/11 07:41 AM
3

I can definitely tell you that prenups for things like how the children will be raised are not valid in the US. The thinking is that the court system should not get involved with internal affairs in the marriage (only the sorting out of assets and custody in the event of breakup). There are numerous other limitations on prenups -- this is definitely a situation where you cannot assume an open ability to contract the parameters of your relationship.
/r/MensRights16/01/11 05:02 AM
1

You blame feminism for the plight of African-American men? Even on /r/mensrights, ummm wtf?
/r/MensRights31/12/10 08:09 AM
2

Agreed - it was almost certainly a psychological freak out that caused the hospitalization.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 12:11 AM
3

There are some nerve conditions that make pressure on an area very painful. A casual brush of the hand wouldn't really do it. The most charitable explanation is that the girl had a nerve issue and knew that touching her back hard could cause severe pain, and consequently freaked out from a normal touch.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 11:55 PM
5

Parties are a tool of the patriarchy
/r/MensRights28/12/10 09:38 PM
12

I agree that "stop means stop," but that's not what happened in either the back touching incident or the hugging incident mentioned on the blog. In both cases, there was a gray area of what was appropriate, and in both cases the "offended" party apparently flipped their shit when someone touched them.
/r/MensRights28/12/10 09:37 PM
2

When you're organizing the holiday party, then you don't step on people's toes. When you're on a client call, someone performs or you step in. You can't be an asshole, and ideally boundaries should be set, but considering that this woman was a new employee, OP was completely in the right to jump in. Barring a frank discussion about how the organization prides itself on letting sales fall through because some staff can't form coherent sentences under pressure, OP should keep stepping in. [In all …
/r/MensRights26/12/10 06:36 AM
8

Ummm... if anything your boss's comment is the sexist one.
/r/MensRights26/12/10 06:31 AM
2

I think most of the major ideas have been discredited. Every study I've seen about vaginal muscle interactions with sperm have been pretty wildly amateurish (yes, all the male masturbation studies and female semen retention studies are crap -- the penis shape study is the only vaguely believable one). I'm guessing that it's a field of somewhat limited academic prestige, so no much effort goes into it. Don't even get me started on his animal examples. No evidence of "killer sperm" http://eprints.…
/r/MensRights24/12/10 07:04 PM
2

I get that you want to be helpful, but "I have to do hard work b/c of gender discrimination" is quite different from "I don't mind doing hard work but I don't get to b/c of gender discrimination" unless promotions/pay are involved.
/r/MensRights18/12/10 05:48 PM
7

It's supposed to be a dark comedy -- all of the characters are flawed. If anything, Jackie's husband is the most sympathetic character.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 11:06 AM
1

I'm not sure I really get the connection between self-defense tactics and the article that you link to. The article argues that men writ large shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of male rapists and that drunk people have sex (occasionally regretting their decisions) and we should all deal with it.
/r/MensRights25/11/10 10:52 AM
21

"male violence is an expression of power and control over women; men are hitting to control and get things. Women's violence is an expression of frustration and rage and exasperation." Oh, so that's clear now. This is the result of women's studies without men's studies.
/r/MensRights24/11/10 09:26 AM
3

So basically you said alimony shouldn't exist? That's fair enough. I have a lot of mixed feelings on the subject. But this case is about a women being denied alimony on frankly flimsy grounds. I think the argument against alimony belongs in a different place than the argument against idiotic enforcement of alimony.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 08:04 AM
1

So I think it's appropriate to ask about renegotiating a contract/agreement at any point. Obviously the other party to the agreement has the right to say no. Maybe it was socially awkward for the husband to hear this, but the wife never actually cheated.
/r/MensRights20/11/10 08:01 AM
1

Well that's unfortunate because it's reality Ok, we've found our difference. Maximizing quality of their relationships? Maybe it IS better for a relationship to have one primary wage earner. Maybe Dutch women are more loving and giving partners because they don't have to focus on being another earner as their primary utility in a marriage. I'm only ok with this on a gender-neutral basis (i.e. 1 partner earns the wages but it is not necessarily the man) other aspects they find worthy in trade. Th…
/r/MensRights19/11/10 08:00 AM
2

Isn't this a little unfair to the woman? So certainly we could have the conversation that she cheated therefore no alimony, but isn't it a bit rash to hear that she theorized about cheating so therefore no alimony? If we're going down this road, porn is the next obvious case for annulment. This looks to more of an idiosyncratic Catholic/Italian issue than anything major.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 06:00 AM
1

So we're obviously not making much traction here anymore. I'll try to put out some closing remarks unless you want to bring up anything else. I get that you put pretty much all your value on equality of number of hours of labor and a paycheck....is it that hard to imagine people that don't sweat this as much as you do? It's really hard for me to see this as at all valid. Certainly there exist cultural constructs which allow certain segments of certain genders to not work much. This brings to min…
/r/MensRights19/11/10 05:35 AM
1

Only from your personal bias in which money inherently represents how one views their 'standard of living'. many people value other things. Traditionally standard of living is pretty much tied to real purchasing power. Quality of life is more what you're look for. My point is that my standard of living (purchasing power) will go down in a Dutch marriage because the wife isn't working to her full potential. Unless Dutch men just really like having less money, this suggests that something is at pl…
/r/MensRights19/11/10 04:25 AM
1

62 percent of women working part time in the Netherlands don't have young children in the house, and mothers rarely increase their working hours even when their children leave home Seems to indicate that childcare is not a substantial part of the workload of Dutch women. When I talk to women who spend half the week doing what they want—playing sports, planting gardens, doing art projects, hanging out with their children, volunteering, and meeting their family friends If that is housework, sign m…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 10:28 PM
1

Maybe the other one does all the housework and meal prep. Maybe, due to their numerous other cultural influences, The point of the article was that the work does not balance out, all things considered. I never claim that everything needs to be 50-50, but I do think the overall amount of "effort" put into the relationship should be roughly 50-50 (maybe 1 person brings home the bacon and the other takes care of everything else, maybe they both work full-time and hire others to take care of much of…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 02:43 PM
1

In fact, in a highly socialized culture it's quite possible that they simply view the collective as better off with the arrangement as a whole, even if one side works more. Seems strange to us but that's why we should try not and put our own cultural biases into trying to figure out another culture's reasoning. The point of the article is that Dutch women work less, all things considered. The logical conclusion of your reasoning is that Dutch women are much less capable at producing useful thing…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 04:00 AM
1

There are a decent amount of superficial differences, but a lot of the population level stuff is really rather similar which is why the 2 get grouped together for many social science studies. Example: according to Statistics Canada, the Canadian female labor force participation rate is 47.2% which is really rather close to the US figure. There will obviously be bigger differences in things like healthcare where the two countries have explicitly different policies, but a lot of the macro variable…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 01:42 AM
1

Take a step back and work through the logic again. Everybody appears to be happy with the situation in the Netherlands. This implies that men are happy to work much more than their wives or that Dutch women are in a much stronger bargaining position (financially or culturally) than are American women. I have trouble believing the former proposition. Example: I'm happy to work an extra 10 hours for a nice pay raise, but I'm not willing to work an extra 10 hours so that my spouse can work 10 fewer…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 01:13 AM
1

I'm not sure I follow. My point is that Canadian/American women do more work than Dutch women. At least in the US, women are 46.8% of the work force and 59.2% of women work. (From the Department of Labor http://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm)
/r/MensRights18/11/10 12:59 AM
1

Basically this has to show that either the welfare state is exceedingly strong in the Netherlands (we're talking hundreds of light years ahead of the US and Canada here) or divorce/alimony laws are exceedingly harsh toward men. The proposition here is that women earn <25% of the household income and dick around for most of the time (even after accounting for women involved in childcare for young children). This is only possible if the women are extracting massive value from their husbands, or if…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 06:43 AM
2

If one person in an academic couple can make it rain with grant money, the other partner can usually get some position at the university. It really just comes down to whether your father is an attractive enough hire that another university is willing to hire both of them in order to get your father. It definitely happens, especially if they're flexible on geography.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 09:20 PM
1

It depends on how in demand they are academically. If one or both of them bring in the grant money, then it shouldn't be hard. Otherwise, it can be hard to find a tenured position when close to retirement (in practice, tenure is the reward for being academically productive or to lure a choice scholar from somewhere else).
/r/MensRights13/11/10 07:40 PM
3

Divorce is an administrative/civil matter, so it's a bit different than criminal rape charges. For one thing, the burden of proof is different.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 08:35 AM
3

In short, no. It's too expensive to litigate these things (and jury selection makes the outcome too random). If the university has already backed down, then just let it go. Obviously the administration doesn't value academic excellence, so obviously anyone affiliated with the university should jump ship if they are able to without harming their career. Incompetent leadership will drive down the prestige of the university sooner or later, and it's better to get away sooner.
/r/MensRights13/11/10 08:18 AM
1

You probably would dally more overall, but your frequency would be lower. Example: You have a big exam in 2 days that you forgot about - you will be studying your ass off for 2 days. If you instead had 2 months before the exam, you might study the same amount or more overall, but you wouldn't be studying as frequently. In the relationship case, I'm talking about dallying frequency rather than overall number of dalliances because the overwhelming majority of relationships are short term things. I…
/r/MensRights08/11/10 03:45 AM
3

If men don't need to worry about being too old for marriage, then they have less incentive to dally around. It's somewhat like if I told you that you had 2 years left to live, then you would probably be much more proactive in doing things than if I had not credibly told you that.
/r/MensRights07/11/10 06:09 PM
1

I get that -- it just seems a bit extreme to me. We have very few situations in which you could be liable for the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to raise a child and that are uninsurable, impossible to discharge in bankruptcy, and carry an additional heavy emotional cost. From a financial or life planning perspective, I don't think the current system (i.e. the one you are describing which gives 100% of the choice to the women) makes sense. From an emotional perspective, I see where yo…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 09:38 PM
0

In this thread or in another? My post above has a perfectly grammatical question at the end. I'm sorry that you think me too snarky. I actually just want you to talk a bit about what you think the law should be. There are all kinds of lovely standard or morals we hold ourselves to. Those are well and good (and perhaps we can judge others for exceeding or failing those standards). But I really want to know what you think the legal liabilities should be. In part this is because the OP seems most c…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:54 AM
-1

It's fabulous that you are a great judge of character! In the counterfactual scenario, consider a poor judge of character (perhaps even someone who thinks that he is a great judge of character but is mistaken). What should his legal liability be?
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:11 AM
1

That's also a lovely best case scenario. Dealing with the reality that condoms do break and less-safe-sex does happen, what do you think the law should require? I ask because that was the point of the original post. To be concrete: so assume that you have taken all possible precautions, yet you impregnate someone. What do you think your rights versus her rights should be regarding abortion? (To be even more specific) if she wants the child and you don't, what should happen? Vice versa? Edit: a b…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:09 AM
1

Eh, if you don't want to talk about the big picture then I'm not your therapist.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 03:45 AM
-1

I assumed that in the context of "ethics class" we were talking about broad concepts rather than individual situations. Morality is the discussion of individual actions while ethics is more focused on society/law/etc. To be less snarky, I pretty much didn't understand your position (and still don't). As a reply to wolfsktaag's comment, I assume that you were discussing legalities at least in passing. Your comment right now obviously describes the questions that you would ask yourself in such a s…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 03:31 AM
4

Lovely to hear about your personal feelings. What do you think the law should require? Also, if your condom failed or if your partner lied to you about taking birth control, would your position change?
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:56 AM
1

Certainly possible. In the US, it depends on the company, function, and industry as to whether it is a plus or not. I don't think it's ever really a negative, but it might not be viewed as positively as say a relevant master's degree or a few years of relevant work experience.
/r/MensRights04/11/10 04:25 PM
5

Basically there are limited options regarding stay-over relationship partners unless there are clauses regarding that in the divorce or child custody documents. If this is more along the lines of "random guy your ex sleeps with," I would be livid. If it is more along the lines of "your ex's long term BF (say 8-12+ months)", then it might be an issue to talk to her about but not necessary flip your shit over. Unless your ex and her BF are basically thinking about marriage and he is a somewhat act…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 04:55 AM
1

That's not at all what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that women are REALLY REALLY discriminated against if men already have this disadvantage of wasted time and Korean companies STILL hire many more men than women. Nothing in the article or my comments suggests that this is an ok thing to happen. Rather, I think your (valid) point about men having to perform military service indicates that women are more discriminated against than the article suggests in the realm of Korean corporate em…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 04:06 AM
1

If anything, this would imply that Korean firms REALLY hate hiring/promoting women. Assuming military service doesn't really add much to a person's corporate skill set, then companies really should be favoring women in hiring because they can spend those 2 years on extra education or work experience. That companies aren't hiring/promoting women indicates an extra level of discrimination. [As a side note, I have no idea the effect that military service has on the corporate skill set. If conversel…
/r/MensRights03/11/10 07:47 PM
1

I don't think "Korea favors men over women" was really the point of the article. Rather the point is that "Korean companies favor men in compensation/promotion/hiring decisions."
/r/MensRights03/11/10 07:42 PM
3

Neither method is 100% effective, and you still get the full burden of child support if the method fails.
/r/MensRights28/10/10 05:48 AM
3

On that note, things tend to get resolved when the 'cc:' list is long. If you don't get an ample response, blast an email response cc'ing the dean of undergrads, dean of the engineering school, dean of student life, university president, etc. I don't think certified mail will do anything - this is just a letter, not a subpoena. If you really want proof that the letter was sent, go with email.
/r/MensRights18/09/10 08:31 PM
5

I would stick to just the pool times and women only classes (if you actually want to take some of those classes). As nanomagnetic said, the more focused your letter is, the better response it is likely to get. All the other stuff on brochures, task forces, faculty will be outside the jurisdiction of the athletic director and will just increase the odds that your letter gets thrown in the bin. If you really want access to some of those resources, write focused, specific letters to the heads of th…
/r/MensRights18/09/10 08:27 PM
1

The chart in this post is very misleading, but the linked blog post explains things a tiny bit better. The "real" study results from the academic (not the one from Heritage) are the lines, not the bars. Only 34.9% of the marriages ended in divorce from the sample (it's a 10 year divorce rate rather than the 50% lifetime divorce rate you hear about a lot). I can't figure out where the academic results come from in the chart. The blogger claims Table 4 from the study, but that doesn't seem to prov…
/r/MensRights17/09/10 09:28 PM
2

More importantly, the marriages described in the survey took place between 1970 and 1996. So the data itself is 14 years old, and the people that the data describes are even older. Because younger people are less likely to have ever been married at the time of the survey, they are more likely to not be included in the sample at all. Even worse, states with low divorce rates tend to see later marriages, so women from these states are (likely) disproportionately tossed from the sample. So basicall…
/r/MensRights17/09/10 05:22 PM
2

Basically I would allow pretty much all food costs (grocery store, casual dining, fast food) that weren't egregiously over the top (i.e. 1 child clearly isn't eating $50 worth of food at TGIFridays). For mileage - yes. I know a number of people who own small businesses and all this type of stuff is commonly done. Mileage is tax deductible for business purposes for most small business owners. The same thing goes with various household bills when there is a home office. If you don't want to keep t…
/r/MensRights23/08/10 12:52 AM
1

Money is fungible - receipts and other ways of limiting spending are intended to make it less fungible. Obviously it's hard to make money completely non-fungible (in the worst case, you could purchase legitimate things that look like they are for the child and then sell them on ebay). Without a receipt reporting system in place, the custodial parent could theoretically spend less than the child support payment on the child (thus pocketing the remainder). The receipt system would at least prevent…
/r/MensRights23/08/10 12:14 AM
2

I think you misunderstand the system under discussion. The idea is to limit how child support funds would be spent, with no limitations or reporting on the custodial parent's personal finances. Think of it like this -- the custodial parent gets $500 at the first of each month in child support. On the last day of the month, they have to submit the receipts for all of their child-related expenses incurred during that month. If they spent less than $500, then they would reimburse the non-custodial …
/r/MensRights23/08/10 12:09 AM
1

I'm pretty sure this already happens. For food stamps at least, you can only buy food items (notably alcohol and tobacco can't be bought).
/r/MensRights22/08/10 07:07 PM
0

I think the idea is that an itemized list would make sure that things are in the right ballpark rather than narrowing it down to the nearest cent. The benefit would come from making sure that expensive items that the child clearly will not be using don't get paid for with child support money (e.g. when you see Gucci on the list, it's time to head back to the judge for an adjustment).
/r/MensRights22/08/10 07:04 PM
6

As an attempt to offer the counter point, consider the history going a bit further back. Women's equality in marriage is a rather recent development looking at the big picture. The "feminist" argument from this perspective is that equality is still a work in progress. Once we as a society have emphasized women's rights sufficiently, then we can focus on on equal rights. The practical issues are obviously that professional activists have little incentive to declare victory and go home and that it…
/r/MensRights21/08/10 07:11 PM
6

The best way to irritate a club is to go after their liquor license. I'm sure you could photo a few violations the place is making and send them to whichever office handles liquor licenses. If the place is serving minors, you and a few friends can call in some anonymous tips.
/r/MensRights08/08/10 04:24 AM
6

My vague understanding is that many of the minority cultural centers were created in the 70's, and now there is resistance to closing them. Women's centers specifically are also relatively proactive about supporting other causes (e.g. LGBT issues) which lets them stay relevant.
/r/MensRights27/07/10 09:35 AM
2

From a quick Google of MA laws, it looks like property owned before the marriage stays separate during divorce. Note that this only applies to distribution of assets, not alimony or child support. Assuming that you are the main earner, you will most likely pay alimony upon divorce. For a marriage of any significant length, you will need to pay enough to keep your spouse in roughly the same standard of living he/she was in during your marriage. Purchasing valuable items or real estate is the best…
/r/MensRights25/07/10 09:22 AM
1

That's certainly a possibility. I'm not sure about how much "social interaction" type traits are known about a sperm donor (except for potential self-assessment). I'm also not sure that the heritability of intelligence is high enough so that 1 biological parent's intelligence could cause a dramatic difference. In defense of the study, I'm going to fall back on my previous point that the lesbian couples seemed generally less well-off than the straight couples (economic status being somewhat corre…
/r/MensRights10/06/10 09:42 AM
2

Wow, I'm impressed by your commitment to research. Without unnecessarily judging these clinics, almost all of these charges seem unnecessary. I'm guessing they are geared toward couples that are having trouble naturally but are hoping to avoid ivf (as opposed to couples that need some semen and a glorified turkey baster). In my extensive knowledge of lesbian TV dramas, I can say that DIY insemination is a common thing at least in the minds of lesbian TV drama writers.
/r/MensRights08/06/10 07:09 AM
2

My understanding is that ivf babies weren't included. Semen is a few hundred dollars from a clinic (based on my Google search), or it is probably free in the cases where the child knew the donor. (also from p. 3) Between 1986 and 1992, prospective lesbian mothers who were inseminating or pregnant through DI were recruited via announcements that were distributed at lesbian events, in women’s bookstores, and in lesbian newspapers throughout the metropolitan areas of Boston, Washington, DC, and San…
/r/MensRights08/06/10 06:39 AM
3

Fair enough regarding the planned aspect. It seems like creating a control group on this point would be virtually impossible because heterosexual couples visiting fertility clinics have a whole different potential set of things going on. If you look at the demos, the lesbians were more middle class, but also more working class and less upper class. I don't think raw SES could really be an explanation here. Perhaps middle class children are better adjusted than either working or upper class child…
/r/MensRights08/06/10 06:22 AM
5

I don't think I see your point. Accidental lesbian families are probably pretty rare...
/r/MensRights08/06/10 06:06 AM
4

I don't really think that the self-report scale is an issue. The comparison group was also self-reported. Based on the demographic tables, it appears that the lesbian couples were generally poorer than the comparison sample. The lesbian group was far more concentrated in the Northeast and far more white than the comparison group. The authors mention this in their Discussion section right before they move onto the Conclusion. It seems like they could have at least taken a regression-based stab at…
/r/MensRights08/06/10 06:04 AM
1

I think you have a good framework overall. I assume missabravest's point is that you don't actually prove any of your arguments conclusively. From what I know about persuasive speech (not much), this isn't a problem. You just need a persuasive (50%+1 certainty) case versus a very compelling case. If you actually want a very compelling case, drop down to 3 points and elaborate more on them. Specifically, take up potential counter-arguments in more depth and debunk them or refute them.
/r/MensRights25/05/10 11:11 AM
3

First off, the difference in child support payments (47% vs 45%) seems kind of trivial to bring up. You have a lot of other good family-law related points. Maybe you can say that there is almost no difference, so it's wrong to pick on deadbeat dads. That seems more like you're presenting evidence rather than spinning evidence. I like your 5th point a lot. I think it might be more persuasive to make it a little bit less confrontational. Or maybe just rework the ordering a little. It sounds a bit …
/r/MensRights25/05/10 09:02 AM
1

To what degree is this supposed to be a persuasive speech (or invective) and to what degree an informed analysis? I ask because some of your points are persuasive, but if anyone took a deeper look, would turn out the opposite way you present them. Edit -- basically is this for a debate class or not?
/r/MensRights25/05/10 08:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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