TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

holierthanmao Archive

View 0 posts and 282 comments by holierthanmao 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)
0

Well, she has delivered 100 minutes of video towards the project thus far, so I would say it is completely different. The project you are referring to never released a single thing after two years.
/r/MensRights03/05/14 04:32 AM
2

You called her a bitch, a dyke, and a cunt. Oh, and you told her to suck your dick. Now you want to brag about it?
/r/MensRights31/03/14 03:48 AM
-11

You can disagree with it all you want. That's fine. If the existance of subs was predicated on all people agreeing with the sub, then most subs would be deleted (this one especially). Every community has a right to create its own moderation standards. In that subs case, they don't want people that they see as MRA folks from posting there. OP posted something that they identified as seeming MRA-ish and they banned him. I don't have to agree with it. You don't have to agree with it. The only peopl…
/r/MensRights23/03/14 12:16 AM
-5

Asshole is someone who is arrogant, rude, obnoxious, etc.
/r/MensRights23/03/14 12:09 AM
-12

I think the only reason it does not happen more frequently is because of people choosing to call women "bitch" or even "c*nt." That does not make asshole gendered. My argument is that OP was wrong to say that "fat ugly whore" is not a gendered insult and that he was wrong to try and draw an analogy to calling a man an "asshole." I don't have to express an opinion on the ban to point out that he is wrong.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 11:59 PM
-12

Asshole is not a gendered insult. Calling someone a "dick" is a gendered insult, but that is not the point OP was trying to make.
/r/MensRights22/03/14 10:39 PM
-25

You're an idiot. When you call a woman a "fat ugly whore," you are implying that those are all bad things and that women should be thin, pretty, and chaste. Therefore, the person saying the insult is basically saying that a woman who does not fit that gender stereotype is bad. Can you even begin to draw out a similar problem from calling a man an "asshole"?
/r/MensRights22/03/14 09:51 PM
4

For the most part, sexual harassment laws do not apply outside the workplace. /u/eyucathefefe is wrong about that. However, this is assuming that the conduct is limited to speech.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 07:53 PM
2

No shit you cannot file a motion to dismiss by simply stating the crime did not happen. The state says it happened, you say it did not happen. There is a clear conflict in the alleged facts, which means that there is a question of fact for the jury to consider.
/r/MensRights01/03/14 06:22 AM
6

State Presses Charges Against Woman for Throwing Boiling Water on Boyfriend. FTFY.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 03:09 AM
2

Witness identification is horribly flawed, even when the witness is not traumatized. However, courts and juries treat witness identifications as infallible. Something like 80% of known wrongful convictions have involved misidentification by witnesses or victims.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 01:48 AM
2

I know about the case because I know many of the people who worked to exonerate them. Therefore, I cannot point you towards any particular source to familiar yourself with the case. However, I will paste the statement of facts from the unreported appeal that Mr. Northrup filed: On a January morning in 1993, two men attacked and raped K.M. while she was cleaning a home in Clark County. The two men entered the home through an unlocked front door and immediately wrestled K.M. to the floor. They the…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 01:06 AM
2

Find your state on the list below and donate money to the organization listed. These nonprofits/clinics are always underfunded and have to turn away more clients than they are able to help because of it. http://www.innocencenetwork.org/members
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:25 PM
3

It is incredibly hard to navigate the legal process in order to get DNA tested. Requests are routinely denied by the trial court, and those decisions are reviewed by appellate courts under a very deferential standard. For many defendants, the state refuses to release them even after DNA testing proves they were not the donor of the DNA from the crime scene. The state often makes up new theories of the case, such as there being an unindicted co-ejaculator in a rape case, and the person in prison …
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:24 PM
2

There was no false accusation in this case. The victim reported that she was raped, then the police and prosecutor did terrible things. This one is on Grant County, which is why it was the defendant in the civil suit.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:17 PM
7

There is. It's called "mis-identification," and it is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. It is usually caused by unethical/improper police conduct with regards to photo lineups or stop-and-shows. http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:15 PM
5

I'd argue that if the rape victims (whether purported or not) stated that the men involved raped them that's a false accusation That's not what happened.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:13 PM
4

In addition, their exoneration was achieved by the IPNW, which does not collect legal fees. The only legal fee they will have is whatever fee MacDonald, Hoague, & Bayless was collecting from the civil suit (although I believe they took this case pro bono, as that law firm tends to take civil rights cases for free).
/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:39 AM
4

Alan and Jerry both have a lot of emotional healing to do, but neither of them has a drug problem.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:36 AM
6

They have the potential to win another ~$20 million from the risk pool. The risk pool is denying liability since Grant County became a member of the risk pool a couple of years after the conviction. This settlement removes Grant County as a defendant, but allows for the two men to continue litigating against the risk pool over the question of whether or not coverage extends to people that were wrongfully imprisoned and had their appeals denied, but who were tried before coverage began.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 06:50 AM
3

In most US states (maybe all), you can file a motion for a recalculation of CS if there has been a substantial change in circumstances. That means that if, 1) you income decreases due to no fault of your own, or 2) the custodial parent's income has increased (in income share states, which is slightly more than half), or 3) the custodial parent is living with a partner who is sharing expenses (aka living as married), or 4) the custodial parent remarried, etc. However, the flip side is that the cu…
/r/MensRights13/10/13 05:29 AM
1

There are no magic words in law. They can say whatever they want, but unless the numbers back up what they are claiming, it is garbage.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 06:24 AM
3

No she didn't. Read the articles, not just redditor comments, if you want to criticize it.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:57 PM
1

If you lose your job (as in do not voluntarily quit) and cannot find comparable replacement work, then the courts will treat that as a valid basis for a modification motion.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:47 PM
2

While the law is different in every state, most states recognize that sometimes people will do everything but remarry in an attempt to maintain spousal support, and upon a motion for modification of spousal support due to substantial change in circumstances by the obligated party, the courts will conduct a factual inquiry in the nature of the unmarried relationship of the supported party. If it appears that the couple are essentially a married couple (meaning that they have lived together for so…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 11:43 PM
1

How do you figure, champ? Neither person in that video is completely innocent.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 06:02 AM
-18

This is marketed to gay men, so are you saying if it was an app marketed to lesbians that there would be an outrage? I'm not so sure.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 10:36 PM
-4

Yes, I do need context. Whenever I see something excerpted that severely, I question its veracity. How do we know that she had not earlier defined her terms, which is common for academic lectures, and said she was using "video games" to refer to a current and dominating sector of video games?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 10:02 PM
1

The idea is that it is awkward and uncomfortable to see the women treat the men that way, and it is supposed to make you question having a different reaction to seeing naked women objectified in the Blurred Lines video.
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:38 PM
17

I would like to see better evidence than 5 seconds of an excerpted speech. What was the context of those two statements?
/r/MensRights15/09/13 09:36 PM
4

In the US, any minor, regardless of gender, can be charged with distributing child porn for sending sexual pictures of themselves to others. If a minor receives a nude/sexual picture of another minor, they can be charged with possession of child porn. This is not a men's rights issue; this is a general flaw in the law regarding how we define the crimes.
/r/MensRights12/09/13 02:15 AM
2

It's not like that though because the analysis of rapists and their victims has shown that rape has almost nothing to do with fleeting sexual attraction. If it is based in sexual desire, it is usually the result of an obsessive relationship where the rapist's sexual desires grow as they continue to obsess over the victim, and not because the victim decided to wear a sexy dress to the club on a single night. Most rapes are the results of the rapist wanting to exert power/control over the victim, …
/r/MensRights09/09/13 06:34 PM
2

Evidence doesn't matter when it points to something you disagree with?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:20 PM
3

So if a woman wants to go dress in a way that leaves little to the imagination, they shouldn't go "oh damn, never would have expected to get raped! There is no evidence that supports the common assumption that victim-dress influences a rapist's decision to attack them. On the other hand, there are many dozens of studies which examine how victim-dress affects the way people perceive the victim as culpable in their own rape and that the rapist is less culpable in those rapes. Just do a Google Scho…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 05:14 AM
5

I'll stick with facts, and the facts say that: 1) most rapes are acquaintance rapes and do not occur because of a single outfit; 2) half of all rapes occur in one's home, and people are not generally dressed provocatively at home; 3) people of all ages and backgrounds are victims of rape, not only young attractive women, so sexy clothing is probably not a significant factor; 4) most studies show that perceived vulnerability is how perpetrators choose their victims, which makes sense since rape i…
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:12 AM
5

Is there any evidence that dressing provocatively increases the risk of rape? Hint: there is not.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 03:42 AM
2

This person could be sexually harassed by a woman or another man. Nope. It says that in addition to being the direct subject of harassment.
/r/MensRights06/09/13 04:12 AM
2

It says white men can be victims of harassment. What's your problem?
/r/MensRights06/09/13 04:11 AM
15

Do you know that for a fact, or are you filling in unknown details? How do you know that the difference isn't because these particular home-test kits are only $10 a pop while a laboratory test at a doctor's office is still $100-$200? If these tests were actually unisex in design and were only being offered to women, I would agree. But it sounds like that isn't the case, so in order to claim discrimination you have to make up some facts. It might be discrimination, but it is impossible to tell fr…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:28 AM
25

Men will still have to visit a doctor to be tested since the tests are only designed for women. It sounds like the tests are only for women because the current take-home STD tests only work for women. It sounds like this about the limitations of the field and not discrimination.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 02:37 AM
0

If I am an attorney with 100 clients It's called a hypothetical. Obviously I am not an attorney, as I cannot call myself an attorney until I am licensed to practice. But even though I am not an attorney, I have worked in law offices and I have made the call to drop current clients or choose not to accept potential clients due to their lack of credibility. Attorney's take the RPCs very seriously and are not shy to report misconduct of an opposing party. In some states, if you know of an RPC viola…
/r/MensRights24/08/13 05:09 PM
0

If I am an attorney with 100 clients, why the fuck would I endanger my entire career over trying to get a slight advantage in a single case? You are fucking delusional and a conspiracy theorist if you think that attorneys are routinely advising their clients to make false statements. Divorces are charged by the hour, not the outcome. If the client is going to lie and I know it, I'm going to drop that case like a brick.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 03:50 AM
1

Looking in car windows and sitting in a park are two totally different things. Both are legal, only one is suspicious dammit. Suspicious-ness is not an objective test. The fact that a concerned citizen thought it was suspicious means it was suspicious. Period. The outrage on this case stems not from the OP being questioned by the police, but having the police called on him in the first place. I think there are much better fights out there.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 03:48 AM
2

You can think that if you want. If you are secretly recording someone in their own home, even if it is also your own home, you are going to run into some legal issues. People have an expectation of privacy in their own home, and that is generally the legal test for recording of conversations. But you know, ignore me if you want. I don't care what the fuck you do.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 03:45 AM
0

Right. I'm the delusional one.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 06:15 PM
0

They are okay if they do not record audio, but that is not what is being suggested.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 05:09 PM
1

No actually it isn't, you see parks are built and maintained by taxpayers money and grants. This means that any and all citizens have the right to use the park in any legal manner they wish. A grown man using the park to smoke and reflect on his day has as much right to be there as the stay at home mom with 3 kids who just needs a few minutes of the kids not climbing on her. Nobody said he didn't have the right. However, someone can be lawfully present in a spot and still be suspicious. For exam…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 04:35 AM
3

Something doesn't have to be illegal to raise a flag as being suspicious. A child-less adult hanging out in a children's playground during the day is suspicious, and there is nothing wrong with an officer asking some questions. If the officer had done anything more than ask questions, then I would share your outrage. But even though the police can be overly aggressive and use excessive force and arrest people without sufficient cause, we as a society still rely on them to do some basic policing.…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 04:00 AM
1

The police had a reason; somebody called the police about a suspicious adult sitting in a playground smoking a cigarette.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 03:13 AM
6

Well it makes it accurate, so yeah, it is better.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:36 AM
5

He was detained Don't make stuff up. The OP said nothing to this effect. You are not detained unless the officer prevents you from leaving. From the sound of it, the OP never tried to leave and was insistent on remaining in the swing.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:12 AM
6

Have cameras (they can be disguised as smoke detectors, wall outlets, etc) in all common areas of the household and a wide angle at the front door. Have them record to the cloud to insure you have a copy. Depending on where people live, this may be illegal.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:06 AM
-4

I am not saying this does not happen, but the title of this post makes it sound like it is the usual course of business. That is not true. I am not an attorney yet, but I have worked in several law offices at this point. We would NEVER advise a client to lie or make a false statement to a court or the police. NEVER. If we learn that a client has been dishonest with us in any material way, we withdraw from representation. Attorneys do not want to mess around with that stuff. It is not worth it at…
/r/MensRights23/08/13 02:03 AM
4

It sounds like someone (your attorney?) forgot the final step of requesting a modification of child support due to substantial change. A shift from 50/50 to full custody is more than substantial. I don't know what state you are in, but many states have a person at the county courthouse who's job is to help with child support petitions.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 01:59 AM
1

How would it sink her credibility? She is being rude and mean in the message, but it is not like she is threatening to lie in court or anything.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:24 AM
3

I have worked extensively with TANF and other state benefit programs. I have also written about and studied various aspects of TANF and welfare reform that I believe are hugely misguided and harmful to both parents and children. This article makes no sense. It is garbage. I have a lot of problems with TANF. I have a lot of problems with mandated child support cooperation. However, the notion that states are incentivized to take children away from loving homes because it allows them to collect mo…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:27 AM
1

I guess you are from the Todd Akin batshit-crazy school of thought. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKa5CY-KOHc
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:47 AM
1

This policy is not biased. If an officer wants to disregard a complaint, they must be able to say that they looked into the veracity of the complaint before coming to that decision. That is all.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:45 AM
1

I don't really want to bother with this. You have a ton of information about the way the criminal justice system works wrong, but it is not worth my time to try and educate you about it since you clearly wouldn't care. I will say this though: I do not get my information from law and order. I also do not get my information from anecdotal evidence. My knowledge of the legal system comes from a place that is a bit more grounded in reality than cotwa.info.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 12:43 AM
2

"Legitimate rape"? wowzers...
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:11 PM
0

Wow, none of this is accurate. Aside from completely skipping over the evidential requirements to file charges, you also apparently you have never heard of either bail or the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 02:09 PM
2

Well until this policy change, the social agenda has been to treat rapes as uniquely unfounded and treat rape victims as uniquely untrustworthy. This official change in policy would not have been necessary if police had not already been completely biased against rape victims.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 07:04 AM
0

Rape and homicide are the two types of cases where there are typically lots of physical evidence. Most other cases are built entirely on circumstantial evidence, but rape typically has physical evidence.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 07:02 AM
2

A valid complaint is considered guilty? What planet do you live on? There are about 30 steps between treating a complaint seriously and a conviction.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 06:59 AM
6

I think that people posting in this thread either are being unnecessarily hyperbolic or truly do not understand the criminal justice system. This is not "guilty until proven innocent." There has been no shift in the burden of proof. The evidence standards remain unchanged. This is merely a policy shift at the police level regarding whether the police will conduct an investigation. The fact that the police conduct an investigation does not mean that the target of the investigation is presumed gui…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 09:53 PM
9

This policy is more in line with the way most crimes are treated. When you report a robbery, the police tend to believe you unless evidence arises that says you are not telling the truth. But they do not warn you that you will be charged with a felony if you follow through with filing a complaint that cannot be proven to be true. This "unfounded" stance is unique to sexual assault cases.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 09:29 PM
2

"So you say you were raped, eh? Prove it. It's not like it's the police's job to investigate allegations of crimes."
/r/MensRights18/08/13 09:26 PM
2

No. You misunderstood the article. A complaint is now enough for there to be an investigation. If an investigation supports the complaint, then there will be charges. Once there are charges, then the defendant has a trial. At trial, the defendant will either be found guilty or not guilty. That is a far cry from people now automatically being guilty at the point of complaint. This is just a change from a policy where a victim's complaint was met with the response, "Can you prove it? If not, get l…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 09:24 PM
1

whoops, missed a word. yes, a fan.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 03:19 PM
3

It is not at all talking about the same privilege that feminists talk about.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 02:13 AM
5

You're interpreting it wrong and essentially putting words in the author's mouth. The quote is about how people work for the benefit of the people at the top and are supposed to be grateful for the opportunity. It is not about gender or about male privilege. It is about how capitalism doesn't do the average worker any favors, but they are still supposed to be happy about having a position in the capitalist system at all. As a Bukowski, this misrepresentation kind of pisses me off.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:47 AM
2

You do realize that just because there is a "standard possession order" does not mean that it is the most common form of custody? And I hope you realize that statements of law about Texas do not translate to all of the US. And I am baffled that you thought a link to answers.com would be a persuasive authority. Some states, like Texas, use an obligor formula for child support where it is a flat percentage of the NCP's income. However, that is not the most common formula. The majority of states us…
/r/MensRights11/08/13 04:58 AM
2

I still do not understand why I would apologize. Did I insult anyone? Was I being unreasonable? In fact, what I said is absolutely true. Most people do not choose to call the police every single time they may have been wronged. You, for some odd reason, have a need to come in here a week after the first article was posted and do a victory dance. That's already kind of weird, but whatever. However, you seemed to have sucked me up into your odd little vendetta when I never said that the author was…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 02:07 PM
1

What? Why would I? Nonreporting has zero to do with veracity.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 09:15 AM
2

Most fathers that pay child support have custody of their kids 50% of the time. (1 day a week, every other weekend, split holidays, summer vacation block; that averages 180 days per parent, per year on a 2 year average) Well that's just not true. Why would someone who has custody of a child for 6 months out of the year pay any child support to the other parent at all, or why is it that a parent that only has custody of a child for 6 months in the year receives 12 months worth of child support? L…
/r/MensRights08/08/13 02:31 PM
1

Child support is not for child care?! It absolutely is! It is for all costs associated with caring for a child, whether that is for daycare, food, clothing, an extra bedroom, whatever. Don't fool yourself. And $400 is not nearly enough.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 05:27 AM
1

This would give my ex 25k per year, in which she does not have to claim as income, and is untaxable. That's not quite true. Child support counts as income, just not to the IRS when filing yearly taxes. But for the calculation of eligibility for anything that is means tested, it counts.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 05:20 AM
1

If it costs $30k a year to raise a child (random number), and each parent has the child for 50% of the time, then it is expected that there will be approx $15k of expenses during the time each parent has the child. Now, say one parent has an income of $20k and the other has an income of $60k. Either the child is going to be under provided for half the year, or the wealthier parent will subsidize the care of the child for the time that the child is not in his/her care. Does that not make sense? T…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 06:09 AM
2

There is no discretion in child support. It is a formula where incomes and expenses are plugged in in conjunction with the ratio of custody, and a number is created. Then that number is compared to a statutory cap, and if it exceeds it, then it is lowered to the cap. That is it.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 06:06 AM
1

Don't confuse spousal support with child support.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 04:53 AM
1

Under 130% FPL.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:29 AM
1

Being at 100% FPL does not mean you are living modestly, it means you are barely getting by and that you are financially eligible for food stamps, TANF, and soon enough, Medicaid. Having a child support model that expects a child to survive at that level of support while the NCP has enough income to provide further support is completely unacceptable.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 02:59 AM
1

The second problem is the child has likely become used to a certain lifestyle and judges tend to not like to take that away from a child because of the best interest of the child and all that. That is not a factor in child support calculations.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 02:57 AM
1

As far as I know, all 50 states use strict formulas for calculating child support. There is judicial discretion in awarding custody, not child support.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 02:55 AM
2

Paying the whole 12 months of CS, when she only has the kids for 6 months is absurd. That is not how it is done. If mom and dad have true 50/50 custody, then the child support payment is meant to equalize the cost burden between the wealthier parent and the less wealthy parent. That means that if there is 50/50 custody and equal income, there will be no child support (or very little, as there are always things that make the income less than absolutely equal).
/r/MensRights07/08/13 02:54 AM
22

Do you actually think that it is uncommon for people to choose not to report a crime despite being upset?
/r/MensRights03/08/13 12:49 AM
2

Except she says the exact opposite of that. Skip to 21:15 of part 3
/r/MensRights02/08/13 03:38 AM
6

You are supposed to lead the witness on cross.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 12:38 AM
0

I'm not talking about "certain cultures"... I'm talking about western culture. Then you are not answering the question that was asked.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 08:01 PM
4

Why are people in general most concerned with the wrongs that personally affect them? Because that is human nature.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 06:54 PM
3

PEOPLE who earn more than their exes are trying to end current alimony laws. It does not matter if the higher earner is a man or a woman, any person who is burdened by alimony wants to change the laws.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 06:42 PM
-1

Legally the bigger person is the bad person. That is the law. No it isn't. OP asks for actual laws, you give him non-law platitudes.
/r/MensRights30/06/13 03:08 AM
5

CPS doesn't do shit without evidence. CPS can be sued and held liable for erroneous intervention, however it cannot be sued for inaction even in the face of evidence of abuse. Therefore CPS does not just remove children from a home without evidence of abuse.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:25 AM
1

If the child custody agreement was adopted and ordered by a court, then you must file a contempt of court complaint when your ex-wife violates the court order. If the custody arrangement was not court ordered but is completely voluntary, then you need to file for custody in court. After you have a court order, file contempt of court proceedings every time the order is violated. Those are the two possible answers. Do not bother with the police; instead go to court. Calling CPS is absurd unless th…
/r/MensRights26/06/13 02:23 AM
1

Marriage involves three parties: two spouses and the state. This is not just the state intervening in a normal contract; this is a contract that already necessarily involves the state. The state will not enforce a plainly unfair and unconscionable contract. It makes absolute sense.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 11:44 PM
2

If it is unconscionable, yes. Imagine A and B get married and have a prenup that says upon divorce, B will receive either 50% of the assets or $100k, whichever is less. After getting married, A starts a business with B's help, and over the next 5 years the business grows to the point of being worth $20 million. A and B then decide to divorce. A moves to enforce the agreement and only give B $100k of the total property value, despite helping to grow a business worth $20 million. A court would lik…
/r/MensRights23/06/13 10:39 PM
16

If you are really curious, you should read some of the briefs (especially the amici briefs for the respondents) in the DOMA case before the court. They do a really good job of laying out the many reasons that people marry. SCOTUSblog has links to all of them
/r/MensRights23/06/13 07:39 PM
6

The main thing is that they cover property. You cannot put a clause in a prenup about child support or child custody. In addition, if the prenup is totally one sided, then a court is free to disregard the prenup as being unconscionable. But generally speaking, yeah, it can cover anything as it relates to property.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:23 PM
8

So if the basic child support obligation is 1000 dollars per month and dad has the kid for 40% of the time, dad is going to pay mom the difference between 40% and 60%. That's assuming that Dad makes more than 40% of the total income. If Dad's income was less than 40%, it is possible for the primary custodial parent (in this case Mom) to pay the NCP child support.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 05:17 PM
1

It depends on the income level of the parents. There are two general formulas, and each state uses some variation of one of the two. Some states look at both parents income, and others only look at the NCP's income. The higher the income, the higher the support order.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 03:04 PM
2

Godwin's law in effect almost immediately. Glad to see the discourse level in here is so high. /s
/r/MensRights16/06/13 03:01 PM
6

/u/AceyJuan said daycare costs $1800 per month You said that sounds like a lot I said it is an accurate price for child care. None of that was talking about the calculation of child support. I do not know enough about the OP or his ex to say what child support would be, but it would certainly be more than $1k per month. http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/colorado/
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:25 AM
4

I work in social services and I often see families looking for child care that cannot afford it. Some of them are eligible for Working Connections Child Care, which is subsidized by the state. Most are not eligible. I know of a couple of places that offer free child care, and we tell our clients about them, but they have waiting lists that are often several years long. Some of my more successful friends have expressed equally long wait lists for paid child care centers, so it is obviously not an…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:08 AM
6

Wow, so much ignorance in one post.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:05 AM
3

That's not far outside the norm. Depending on the age of the child (the younger they are, the more expensive) it is often between $1k and $2k per month per child, and that is not even necessarily 5 times a week.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:04 AM
1

No jurisdiction in the United States has a flat rate that applies to every person, so I can only assume you are not in the US.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:02 AM
7

A person making >$100k a year should be paying more than $12k a year.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 05:00 AM
9

There is no such thing as a nationwide ban. Criminal law is a state issue. However, a teacher has to be affirmatively licensed by the state in which he/she wishes to teach, and that comes with a background check. A person who is a registered sex offender and who had a license taken away by another state for sexual impropriety with a student would never receive a license from another state.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:48 PM
2

First time offender for a class E felony carrying maximum possible sentence of 4 years jail. Considering this was a plea deal, the sentence is appropriate.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 09:46 PM
3

Did you get his permission to x-post this here?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:15 PM
-5

tl;dr: "I made a leap in logic for no rational reason."
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:26 AM
-22

To summarize: Statement A says X. Statement B says Y. THEY MUST BE FROM THE SAME PEOPLE AND THEREFORE ARE HYPOCRITES!
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:21 AM
0

I'm curious, how do you know that the commenters from that thread were feminists?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 07:19 AM
0

1 is less than 2. 1 is less than 5 million. Those are analogous too. That doesn't mean that you can compare them as being at all similar.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:27 AM
0

Hah! You truly are delusional. If they are parallel lines, there are fucking miles between them. Men get screwed in some areas. Women get screwed in other areas. Minorities get screwed in the most amount of areas. Quit acting like having a dick and a reddit account makes you fucking Harriet Tubman.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:09 AM
0

Yeah, and I guess there are neighborhoods where men are not allowed to live, and voting districts are drawn to disenfranchise men, and men are beat up by women to the point of being near death or dead all the time, and men have to sit in the back of the bus, and men have to eat at separate restaurants, and men are not allowed to go to law school, and men are vastly underrepresented by the elected government (and in some states, there are zero men in office despite a significant percentage of men…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:00 AM
1

Wow. Do you really think the man's plight is comparable to Jim Crow laws? Because if you do, you are fucking delusional.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:34 AM
0

Meh. I'm a white male with a law degree. I think I'll be okay.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 04:31 AM
0

If its all or nothing, I choose nothing.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 02:52 AM
-1

I don't have time to read 30 studies. Care to cherry pick one or two?
/r/MensRights12/06/13 02:09 AM
2

Criminal prosecutions of defamation almost never happen. Think of the first amendment implications. Also, defamation is a term that encompasses both slander and libel, so saying "slander and/or defamation" is a bit redundant. Plus, slander is spoken. A facebook post would be considered written, which is libel.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 04:58 AM
2

What frustrates me the most is that prostitution should be also a women's rights issue, or even a simple human rights issue. It is a women's rights issue, and most international organizations that provide health services for prostitutes are largely supported by the same people that advocate for women's rights.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:35 PM
2

Until relatively recently, even most US states would not recognize rape as being possible if the parties were married (regardless of the gender roles).
/r/MensRights06/06/13 06:42 AM
4

Jespersen v. Harrah represents the current legal rule under Title VII in regards to gender specific dress codes and grooming policies. The tl;dr is that they are considered legal. It is possible Pennsylvania has a state statute that would prohibit, but I am not going to dig into it.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 10:25 PM
2

I'm fairly certain it's because when a girl does it it's seen as sort of cute/funny or at the very least harmless. Look at the thread. Nobody is calling it cute or funny. Most of the posts are telling the OP to sue. The rest are either offering comfort to the OP or being empathetic through sharing similar experiences (from both ex-BFs and ex-GFs).
/r/MensRights03/06/13 02:16 PM
6

The "feminist definition" usually relates to power and control. The most commonly used graphic for explaining domestic violence by feminists is the power and control wheel, and destruction of property after the relation is over is not on the wheel. It is not on the wheel because it does not have anything to do with power and control over a partner. It is only about retaliating in response to the end of the relationship. I think that you are projecting your frustration of some aspect of the "femi…
/r/MensRights02/06/13 10:02 PM
5

The only real difference is that people would say "that dude's an asshole" whereas they say "that bitch is crazy" when it is a woman.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:11 PM
20

That is not domestic violence. It is a crime and it is grounds for a civil suit and it is certainly petty and fucked up, but it is not domestic violence. I might think differently if this was something that one partner did to the other during the course of the relationship as a way of controlling their behavior and to give punch to future threats of destroying property. But an angry ex-girlfriend destroying property on the way out the door is not DV. I'm not saying it is okay or justified, just …
/r/MensRights02/06/13 07:10 PM
0

I hope you realize that your first quote is defining the constituents of certain political groups that the resolution is responding to, and it is not referring generally to all fathers. Your second quote is referring to fathers generally, and is not referring to a group of organizations. So no, they do not really have to pick one since they are referring to two different things. In case that isn't clear, here is a venn diagram that shows they are not using contradictory terms.
/r/MensRights02/06/13 06:59 PM
1

You are talking about changing the legislation as opposed to implementation, so it would have to be addressed by the lawmakers.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 04:17 AM
2

Congress is still trying to overturn the entire ACA. Do you really think that Congress will be able to amend the bill to provide additional coverage? Clearly it is a political impossibility. In addition, this needs to be directed at the lawmakers and not at the President.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 03:59 AM
6

She must also immediately report to her parole supervisor if she has any intimate sexual or non-sexual relationships with men. I have never heard of that parole condition before. Must be a Canadian thing.
/r/MensRights31/05/13 03:56 AM
5

It's also an illegal eviction and would not be looked upon kindly during divorce proceedings.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 02:49 PM
10

They are married. CA is a community property state. His property is also her property.
/r/MensRights30/05/13 04:37 AM
1

Wouldn't it be safer to fire the person who's making the complaints? Assuming it's just one person making claims against another. Assuming the employer is in the US, that would be a huge violation of Title VII. If your definition of safe means definitely getting sued and losing, then yeah, it would be safer.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 06:06 PM
1

Testimony from an employee is evidence. How often is there evidence of one person grabbing another person's ass? Do you think they dust for fingerprints? If all claims without physical evidence or corroborating witness testimony were disregarded by employers, then there would be a lot of employees out there who would continue to suffer at the hand of a harasser. Employers tend to take this middle ground; make a note of the complaint and have the accused employee do something like a 1 hour class.…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:58 PM
0

They can be assumed fake unless evidence is presented. Really? That sounds like a mighty assertion without any basis in law. Remember, this is not a court room. It is an HR rep's office. The confrontation clause does not apply. Not where I live :/ You do not live in the US? All 50 states recognize at-will employment. A minority of states have bad-faith/malice exception, but an employer's lack of certainty does not equal malice.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:52 PM
1

An employer can call an employee into his/her office and say, "I received a complaint that you sexually harassed someone. I know it is false and I know you are innocent. However, I am going to make a note of it in your record and I am going to terminate you for sexual harassment. Yes, I know that isn't fair, but I do not care. Get lost." That is totally legal. I feel like you are all telling the OP to go waste his money.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:26 PM
1

That would only matter if you could prove the following: The employer knew the complaints were fake. The employer fired the employee for a restricted reason, and used the complaints as a pretext. The restricted reason was the employer's subjective belief that the employee belonged to a protected class, such as a certain race, religion, national origin, sex, age (if >40), etc., and that the employer had animus for that class. (Some states also protected sexual orientation, but not under federal l…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:07 PM
1

Any type of lawyer can look at this and tell you the same thing: There are no damages. No damages means no case. There is no cause of action. You can't sue your boss for being condescending. You also cannot sue your boss for following their legal obligations under Title VII. Even if there was a basis for a lawsuit, you are still stuck on the #1 problem: no damages. An attorney will not take a case where they cannot possibly win money unless you agree to pay them an hourly rate. If the OP wants t…
/r/MensRights29/05/13 05:01 PM
1

Lawyers do not generally charge for the first consult in these types of cases, which is why it is a waste of their time. The employer is not in for a "shit-fit" since everything they have done so far is exactly what an employer is supposed to do to avoid liability. Furthermore, the OP has no damages, so there is nothing to sue for. Most of these cases are on contingency, but 30% of jack shit is not enough for an attorney.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 04:54 PM
1

Based on what expertise do you make that assessment? I know it is not legal expertise, because any person who knows anything about employment law or employment discrimination law will tell you exactly what I am saying: an employer cannot be held liable for performing its obligations under Title VII and taking reasonable steps to follow through on complaints of sexual harassment. But by all means, tell the OP to go waste a lawyers time.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 03:20 PM
2

Unfair dismissal? There is no cause of action for that.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:03 PM
2

lol
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:02 PM
0

You could file a lawsuit against your employer. Based on what grounds? People like to throw that around without knowing what the hell they are talking about. Assuming the employer received a complaint, they did everything correct. They told the employee and required that he do a low burden task of taking a class which meets the employers burden of taking reasonable steps to prevent future incidents. Even if OP was fired, he would not have grounds for a wrongful termination suit.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 02:01 PM
1

Hire a lawyer for what? To sue an employer for firing an at-will employee? Unproven allegations of sexual harassment does not create a protected class.
/r/MensRights29/05/13 01:56 PM
1

About 25% of women and 10% of men are victims of DV at some point in their life. When looking at people who are living in poverty (typically the sample consists of people receiving public benefits), the percentage leaps to anywhere from 60% to 85%. So yeah, socioeconomic status makes a huge difference.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 06:46 PM
1

Wouldn't you want to read it first?
/r/MensRights27/05/13 06:43 PM
0

Oh, and the title attributes "we could not kill her because she's a woman" as a direct quote from the foreman. That is just plain false. Whether or not you feel you can extrapolate that from the above quote, the title of this thread is 100% false.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 03:16 AM
-5

First of all, the foreman never revealed which way he voted, but said that he felt they failed because they could not come to a unanimous decision. Second, you are interpreting that statement in the way you want to hear it. Charles Manson was a person who had a long criminal history and at the time of his sentencing was convicted of multiple murders. He also actively referred to himself as the devil and made himself as unsympathetic and showed no sign of remorse. On the other hand, Arias does no…
/r/MensRights27/05/13 03:14 AM
1

Every factual assertion should be linked to a source. Simply having a list of sources at the end is not good enough. At the very least, place endnote numbers next to each assertion and then list the exact source (and page #) for that assertion. You make some bold claims, so it is not good enough to back that claim by simply saying, "you can find it in one of these 30 sources."
/r/MensRights27/05/13 01:05 AM
3

She is not going to get off. She has already been convicted. The only question will be if it is life in prison or death.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 01:01 AM
6

The foreman does not say that anywhere in the video. This sub needs a "misleading" or "untrue" tag to put on posts like this.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 12:47 AM
1

Harris is a more recent case than Ellis.
/r/MensRights19/05/13 08:09 AM
1

Your experiences with a company HR rep are completely irrelevant to the way a legal standard will be applied in an adjudicative setting. An employer can fire you for any reason or no reason so long as it is not based on animus towards a protected class. The same is not true of schools. State colleges have a hearing system and they must apply legal standards and allow for someone to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. If your ex-coworker had sued you and your employer based on that single …
/r/MensRights19/05/13 08:04 AM
2

You really do not understand what you are talking about. the kid has DNA of both parents. Unless the grandfather claims he has impregnated his own child, he's not in any way the father. The grandparents are not the biological mother and father but they are likely the people with the best argument for custody of the child until the father establishes paternity for the child. The state was not in the bedroom when OP had sex with the mother; it does not know that the OP is the father. The state rel…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 02:46 AM
1

The "k" word is premature seeing as parentage has not been established in anyway. The only known parent (legally speaking) at this time is the mother, so grandparents have more of a claim to care for the child than a man who has yet to establish parental rights. The first step is file a parentage action in the state where the child is located.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 09:59 PM
1

That has nothing to do with a statute of limitations.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 09:54 PM
3

SCOTUS has interpreted "unwelcome" conduct in several different cases. Specifically, Harris v. Forklift Systems, & Meritor v. Vinson.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 04:58 AM
1

Condoms are rarely used properly? Really? Pinch the tip and roll it on. How do you fuck that up?
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:47 AM
2

This article misunderstands some basic legal principles. First of all Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature, such as sexual assault or acts of sexual violence. does not mean that any verbal sexual advance that is rejected as being unwelcome is sexual harassment. If I see a girl that I like and I say something flirty to her, and she either …
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:42 AM
0

You mean there is gender inequality in the military? Somebody call the press!
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:27 AM
3

The child was born out of wedlock so you do not have any innate parental rights. You must go to court. You have to go to the states and file a paternity action. You should also do it soon. The longer you wait, the more likely that a court would give custody to the grandparents and only award you visitation rights. edit - I am being downvoted for giving the correct answer. Awesome. It's not like I have studied family law or anything. Oh wait, I did.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 03:12 AM
-1

People have side conversations in every thread on reddit. Have you been here before? Not every post is directly related to the article: they are often only related to the posts above them. Let me break down the conversation for you. /u/eyeofthestorm [-1] posts a news article where a lawyer does illegal stuff. u/uTracyMorganFreeman responds with "unless the state tries to recoup this from the accuser(or their lawyer), there will be little deterrence to such activity." /u/grapeban replies "Why on …
/r/MensRights13/05/13 01:43 AM
0

I don't think you understand what /u/Grapeban was arguing. He was not saying that lawyers should be free from punishment in all scenarios. He was saying that it does not make sense to punish a lawyer for representing a client who turns out to have been lying, and that doing so would have dire consequences on the ability for people to find representation. When a lawyer does any of the things you mentioned, he/she is not acting lawfully and there are avenues for punishment (both prison and bar dis…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 10:50 PM
-3

No, what you are saying makes absolutely no sense in regards to what /u/Grapeban wrote. Grapeban: They should do everything within their power, legally, to get the best result for their client. You: So what you're saying is that lawyers should do a bunch of illegal stuff? Grapeban was not talking about the article, but about the potential consequences of holding lawyers liable for the veracity of their client's claims. If you were reading what he(?) was writing, you would see that. Sleeping with…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 10:32 PM
3

Do you currently have a custody order, or is the status quo just a private arrangement? If you already have a custody order, it is going to be difficult for your ex to persuade a court to alter the agreement. She would have to show some substantial change has occurred in either her life or yours, and that as a result, an alteration of the custody agreement is in the best interests of the child. However, if this will be your first custody order from the court, it could potentially go very differe…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 10:26 PM
-1

What the fuck are you talking about?
/r/MensRights12/05/13 10:14 PM
13

Lol, you think people were winning tort cases against the state? There is a reason this bill was created by and lobbied for by the Innocence Project and some of the WA prisoners who it helped to exonerate: without it, the exonerated prisoners got nothing.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 10:11 PM
4

We take rights away from people all the time. Liberty is a right, yet we imprison people. Life is a right, yet we execute people. Gun possession is a right, yet we take that away from all ex cons. Those are all express rights in the constitution. Parenthood is an implied right, and we take it away only after due process has been served. So yeah, I'm fine with taking those rights away from rapists. You call me dispassionate, but I am not. My sympathies just run the other way.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:04 PM
6

I don't even know why I am responding to you. You are taking an irrational position. What about the rights of the convicted rapist? Get over it. What about the rights of the mother? What about the best interests of the child? The rapist is only person in this scenario who is not a victim, so keep playing your violin for those poor rapists out there. If you are so keen on helping rapists, you should focus on reforming the sex offender registry and related regulations. Nobody is going to join you …
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:36 PM
5

that's not a right though. such a measure is found no where in our legal system. Privacy is a fundamental right which is well established under substantive due process.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:21 PM
15

Again, more refusal to consider the possibility of reform. I find that disgusting and inhumane. You can't even justify such a position. Yes, I can justify it. He raped the mother (yes, using gender, deal with it). The mother should not have to ever see or deal with the rapist again. You have conflicting rights: the rights of a victim not to be continually subjected to facing their rapist, and the rights of a rapist to be in the life of the child they created by raping someone. I have no problem …
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:57 AM
10

But that right there is my point...that position requires one to inherently not believe in nor offer the chance for reform, and I cannot accept that. The issue is even further compounded if you're willing to hold that position while simultaneously expecting this the rapist to pay child support. Fuck that disconnection of rights and responsibilities. There is no disconnection. The rapist never should have rights over a child that was the product of rape. Period. It is unfortunate that several sta…
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:35 AM
10

First, if someone rapes a woman, and a child is produced, the rapist has no rights in regards to that child. That ship has sailed. However, I believe there should be a way for a sex offender to one day be removed from the sex offender list and regain a normal life (assuming they do not re-offend).
/r/MensRights07/05/13 06:08 AM
16

Society can accept the notion of reform without tying a victim to her rapist by forcing them to share custody of the child.
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:42 AM
31

Good. Why would you be opposed to that? It is fucked up that convicted rapists can currently petition for visitation or custody of the product of their rape. And if there was only a single situation for when a father should absolutely pay child support, it would be in the scenario when he forced the mother to have sex against her will and therefore made her pregnant against her will. You know how sometimes people accuse MRAs of being rape apologists? Well, it's shit like this...
/r/MensRights07/05/13 05:31 AM
3

I think you over estimate the amount of funding that goes to shelters in the first place. The truth is that most shelters (whether for men or women) receive no state funding, and most of the shelters that do receive state funding, it is in the form of one time grants and not part of the the general operating budget. Maybe this inequity was more jarring before, but most states slashed their social service budgets back when the economy crashed. In Seattle, the only shelter that I have affirmativel…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 11:06 PM
2

So state funding is the litmus test of something counting? I work in legal aid in Seattle and I primarily help people in poverty. None of the non-profits I have worked for have received any funding from the state. I do not know of any shelters (DV or otherwise) in WA that receive any substantial state funding. The state provides food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid, but for the most part, leaves housing to the private non-profits. There is one women-only shelter in Seattle that I know of. Angeline's …
/r/MensRights27/04/13 10:23 PM
2

/u/mod1 posted about resources in NY (not Canada) and your criticsm was that those resources were not DV specific. I posted DV specific resources from CA and WA, and your criticism is that it is in the United States.
/r/MensRights27/04/13 09:54 PM
5

This page shows two gender neutral DV shelters in San Diego. [This page](http://www.seattle.gov/law/domestic_violence/community_resources.htm#COUNSELING FOR BATTERED MEN) lists resources for battered men in Seattle. I picked two cities and Googled. There are clearly resources out there. The resources are not equal (although I am not sure if the resources are or are not in correct proportion to the demand), but saying there are "zero domestic violence shelters" is not only 100% untrue, but it sho…
/r/MensRights27/04/13 08:37 PM
3

Why do you assume that being a single mother is a problem?
/r/MensRights27/04/13 02:10 AM
2

At the time they knew that the semen on her did not match any of the 5 subjects Do you have a source for that? The Wiki article cites to something that is not actually clear on that fact.
/r/MensRights24/04/13 05:12 PM
7

I know that, but the real question is was the prosecuting attorney aware that the DNA evidence was exculpatory at the time of prosecution? Based on when the crime and prosecution occurred, I find it unlikely that she did. Like I said, DNA was still a new thing in the world of forensic science at the time. If the prosecutor actually is guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, then she should be charged with a crime. However, and I say this as a defense oriented person, the fact that an innocent person…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 04:51 PM
4

What is the key exonerating evidence that was ignored? Is it just the DNA? In 1990, DNA profiling was still a new field a largely not trusted. The first conviction using DNA was only in 1987, two years before this rape, and crime scene responders were not uniformly trained in collecting forensic evidence. It was still relatively new in 1995 during the OJ Simpson trial, and the prosecution had experts testify for hours explaining what DNA is, why it is important, and what it can and cannot tell u…
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:30 PM
5

Let's all get outraged before anything has happened!!
/r/MensRights24/04/13 03:20 PM
2

It also makes an interesting note that circumcision changes the risk of infection from 50% to 40% which seems to be a marginal.difference compared to the sixty percent chance of reduction that's normally thrown around. I don't see that in the study. What I do see is this: Male circumcision (MC) reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by 50 to 60% (1–3) and decreases the incidence and prevalence of herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) (4) and human papillomavirus (HPV) (4, 5).
/r/MensRights16/04/13 09:42 PM
0

If it really helped that much my generation wouldn't need condoms in the first place. It doesn't eliminate risk. It only reduces it.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 09:34 PM
2

No, you have that backwards. The plaintiff/employee must first establish a prima facie case. A PFC is not enough to win, but just enough to state a claim that cannot be dismissed by a 12(b)(6) motion. Once the plaintiff asserts a PFC, the defendant/employer can respond by arguing that the adverse action was not discriminatory, and they can do that by proving that there was a nondiscriminatory reason. At this point, the burden is once more on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has to prove that the non…
/r/MensRights06/04/13 10:49 PM
11

You assume that her negative performance reviews had merit and therefore were not discriminatory. Ms. Ledbetter believed the reviews were motivated by discriminatory animus. The burden to prove that the reviews were discriminatory was on her, and she won. Not only did she win, but the employer's motions for JNOV were denied, which means that the court agreed that the evidence could support the conclusion. Employment discrimination law is generally pretty employer friendly (especially if you are …
/r/MensRights06/04/13 08:16 PM
2

It is only evenly divided when asking if someone identifies as "pro-choice" or "pro-life," but the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal even if they identify as "pro-life." 53% to 41% in the most recent poll.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:38 AM
2

It would be illegal in many states if it were not a constitutionally protected right.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 01:36 AM
7

killing a baby when it can survive on it's own....after birth. The survivability of a baby born prior to 24 weeks is incredibly low. Add to that the prior trauma of an attempted abortion, and the likelihood of one of these hypothetical babies surviving is almost non-existent. Should extensive medical attention be given to such a baby when it is tantamount to throwing immense amounts of money away, and also considering that abortion clinics do not tend to have the necessary (and very expensive) e…
/r/MensRights30/03/13 12:20 AM
4

I'm a man and I go to Planned Parenthood for issues related to sexual health, as do many other men. I don't think they discriminate against men.
/r/MensRights30/03/13 12:14 AM
3

This is awesome, however, the article is over 2 years old. Has there been any new news on it?
/r/MensRights29/03/13 08:41 PM
12

It's hard to tell what she did to him, but it was definitely not equivalent to the punch he laid on her. He also looked to be destructive and violent before he hit her. He looks like a genuine prick.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 09:38 PM
5

HR is incorrect as to the law. You've filed a formal complaint and now it is the employer's job to correct the problem and prevent future harassment. If it fails to do that, if things stay the same, then the next step is to file a complaint with the EEOC (you may want to meet with a employment discrimination lawyer prior to filing). The EEOC investigates the complaint and will give you permission to file a lawsuit if they believe there is merit.
/r/MensRights28/03/13 12:34 AM
2

It's called a patenting (or paternity, or filiation) action.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 10:12 PM
2

If a unmarried father petitions for visitation or any other form of parental rights, than the mother cannot put the child up for adoption without the father's consent.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 08:55 PM
1

Well, I don't think this is a no-fault divorce. Oklahoma still has all the fault based grounds for divorce on the books, and seeing as her divorce petition alleges infidelity, I think she is filing for a fault based divorce. But that said, why would fault or no-fault make a difference? With both equitable distribution and community property, all property is either classified as marital or separate property. The separate property is returned to the respective parties, and the marital property is …
/r/MensRights23/03/13 06:48 AM
1

Community property and equitable distribution have been around a lot longer than 25 years.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 06:22 AM
1

I'm a guy. I never said I was an MRA. I am a guy who wants true injustices solved, whether men or women are the ones adversely affected. I find the fact that people think sexist opinions and statements belong in a MRA discussion very disturbing, and that is why I will never identify as an MRA.
/r/MensRights23/03/13 02:33 AM
0

First, no fault divorce is a means of getting a divorce, but many states retain fault based divorces, including Oklahoma. When adultery is grounds for a divorce, either party can use it as grounds, not just women. The assertion that only women may use it is not only incorrect as to what the law says, it is incorrect as to how divorces play out in real life. Second, most states (well, any state that follows the UMDA or ALI guidelines) do not allow for marital misconduct to be a consideration in p…
/r/MensRights23/03/13 12:15 AM
-1

Well that's just not true.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 11:05 PM
1

He has been CEO of Continental Resources for 45 years. He was already very wealthy when they married (although not as wealthy as he is now), so it was his own mistake to not think about the possibility of divorce. It is true that when a person (not just a "man") enters a marriage with little or no assets, they have no way of knowing what their potential assets will be at the time of divorce. However, if you are the CEO of an expanding oil company, I would think that you have a pretty good idea o…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 11:05 PM
0

First, I never said due process was not applicable to college proceedings (although, one only has a right to DP in college hearings if it is a public school). But a lowered evidentiary burden is not an end to due process. The title of this thread clearly states that only the DP rights of men have been "rolled back," but it is a change to burden regardless of who the accuser and who the accused are.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 09:41 PM
1

Since when is asking a question sexist? That's anti-intellectualism, and you better believe that's a men's rights issue. It is not a men's right issue and it most certainly is a sexist question. Actually, it is not even a question, but a sexist statement masked as a question. There is a difference between asking, "Why do a lot of women care so much about what their friends and family think of the person they are dating?" and asking "Why don't women think for themselves?" The first asks an honest…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 09:28 PM
1

Men do the same thing. Just not with purses. That's why brand names are successful. Still not a men's rights issue.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 06:13 PM
3

First, I am not a "female supremacist," seeing as I am a dude. Second, I said what I said because you made two separate posts in a short time complaining about women in the dating context, which is a pretty good indicator that you have bad luck with women. Third, I said nothing about your ability to have sex with women. Actually, that is more likely to me a male's argument for challenging the masculinity of another man as opposed to a women's argument. If you have been in any good healthy relati…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:06 PM
1

Misleading article title. It is a change in the burden of proof required for DOE hearings regarding allegations of sexual assault (regardless of who the accused and who the accuser are). Preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof required in virtually all civil contexts. A DOE hearing regarding a student's alleged sexual misconduct is a civil context, not a criminal one. Therefore, the fact that sexual assault allegations had been treated with a higher standard of evidence is more than…
/r/MensRights22/03/13 04:54 PM
4

That explains your apparent bad luck with women.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:43 AM
1

I know this is frustrating, but a mutual agreement made outside the courts for child support has absolutely not bearing on preventing the custodial parent from seeking court ordered child support. Child support in California is dictated by a pretty rigid formula, so your only argument to make is that there are special circumstances that make applying the uniform formula to you unequitable. Good luck fighting this, but you're fighting something that is pretty cut and dry.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:37 AM
11

I could same as little as no false reports with the same level of veracity.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:29 AM
3

Why do you talk about all women as though they are one entity that acts uniformly?
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:26 AM
2

Can you link to the site where this data was posted? There are clearly citations included, however they are not attached to the jpg file.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:23 AM
16

A decision not to prosecute does not mean it was a false report. It just means there is insufficient evidence. The same thing happens in all types of cases, not just rape. When a prosecutor decides not to file charges against a suspected murderer, it isn't because the murder was falsely reported. It just means the evidence to support a case was not there.
/r/MensRights22/03/13 05:23 AM
1

I really don't know. I am only a law student, not a lawyer. I've studied family law, but that is different than applying it. My educated guess would be that statements from your employer regarding future schedules coupled with general information about the sequester would suffice. It is also possible that a court may postpone a ruling until you have a pay stub to show, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would toss out your motion right away. Obviously, you need to speak with an attorney in y…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 05:06 AM
1

The decrease is not quite as certain as you make it sound. If the decrease in income is not substantial enough, and the decrease is for a limited period of time, the court could very easily find that there is not a material change in circumstances and rule against the modification motion. $1000 a month could be a lot or not a lot depending on what OP's total income is.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 03:40 AM
4

Here's the modification statute. Notice that change in income is considered a material change in circumstances. A. 1. Child support orders may be modified upon a material change in circumstances which includes, but is not limited to, an increase or decrease in the needs of the child, an increase or decrease in the income of the parents, changes in actual annualized child care expenses, changes in the cost of medical or dental insurance, or when one of the children in the child support order reac…
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:27 AM
2

There are a couple of great family law attorneys who offer advice at /r/legaladvice. Post there and wait for /u/parnsnippity to chime in.
/r/MensRights21/03/13 02:20 AM
16

I don't know what happened in your individual case, but none of what you said about the ACA is true. The only things in the law that single out women differently than men is regarding contraception, pre and post natal care, and abortion. There is nothing that says men have to pay for things that women do not. That is simply untrue. I do not know what state you are in, but if your state is participating in the Medicaid expansion that was created by the ACA, then someone like yourself who is livin…
/r/MensRights16/03/13 06:05 AM
4

This does not read as a bill. It reads like an undergraduate paper. You spend way to much time at the beginning saying the same thing over and over again. "Title IX seems fair as written, but is discriminatory as applied." You say that repeatedly without ever really adding anything else to the discussion until you finally get to the three prongs part. You offer tons of strong assertions without tying it to evidence. Maybe the evidence comes later (I am typing comments while reading it), but that…
/r/MensRights15/03/13 08:11 PM
1

That's not the norm. I know several women who got IUDs at 18 and while single.
/r/MensRights15/03/13 03:04 AM
2

Unwed is important, because that means the parental presumption does not apply. Without the presumption, parents need to take affirmative steps to establish parental rights. If that is not ever done, there is only 1 legal parents, and so that parent has the sole decision making authority regarding everything, including adoption. This is an interesting case and I am curious to see what happens. There have been numerous cases where the deciding factor in a custody decision between a native america…
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:18 PM
1

Yup. Habeas Corpus.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 09:11 PM
2

Sure. You can choose not to believe me. I don't really care.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:53 PM
0

Not at all. There could be a lot of overlap! Easily. There could be, but we have no idea if there is. You would be making a huge assumption by drawing any inference from this data. And someone could easily be raped by one person, but chose to point the finger at someone else. It is possible. It is also possible for me to win the lottery. That doesn't mean it is something that happens very often.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:52 PM
2

Or much lower. We cannot say because we do not have a sample that is relevant to the question you are trying to answer.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:42 PM
6

Just to be clear, an exoneration does not mean it was a false accusation. When someone is exonerated of a rape by DNA, it is because there was DNA recovered from the victim after the rape, and that it was later compared to the DNA of the convicted, and it did not match. That is not a false accusation. That is an erroneous conviction, but that does not mean that the victim was not raped. A false accusation is either consensual sex that is later claimed to be rape (in which case the DNA would not …
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:33 PM
5

I don't think you understand how sampling works.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:22 PM
1

The cases selected by the Innocence Project are not a representative sample of all criminal cases. It's that simple. Of course some of the cases result in a confirmation of the prosecution theory; not every defendant who petitions the IP is actually innocent. Seeing as I have worked with the Innocence Project, I am obviously someone who sees false convictions as a serious and pervasive problem. I just don't want the IP's numbers to be misrepresented as to what they actually mean.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:20 PM
6

The Innocence Project only takes on cases in which there is already significant doubt as to the veracity of the trial verdict. This is because of the limited resources of the organization. So the fact that 43% of the cases with DNA led to exoneration does not mean that 43% of all convictions are erroneous, as the IP's sample is already more skewed towards including cases of false convictions. Source: I have worked with a chapter of the Innocence Project.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 11:09 PM
1

There is something called the Wonderlic Test. It was often used as a hiring tool. It turns out that white people scored significantly better on the test than people of color. Maybe that is not discriminatory in intent, but its effect is that only white people were hired. However, what if the things that the Wonderlic Test looks at have nothing to do with the job? What if, after the score disparity became well known, more businesses began using the test as a hiring tool for jobs that have nothing…
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:56 AM
0

If so, then that is a disparate impact of the way raises are given, and it is discriminatory in effect even if it was not intended to be so. Maybe all raises should be tied to periodic performance reviews instead of awarding them to the people who ask for and negotiate for them.
/r/MensRights10/03/13 01:02 AM
2

I'm not really talking about broad studies. I am more speaking about data gleaned from employment records in wage discrimination cases. Read through some of the facts in court opinions and you'll see that this is a common pattern.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:49 PM
1

Since the beginning of this year, 15 opinions have been issues by courts in cases regarding violations of the Equal Pay Act. All of them were violations based on gender discrimination, and all but one of them were cases where women were the plaintiffs. The one case I found where men were the plaintiffs was not decided, but was merely an interlocutory appeal on a 12(b)(6) motion. What is clear is that women are more frequently victims of gender based wage discrimination than men. That does not me…
/r/MensRights09/03/13 11:44 PM
1

Doctors would be compared to doctors in the same specialty or practice type. I used the term "field," because the disparity tends to be stronger when you look at careers that allow for advancement. If you compare the wages of men and women who started at the same position and who have worked the same amount of years, the men will on average received more raises and more promotions than the women who started in that same job. A good example of this would be Lilly Ledbetter.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 10:04 PM
-1

The most current study on the issue took all known factors into consideration to correct for the disparity, and it still concluded that women make 5-7% less than men.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 08:51 PM
-5

When you look at men and women within the same field, on average women still get paid less than men.
/r/MensRights09/03/13 08:10 PM
8

It sure seems like you were actively avoiding her arguments and instead just listened to the parts in between the arguments.
/r/MensRights08/03/13 03:42 AM
2

While there are women who have issues with sharing bathrooms with trans women, they are not generally people strongly associated with the feminist movement. They tend to be more of the conservative "family values" type women.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 11:02 PM
1

Title IX is enforced by the courts via lawsuits. There are Title IX violations all the time to both the detriment of men and women. The way to end those violations are by filing complaints. The article speaks to touting new legislation in the style of Title IX to fix this problem when Title IX already does that. The problem is that schools are not following the law. More laws will not fix that. Instead, the schools have to be taken to task via the courts. They shouldn't be complaining about a la…
/r/MensRights27/02/13 07:04 PM
1

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, that is not true. There is no default rule for physical or legal custody. It is true that the courts tend to favor mothers over fathers, but that is not a rule and it is certainly not by default.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:45 AM
1

huh?
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:08 AM
-6

The fact that the author of this article doesn't realize that Title IX already offers the same protections to men as it does to women pretty much destroys all credibility. Then again, it is from USA today, so maybe he didn't have any to begin with.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 08:05 AM
-1

And it is just as possible that the mother thought she was receiving support for the other child.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:56 AM
2

If she is planning on requesting support right away, then no, getting a paternity test cannot hurt him. If she is not planning on that, then it might be a good idea to avoid the issue unless she requests support later on, in which case he could request a paternity test.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:23 AM
-3

You are not making any sense to me. If there was an overpayment, it would issued by the Court against the mother, and the mother would argue EE as a defense against repaying it. Then the court would cut a check to the father. The father would not be arguing anything. That's not going to happen, because I do not think courts issue overpayments for child support, but that is how the framework would be if it did issue one.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 02:01 AM
-1

Really? Because it tells me that she declined to comment. Maybe the reporter made it abundantly clear what his POV was, and she did not want to be a part of it. Maybe she just didn't want to talk about it. Maybe the court had not informed her this was going on, and she didn't comment on it because she didn't know what to say. Who knows.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:58 AM
-1

If the mother reported the son's death, then she gave all relevant information in this scenario. It is also reasonable that she thought the support checks were for the living child (they do not necessarily say the names of the child on the check), especially if the father was in arrears and making small payments instead of the full amount. Not sure how they'd argue entitlement That's not part of the analysis. Basically, if the mother reported the death of the child to the court, and she continue…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:35 AM
-1

You have it backwards. An overpayment is when you receive more money than you were owed. The person paying the money does not argue for equitable estoppel, its the person who is asked to repay it, as in this scenario: If the bank erroneously writes a check in your favor, and you knowingly spend it you are 100% liable to repay that money or face litigation.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:28 AM
8

This is bad advice because simply saying "...this audio..." will not satisfy the 2 party consent law if there is one in your state. edit- Seriously, do not take this advice unless you know what the recording laws of your state are. In my state, a violation of the law opens one up to both civil and criminal liability. And consent must be given before recording the conversation. Not afterwards. So thank you for downvoting me for correcting incorrect advice that could potentially fuck this person o…
/r/MensRights17/02/13 01:06 AM
-1

Not necessarily. There is a defense to overpayments called equitable estoppel. Essentially, if someone receives money in error, but they did not know it was in error, gave all relevant information to the issuing party prior to getting the money, spent the money and would be incapable of repaying it, and otherwise have "clean hands," he or she can argue that it would be an injustice to force repayment. That could be the case here.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 12:22 AM
11

Marriage is not a consideration in custody hearings. However, if a custody decision has to be made at birth, then there is a general presumption to keep the child with the mother. But if the mother is unfit, then even a newborn baby can be placed into the custody of the fit father.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:45 PM
14

It matters because if you're the implied father and you don't contest paternity then she can come at you after a few years (it depends on your state - normally it's like 2 years) and the child will be irrevocably determined to be yours to support That is only true if he has been acting as a father since birth. If the child is born out of wedlock and the father has no fatherly contact with the child and does not provide financial assistance, then the mother will have to prove paternity to get chi…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:40 PM
8

You mean it is not a huge feminist conspiracy?!
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:37 PM
1

I cannot speak to all jurisdictions, but in my own, there is no such thing as "mandatory prosecution." Our law states and officer must arrest the offending party in a domestic violence complaint if there is probable cause. Our law allows a victim of DV to petition the court to file criminal charges if the police choose not to arrest the abuser or if the prosecutor chooses not to move forward with filing charges. I live in a pretty liberal state, yet we do not have mandatory prosecution. I would …
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:31 PM
1

VAWA encourages arrest (does not mandate it), but does not mandate prosecution (nor could it). So their hands are not tied.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 11:01 PM
1

I was addressing this point that you brought up: If there is an individual (male or female) who asks the police for help in a violent circumstance and wants to give the perpetrator an opportunity to confront their drinking problem or mental problem instead of having a family ripped apart and a life destroyed by criminal prosecution don't you think that option should be available? Which is obviously not in the written principle.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 10:14 PM
4

I agree, the surcharges are unfair. I think it is meant to incentivize NCPs to pay in a timely manner, but it goes to far if the surcharges now make up a greater amount of the balance than the actual back support.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:40 PM
-1

But finally who the fuck knows. That's my whole point, yet people are so quick to condemn someone without us really knowing what happened.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:26 PM
-1

its pointing to the fact she actually knew that money was still coming in for a dead child It really does not point to that. It only means that some reporter called her and she declined to talk to the reporter.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:19 PM
6

Okay, you "genuinely believe" that to be the case, but it is not based on anything other than animus towards mothers who receive child support. You could be correct, but it is just as likely that she was just as oblivious to the court's mistake as the father was.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 09:05 PM
-9

But if the father reasonably believed the payments were going to the back child support for the other son, is it not equally plausible that the mother believed she was receiving checks for the back child support for her other son?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:59 PM
1

If anyone calls the police due to a crime, it does not matter if it is a domestic violence situation. The victim never has a say in whether to prosecute. For example, if I catch a friend driving away in my car, and I call the cops on him, I don't get to tell the police to forget about it after they arrest him. The decision belongs solely to the prosecutor. You want to make an exception that universal rule for violent relationships?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:40 PM
8

He was also paying surcharges because he was in arrears - do those surcharges even go to the mother? Nope
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:27 PM
-45

So the father is innocent for not questioning the child support for 25 years, but the mother is evil for doing the same thing?
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:25 PM
1

Anybody with experience working with people in abusive relationships, or who has been in an abusive relationship,or anyone who has taken psychology courses, knows that the abused partner will continually forgive and reconcile with the abusing partner so long as they are in contact with them. It usually takes a third party to break the pattern of abuse and reconciliation. That is the very reason we treat those relationships differently.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 08:18 PM
1

I guess you don't really know anything about what you're promoting. http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/
/r/MensRights16/02/13 07:10 PM
2

I am saying that fault is not a consideration when determining child support payments. It is not a part of the legal analysis, because the policies for child support do not care about fault. It only cares about the child. So when you start talking about someone being punished by being ordered to pay child support, you are talking about something irrelevant. If my water bill arrives and it is $1000 because my neighbor started using my garden hose to water their garden, that isn't the utility comp…
/r/MensRights16/02/13 05:30 AM
0

I got to principle #2 and started yelling, "no no no no no." I sincerely hope VAWA is once again passed.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 05:17 AM
1

What are you quoting? That isn't from the article.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 05:12 AM
1

I am not making arguments. I am stating what the law is and the policy reasons for why it is that way. That doesn't mean it is my position. I didn't write the law.
/r/MensRights16/02/13 04:24 AM
3

It depends on the circumstances of the individual case. It is not uncommon, even if it is more common for mothers to get primary custody.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:34 PM
3

Child support is not considered a punishment. He helped raise a child, both emotionally and financially, for nearly 5 years. In the eyes of the law, he is a parent, and has the same rights and responsibilities as any parent.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 11:33 PM
4

This is essentially the correct answer. I should add, the issue is not that this is "enough to get child support," but that this is enough to attach parental rights and responsibilities to the father. That means that he would still have a right to visitation and could even be awarded primary custody in a divorce proceeding.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 10:41 PM
4

Yes, it is mostly alimony. Most states have a maximum monthly amount that can be legally ordered by the courts for child support, and it is usually more in the range of $15k a month (still excessive, but a lot less than $75k a month). Of course, it is possible that he agreed to pay more, but that would not have been by court order. I'm really surprised by the alimony though. It is pretty uncommon to award alimony these days, especially when the marital property is sizable and will allow the poor…
/r/MensRights15/02/13 10:26 PM
3

It was a lot more than two years. 5 years, actually. The law requires a paternity test within two years of birth, or else even a non-biological parent is considered to be fully responsible for the child that they have already agreed to be financially responsible for. The article is really poorly written and does make it sound like he got the test 2 years after the child was born, but if you click on the link to the judge's order, you can see what actually happened. At the time the non-father fil…
/r/MensRights15/02/13 10:12 PM
5

Except for the continuity of the status quo is considered a very strong factor in the analysis of whether or not to modify a custody decree.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 10:05 PM
-4

Notice how it's NEVER in "the best interest of the child" if it harms the woman. What does that nonsense mean? If you actually worked in family law, you would see that the BIC rule often results in greater custody rights for the father, and often means that the mother must pay child support. Somebody always get screwed in a divorce when there is a child, and it is certainly not only ever the fathers.
/r/MensRights15/02/13 10:01 PM
1

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_413
/r/MensRights02/12/12 12:56 AM
1

They are not garnishing his VA checks. They are holding him to the same obligation he had when he was receiving military pay. His only income right now is his VA benefits, therefore he must use that money to fulfill his obligations. Nevada's rule is actually 29% for three children, but the Judge has me at the previous amount which was based off my Active Duty pay rather than being modified after becoming disabled, and it is actually about 70% of my pay. Unfortunately, this law is not applicable …
/r/MensRights09/09/12 07:07 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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