TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

jarret_g Archive

View 1 post and 37 comments by jarret_g 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)
6

jarret_g/r/MensRights04/05/13 12:09 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Check out my onlyfans
/r/PussyPassDenied08/04/20 10:44 AM
28

My favorite animaniacs song.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 03:27 PM
1

Absolutely. And who's to say she wasn't charged? God knows what her side of the story is.
/r/MensRights02/06/15 02:30 AM
2

but they probably didn't. How do you think the split went. "I'm leaving you"....."Ok can I have a copy of your SIN card and ID in case the child ever needs to go to foster care? Don't let the door hit you on the way out".
/r/MensRights01/06/15 06:29 PM
0

cool. thanks for your insight. I don't work on the social side of things so I'm pretty ignorant to it. I work with them but not directly. Where I work we're really tied especially after the feds decided we can't keep/store/search for SIN numbers. Yet if we want to do federal searches they require a match of SIN+birthday or birthday+mother's maiden name.
/r/MensRights01/06/15 06:04 PM
-17

I'm not going to say what I do for a living to maintain some privacy but I can say that information isn't as free and open to all government employees that people think. I can't speak to Quebec laws because i don't know them but from their standpoint they probably can't release the name of a child in care to just anyone. So what if they find 4-5 donald harper's that might match this guy? Do they call each one and say "Hey, Athena's in foster care, do you want her?". What if they pick the wrong o…
/r/MensRights01/06/15 05:48 PM
9

90% of the time its a bad idea to get police involved. Even if she's lying they'll ha e to take her threat serious. Then you're arrested. Then you're on the defensive instead of starting with the high hand by not saying a thing until speaking to a lawyer
/r/MensRights29/03/14 01:29 PM
-4

Except ya know... Using the funds to maintain a household the children are raised in. Child support isn't just toy money. But youre right. There are no absolutes or 100% correct answers when it comes to this stuff. Every case is different.
/r/MensRights21/02/14 11:01 AM
1

That scenario only works if the absent parent wants the best for their children or even gives a fuck about their lives. There's a lot of spite and hate when it comes to these things and often the children are used as scapegoats or ammunition.
/r/MensRights20/02/14 10:55 PM
1

I see these and think "man, I wanna look like that" and work as hard as I can to make myself a better person. A lot of people (not just women) just use the excuse that these goals/bodies are unattainable and shame those that devote their time to bettering themselves.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 12:51 AM
0

Where do you live? Just curious. They can probably justify this due to the mandatory time off work women need to give birth and care for a newborn. Which opens another can of worms regarding parental leave and the labour laws around it.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:59 PM
1

yeah. They're not part of the labour force. But with the mines that shut down years ago a lot of miners and steel plant workers were fucked out of their pensions or forced out of the only industry they knew their whole life. A lot of companies don't hire anyone over 50-55 so they're forced to draw pension and work under the table to survive. A lot, unfortunately, have turned to selling drugs or doing other questionable jobs.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 12:31 AM
3

there are a lot of nations that have reciprocal agreements in regard to this matter. Some don't. If he moved his file would get transferred and set up in that nation to be enforced there. He wouldn't need to be extradited because his court order from New Brunswick would now be enrolled in Columbia as a Columbian order and enforced as such.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 05:41 PM
3

Cape Bretoner here. Reported 15% unemployment rate. Realistically it's up near 20% since Stats Can doesn't consider anyone over 65 as part of the work force which is probably 1/3 of our population.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 04:05 PM
0

no...not at all. It says in the order "upon john smith failing to appear" then goes on to say "is believed to have income of X amount" based on this income CS is set at Y amount. The respondent, under law, needs to be given adequate notice. If it's seen that they've been given notice and that they didn't make arrangements to have the hearing rescheduled then that's their fault. Other orders are consent orders where the parties agree on income and amounts...judge's basically just sign off on thes…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 01:28 PM
-1

It's up to the respondent to provide proof of income. If they don't, and there's reason to believe their income is X amount then their income will be imputed. On all orders (for here) they specify if the income is imputed. Otherwise it says the source of the income. I.E. it'll say "based on income tax returns from the last 3 years" or "it is agreed that John Smith has an income of" (in the case of consent orders). The only time i've seen guys get completely screwed over is not showing up to a co…
/r/MensRights27/08/13 11:56 AM
-4

I work every day with court orders dealing with spousal and child support. The only times I've seen imputed income is when respondents failed to appear and were given adequate notice. It may be different where you are, though. That's why I said it's different for other jurisdictions.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:50 PM
-18

most orders....at least around here....are based on income. So you only owe X amount because your income is Y amount. But each jurisdiction is different with different laws. That said if the order is made when you have a high income and want to dip down to a low income you'd need a new court order to do so.
/r/MensRights26/08/13 05:07 PM
1

I can agree to that mostly. Sometimes separations occur because a friend of someone who is the beneficiary of a support order heard an amount and then takes her ex to court. What went from a decent relationship between the two ex's and the child is now a war. Parent's don't talk. Kid can't figure out why.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:27 PM
1

That happens with non-custodial mother's as well. You need to go back to the paradigm of what a family is. Men work. Women stay home. That's a men's rights issue. And that's where most issues are based from. No doubt a father busting his ass at work 40-50 hours a week to support for his family is needed to maintain the household but just step back and think for a second. If a family exists where the father works the standard 9-5 job and the mother has a part time job or is unemployed. The child …
/r/MensRights08/08/13 03:30 PM
1

I won't go into personal details about myself to retain some form of anonymity but basically the job I have now wasn't my choice. It was either this or unemployment so I took it. I don't see it as corruption and injustice. Like I said, it's not the best system available, but a lot of the time it's pretty fair. Children need to be supported as if they live in a 2-parent household. It's the way children were brought up for millenia and should stay that way. After working in the area for a while I …
/r/MensRights08/08/13 03:20 PM
1

Not that simple. You say "most"...what are you basing that on? Like I said before, custody isn't even a mens rights issue. I haven't met a judge that is biased towards one sex or another. The issue is around the children. Every single person in the world agrees that when parents split up the child's well being comes first. There's more to raising a child than just supplying funds.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 03:08 PM
1

I can't speak for your jurisdiction....but that enforcement unit can go kick rocks. Here, the only time cases are brought to court for possible jail sentence is when there's pretty good evidence that the payer has money and just won't pay. I find it crazy that your jurisdiction won't enforce your order.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 03:23 PM
1

Its not the child's fault the parents aren't together. It takes two people to create and raise a child. In the absence of one there needs to be some kind of compensation to the other. I already said I don't agree with all orders but if a child would have access to basic needs if both parents were together then why should they go without just because two adults cant get along.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:39 AM
2

I never said it was the best system. There are some decisions that are just ridiculous. Like the one you mentioned. Basically I just think personally that the kid should be supported and given the same chances/opportunities as a child living in a household with two parents. I think everyone agrees that the person that shouldn't be punished is the child. Really nobody should be punished it should be fair throughout. Unfortunately that line in the sand was destroyed and we now have wack jobs runni…
/r/MensRights06/08/13 11:28 PM
2

other than working every day with child support orders, divorce orders and child maintenance...no, I don't have sources. Just anecdotal evidence of what I see on any given day. I don't think paying to support your child is a burden. I think your child needs support in some way to live. It just so happens that the system put in place in most places is by an arbitrary monetary value. It's not a great system. Heck, it's not even a good system. Whoever decided the law had to get into the bedrooms of…
/r/MensRights06/08/13 07:27 PM
-4

obviously there are cases that fall outside the normal deviations. I didn't say it was a perfect system. Personally I don't think the law/courts should have anything to do with families. But we NEED a system to protect the children. And this is the best system that's available.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 07:17 PM
1

Just saying it would have been better saying "force a non-custodial parent to be a part-time visitor". I would say 5% of orders are against the mother. This can be for a number of reasons including an absent father, mother granted custody to maintain the household, etc. Mother's pay based on the same guidelines (depending on your jurisdiction. If your jurisdiction doesn't have guidelines then that's a justice issue, not a mens rights issue). For all CS orders I would guess 15-20% require enforce…
/r/MensRights06/08/13 06:29 PM
4

that's 100% wrong. It's about providing a stable situation for the children. I work closely with family courts. Mother's lose custody/pay child support as well. You just hear more of the stories from the male payer side because it's more common. Custody may be a men's rights issue. Paying to support your child is definitely not.
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:57 PM
-3

Agree with you up until your last line where you lost all credibility. "force a father to be a part-time visitor". There are plenty of mothers that get "saddled with a CS order". The majority of time mother's are given custody because it provides the most stable environment for the child. A judge will grant custody to whoever provides the most stable environment. To the person that can pick them up at school, make their lunches, etc. Majority of time it's the former "stay at home mom". That's no…
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:45 PM
1

Its a terrible system. But its the beat system we have, better than nothing I guess. Lawmakers and courts should have nothing to do with families but somewhere along the lines someone said they should. So they do
/r/MensRights26/07/13 12:01 PM
1

If the mother tricked...then yes he shouldn't owe anything. If there was a question of doubt of who the father might be and there was a higher probability of it being one guy then I could see the courts making a decision. If there's any doubt then get a DNA test asap
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:12 AM
2

sorry...just know the Canadian system. I know a few provinces charge interest and nearly all charge fees but in all provinces the fees/interest owed to the government can't be collected until there are no child support arrears owing.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 04:09 AM
-11

the state wouldn't get any cut of it...it would go to the mother.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 03:18 AM
1

i stopped watching at that point. It was embarrassing.
/r/MensRights18/07/13 12:17 PM
-1

Support to keep your offspring alive is only superseded by the payers need to live. Male or female. Most times when guys say "I need a car"....they don't. They need transportation. An $8-900 car payment is not justifiable when they scream poor because of child support. That's not saying a car isn't a legitimate expense, in your case if they need it to work then yes...it would be considered. Like hungerartist_ said, paying for your child isn't a mensrights issue, custody is. Women who pay child s…
/r/MensRights17/05/13 02:46 PM
-2

Nailed it. Biggest excuse i see is "I can't afford that. I have car payments and visa bills and phone bills" that's the last thing a judge wants to hear when determining a child support amount. Its basically saying "I have money for other things but not my kid"
/r/MensRights17/05/13 12:47 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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