TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

justusinthesystem Archive

View 2 posts and 35 comments by justusinthesystem on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Great article. Most of the stories about this topic are sickening. The media latches onto the USWNT and rarely questions anything. Where does the money come from to pay the women the bonus differential they're asking for? Are the women ok with the USSF cutting funding in other areas, including youth soccer and the NWSL? What happens to collective bargaining if courts intervene in a CBA? How would a plaintiff judgement affect the way businesses operate or invest in women's sports in the future? T…
/r/MensRights18/05/20 03:02 PM
2

That argument is not far off. The women are fighting to exclude the fact that their additional NWSL salaries are paid by the USSF. Apparently only one of their salaries paid by the USSF should be counted when it comes to calculating compensation. https://sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/sources-us-soccer-denies-nwsl-owners-funding-request-but-offers-counterproposal-143108951.html The NWSL also tried shaking down the USSF for more money while taking away operational control from the Federation at the sam…
/r/MensRights07/04/20 04:32 PM
5

It's more that if the men win the World Cup, the USSF receives $38 million from FIFA. And when the women won their last World Cup, the USSF received $4 million. And their prize money for winning the 2015 World Cup was just $2 million. For comparison, the USMNT earned $9 million for reaching the round of 16 in the 2014 World Cup. So the men earned more revenue for losing one World Cup than the women earned for winning their last two World Cups combined. Yet the USWNT thinks their World Cup bonuse…
/r/MensRights07/04/20 02:22 PM
3

I've been waiting for someone in the media to bring up this point, but they are all oddly silent. Equal pay would mean the women would not be paid probably the rest of this year. Maybe the USWNT can release a statement thanking the USSF for its support during this difficult time. You know, without the Fed, the national team would have no income, and NWSL would likely be out of business. I doubt that show of unity ever comes though.
/r/MensRights07/04/20 01:13 PM
2

The market has done the rest. That's why the USWNT is trying to get the courts to interevene.
/r/MensRights11/03/20 01:15 AM
2

I wouldn't put much stock into what the USMNT said. They are negotiating a new CBA and are likely just trying to increase their own leverage. Notice, the men didn't offer to take a pay cut in order for the women to have equal pay. They also didn't offer to combine with the women under a single CBA which is the only way both sides could have equal pay.
/r/MensRights10/03/20 07:55 PM
1

Bylaws are just operational rules and procedures. Their bylaws state they can't discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or veteran status. And they can't discriminate against the participation of players, teams, coaches or clubs on the basis of that player, coach, team, or club’s membership in, or affiliation with, another Organization Member. So they are perfectly free to refrain from investing in women's pr…
/r/MensRights15/10/19 01:29 PM
1

The USSF has every right to be discriminatory. All businesses do. Otherwise, everybody would be paid the exact same. And no company could say 'No' to anything. Discrimination just can't be based on gender or race. But it's fair to discriminate based on financial considerations. The USSF gets to pick and choose where it wants to invest its money. They can decide the best way to make its revenue. They can decide its expenses. They can decide what are good investments and what are bad investments. …
/r/MensRights14/10/19 06:55 PM
1

There's nothing wrong with any of that. The USSF is allowed to do business as it sees fit. They obviously see value in selling most of its media and sponsorship rights to SUM. That's probably because SUM pays them about $30 million every year in guaranteed revenue. SUM takes virtually all the risk away from the USSF. I think that sounds like a pretty good deal for a non profit entity. There's nothing stopping owners of NWSL teams from developing a media organization and bidding on USSF rights. M…
/r/MensRights14/10/19 01:52 PM
0

Even if that was true (it's not), it would be irrelevant to the women's lawsuit. The USSF has nothing to do with World Cup finances. They simply receive money from FIFA for participating in it. FIFA sells media rights for World Cup games. The Women's World Cup could have been the highest rated event in the history of television, and the USSF still would have earned only $4 million for its women winning the tournament. For comparison, the USSF earned $9 million from the men losing in the round of…
/r/MensRights14/10/19 01:21 PM
0

And here I thought children are entitled to financial support from both parents. I guess that standard only applies to certain children.
/r/MensRights21/08/19 04:26 PM
4

Thanks Megan for contradicting your main argument, on video. Hats off to the interviewer for actually asking a good question too. Most of these interviews are just fluff, 'You go girl' pieces. I know this case will settle, but I really wish the USSF would stop giving in to this greedy team. Go to trial and call their bluff. It'd be hard to lose. They're just going to file another lawsuit after their next CBA anyways. That's the only leverage they have. Then they go on these media tours where the…
/r/MensRights14/03/19 05:20 AM
1

http://www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/15277241/us-soccer-federation-says-uswnt-earns-only-22-percent-less-men Here's a more in depth article about it. It shows that from 2008-2015, the women have always been compensated higher than the men relative to revenue each team earned. This clause exists to even things out. Yet the women have never been able to use it. They didn't seem to talk about it the last time they tried this money grab.
/r/MensRights11/03/19 04:36 AM
2

So the team files another lawsuit after their lawsuit three years ago went nowhere. If only they had a way to force the USSF to provide a certain level of compensation. Oh yeah, the women have a CBA they agreed to just two years ago, between lawsuits. The women had a chance to get a deal like the men. They could've negotiated for higher potential earnings through a participation and performance bonus system. But it turns out they don't want to give up their guaranteed salary, health insurance, m…
/r/MensRights10/03/19 08:17 PM
1

Well for the sake of equality, I would expect him to post the same information about mothers on welfare too. They are also deadbeats since they don't support their kids.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 04:31 PM
1

Who said I oppose feminists? All I said is child support is not about children. And you have yet to show that it is about children. Looks like you're the biased one.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 04:42 AM
1

No, I recognize ignorance when I see it. Child support is nothing like you stated.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 02:51 AM
1

Just about everything in your statement is wrong. Child support is a simple transaction, nothing more. It's essentially another form of alimony.
/r/MensRights27/08/15 12:43 AM
1

Care to explain how it does? Child support is just another form of alimony.
/r/MensRights26/08/15 12:36 AM
8

Child support has nothing to do with kids other than there technically must be one for support to be ordered.
/r/MensRights25/08/15 05:12 PM
10

It's amazing; you give women opportunities to receive free money, and they actually take advantage. Who could have seen this coming? I actually have no problem with what she did. She received the sperm so she was free to do what she wanted with it. The huge problem is government rewarding her for her actions with child support (alimony). The $800 reward is much too high as well. I really hope somebody challenges these dumb laws and rulings to the highest extent possible. Based on sperm banks, sa…
/r/MensRights25/08/15 02:26 PM
-1

Hate the system not the player. This guy did exactly what he should have done. He is lucky to pretty much be clear of the law, but he must absolutely protect himself and his son. This girl sounds like a spoiled brat at best. Lots of kids have rough lives. Maybe someone should tell her that if she's that upset perhaps her mother should've planned a little better or had an abortion. Her biological dad didn't ask for her to be born either.
/r/TheRedPill22/07/15 10:11 PM
1

That's great if women ask for that. That's how it should be. That would mean they are being responsible for themselves. Men would have to meet an obligation before access to sex. The problem is women don't have to be responsible because they know the government will give them free welfare and child support. So, consequently, women often don't take responsibility. Meanwhile men are punished for something they don't control. That's a huge double standard and conflict of interest.
/r/MensRights27/04/15 02:24 PM
1

Because women get pregnant. It is their bodies so they should be the ones responsible. It'd be like fast food or alcohol companies having to pay for people's decision to consume their products. It's called personal responsibility.
/r/MensRights21/04/15 08:33 PM
6

Awesome post! I'd just like to add that government doesn't care about children of married or parents. Married and custodial parents are allowed to provide the bare minimum to their children i.e. enough food and water to survive, some kind of a roof, and one set of clothes. Yet for some reason government can force non-custodial parents, at gun point, to pay a percentage of their income every month to the other parent.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 06:52 PM
1

Because women are the ones who get pregnant. They are responsible for their own bodies. It's the same reason why women are the only ones who get to decide to have abortions. Or do you want men to have a say in that one? It's not a hard concept to understand.
/r/MensRights20/04/15 06:16 PM
0

Sounds like you made a personal decsision. So what are you mad at?
/r/MensRights19/03/15 07:40 PM
1

Why should men or government ever be expected to provide support? These situations only allow women to make bad choices. I've never understood why people think someone else must pay. If someone must pay, it should be mothers. No father should ever be forced to pay for a child. That is theft. It's an arbitrary system that does nothing for children. Government should never provide assistance either. The problem would get solved very quickly. There shouldn't be LPS or whatever you want to call it. …
/r/MensRights24/02/15 08:12 AM
3

Child support is wrong on so many levels. It's theft. It's not for children. It traps people. It has no accountability. It discriminates. It's not applied evenly. It puts people in jail. It has a conflict of interest. It prevents parents from parenting. It gives women an incentive to have babies. People should be responsible for themselves, not for other people.
/r/MensRights31/12/14 06:55 PM
-1

Of course she didn't want to go another way. She has child support and welfare to subsidize her baby without actually having to provide the kid any meaningful level of support herself. Imagine how different the world would be if women had to deal with the consequences of their choices.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 03:39 PM
1

You shouldn't care about the kid. You didn't want him, and he's an expense that could land you in jail. Unfortunately, you'll have to support the mother in the name of the child. But she's the one that decided to give birth to the kid. So don't give them anything more than you're legally required to, in terms of both time and money. Being a supportive father would only be rewarding the mother and the child support racket.
/r/MensRights29/08/14 01:32 AM
1

I love it. Ignore all the children as well. Abuse the system as much as possible.
/r/MensRights29/06/14 11:37 PM
2

If you're not going to get rid of it (which I advocate), the system could at least be improved by making the receiver of funds prove the money was actually spent on the child and show what the money was used for. Get rid of the reimbursement system. Money could be restricted to basic needs instead of things like activities, college funds, toys, etc. Maybe make both parents pay their court ordered support into a single account from which money can be withdrawn for the child. These types of system…
/r/MensRights25/06/14 04:30 AM
-1

Why would you have to expand welfare? Take away welfare along with child support. Problem solved.
/r/MensRights25/06/14 04:00 AM
0

Get rid of child support completely. The current system is awful and does nothing it's supposed to do. It takes money from one person under threat of the law. Perhaps the worst part of all is the child support system has no clue if the money is actually being spent on children at all. There is absolutely no accountability. On a greater level though, child support allows women to make bad decisions. It allows them to have children they can't support. The situation is made worse with welfare. Get …
/r/MensRights25/06/14 03:50 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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