TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

modix Archive

View 0 posts and 293 comments by modix 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)
3

The problem is like all causes: a group forms for a singular purpose with a recognizable reasonable goal. With time and exposure, the nasty, radicalized people move in and drown out reasonable voices. Normal people don't like hearing it, and are only willing to fight it so long before they get tired or disgusted and leave. Then it just becomes an echo chamber of nastiness.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 08:09 PM
34

This election has made everything nastier, this sub especially. I've never seen the language and inappropriate comments currently used here prior to this last year, and now they're highly upvoted. Hardly recognize the place anymore. Definitely starting to become the thing it railed against hardest once upon a time.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 04:49 PM
1

That's right. She was also in Two Mothers and A Most Wanted Man. How could I forget.../s The Princess Bride is a huge, iconic movie and she has the female titular lead in it... are you trying to suggest that's a minor role? Make whatever point you want to make, just don't make up shit or exaggerate. You're weakening your claim, not strengthening it.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 05:12 PM
2

Only other famous role? She was Princess Buttercup among many other major roles.
/r/MensRights26/06/16 04:14 PM
2

Pretty sure a child does not cost 300.000 pounds to raise. It's actually not too far off. It was 175,000 to 18 years old last time I saw the figure a decade ago. I'm sure it's well over 200k now, not to mention all the lost opportunities that money would have brought.
/r/MensRights12/06/16 04:31 PM
1

I am blaming it on election season. It's been rabid in here for months, and dominated by people I don't know with fringe opinions. I'm hoping it'll get back to actual men's issues one day.
/r/MensRights28/05/16 04:45 AM
5

I see the father as a powerful protector, enduring hardship for his child. Protection through strength is a positive thing. It's all in how you frame the thoughts. Ad the father of a young one, I know this experience well.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 06:06 PM
3

That's why sexism/racism is bad. Sure, everyone is going to be uncomfortable/unfamiliar around people that are different than them. This isn't bad per se. It's not a good thing, but it happens and there's little ill will that couldn't be fixed by 10 minutes of hanging out. However, declaring individuals unworthy or having to "prove themselves" in order to not belong to a "lower class" is the very evil that makes racism/sexism so dire. It's why those qualities are so despicable, and why it's such…
/r/MensRights06/05/16 04:19 PM
22

Considering Italians, Irish and many other imigrants weren't considered "white" until the 1900s, there's actually a tiny subset of human beings that would fit their true "privileged" setup. It's a crazy mindset. Funny enough, most of those people tend to still be rich families, or have been rich for generations. Now if only there was a better way of judging people's privilege... could it possibly be money? Hmm... it's funny how all the life achievement statistics line up so much better with fina…
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:11 PM
4

the shade of the Noble Savage inherent in such a position I'd say more than a shade. I'd say it's 95% of what intersectionalism is based upon... that and some weird quasi-noblesse oblige. Instead of nobility/serfs you have the "privileged" who's job it is to help (i.e. tell forcefully what to do) those that are "oppressed".
/r/MensRights22/02/16 05:08 PM
0

A stay at home spouse is by definition doing more of the housework and child rearing so that that the other spouse is more free to pursue their career and relax when at home. Their career and interests/hobbies/etc are second tier to the breadwinning spouse throughout the marriage. There's sacrifice made continuously throughout the relationship. I've been on both sides of this throughout a long marriage. Only someone that is narcissitic or naive would think that it would be fair to not compensate…
/r/MensRights06/02/16 09:31 PM
-4

Why are we discussing fault? If you leave a partnership, you settle up at the end. It's a business arrangement.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 09:17 PM
6

why should the breadwinner be expected to insure the loss willfully incurred? That's exactly what you do when you agree for your partner to be a stay at home parent. They're called "partners" for a reason. You share losses and gains just like a business. If you don't approve of their decision, you could leave the marriage at that time, and there would be no losses incurred. However, if you take advantage of having a stay at home spouse for 10+ years, you have the loss of their ability of being e…
/r/MensRights06/02/16 09:03 PM
-2

If you think someone can go from unskilled to self-sufficient at the age of 35+, you're being a little deluded and short sighted. You're losing nearly 20 years of work towards an outcome and trying to compress it into 5. That even assumes that that a market is even remotely favorable to someone that just got out of college at the age of 37 or so. It's rough enough to find a job out there. Trying to do it quickly at a later age, and find a job shortly afterwards is a long shot, not a guarantee.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 08:59 PM
4

all white cast And all the main characters are upper class white females from NY. It's a subset of a subset of a subset.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 07:03 PM
8

it appears that Jackie may have waived such privilege by voluntarily disclosing the contents of her communications with Eramo and UVA to defendants. That's the part that seals it. If she wanted this information private, she wouldn't have volunteered the information to a paper. Even if there was an actual legal privilege, speaking about it to the public waives that privilege. It doesn't matter that it was done anonymously, as it named people and damaged their reputation. You can't confidentially …
/r/MensRights30/01/16 09:13 PM
6

In hard societies, no one can afford to be treated gently. Harsh winters and brutal lands don't allow for any sort of leeway or you starve. The Icelanders are a really interesting culture that way. I've been friends with many over the years... they're kind of the Vikings that stuck it out and never went soft. Hard, but jovial bunch.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 05:38 PM
6

The issue is that small regular assessments allow a person to work enough to cram a small amount of knowledge into their head for a very brief period of time. Working hard will generally result in someone putting in enough rote time to get the knowledge in there temporarily (I'm quite over-educated, so I've seen this time and time again). Shortly afterwards, that knowledge is lost, yet the person received the highest marks for their knowledge due to their efforts. There is no mastery of the mate…
/r/MensRights23/09/15 06:01 PM
7

So really the ideal is a mix of the two. Is it? Other than showing willingness to work, ability to do continuous assignments isn't really much of an aptitude test for a subject matter. It's just a general skill that would apply to all subjects and wouldn't show a mastery of the material.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 05:33 PM
3

People don't understand that for most of these crimes there is a required minimum sentence. Either that, or a hard-nosed prosecutor didn't present a decent offer. Defense attorneys do NOT like getting up and court and putting up stupid arguments. It's embarassing and frustrating. You have to do what you clients wants you to do (or what's forced upon you by mandatory minimums or lack of offers). If there's no reason to plea, you try your best in court, and hope for a sympathetic jury. It's your j…
/r/MensRights01/09/15 05:21 PM
2

Perhaps on the fringes, but I wouldn't write it in a professional paper in any form. Trust me on that, I've dealt with this issue in law many times.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 04:32 PM
3

People already do this all the time, though it's considered grammatically incorrect. We've already got you meaning singular and plural... it's not a big deal for they to mirror it in times of unspecified gender. My guess is this is the way the language will go eventually, but people get pissy about it still.
/r/MensRights31/08/15 04:22 PM
2

I think the point was that they're nothing close to anarchists. They use that term because they don't like the ruling government (which they see to be the instrument of the patriarchy), and wish to change it. However, their views are totalitarian in nature (wanting to change society to their view alone, at the cost of others). Anarchists would never support the changes Radfems push for.
/r/MensRights19/08/15 12:34 AM
3

It's not academic. Summers addresses this in the interview. They live in a strange bubble where they're completely immune from peer review and criticism, both hallmarks of academia. This is postmodernist Bullshit.
/r/MensRights04/08/15 03:09 AM
28

People overestimate their memories. Our memories are terrible terrible recorders of history. They really only help us with the things that were important at the time. but even then, every time we recall something we change the old memory. So she stars thinking about this issue of getting paid, then somehow remembers that old $10 standup, which probably got her goat at the time, so she remembers getting paid so little, but what she doesn't record is the REASON why she didn't get paid much. So now…
/r/MensRights16/04/15 02:54 PM
2

To be a bit fair, Stewart didn't seem all that into this bit. It was a pretty unenthusiastic lead in. I'm sure he saw a bit of a lost opportunity to mock the phenomenon v. make fun of the men's groups.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 08:07 PM
4

Well, so does an entire branch of anthropology... linguistic relativity, best known for its the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It's a pretty well known phenomenon.
/r/MensRights29/01/15 01:27 PM
3

The irony of a female complaining about being taught primarily by men... if only they knew.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 08:16 PM
4

It's also not a microaggression. That's just aggression. They wouldn't bring in microagressions because they're trivial by default. They need something that'll grab the audience like a real offensive aggressive form of racism, and then subtly tie in microaggressions. There's a reason why you do this, or you lose your audience.
/r/MensRights18/01/15 08:10 PM
3

This is a great breakdown on the topic, linked in /r/law. Great analysis from an attorney on the subject.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 05:27 AM
1

I highly suggest picking up one of his books. As both a neuroscience grad and a person, they were very formative readings for me. His TED talk on violence is great as well (and is a great counterpoint to the escalating claims of violence sometimes debated here).
/r/MensRights08/11/14 06:26 PM
2

Yay for someone using "begging the question" correctly!
/r/MensRights05/11/14 07:49 PM
4

There's some heavyweights on that list, and that was not a lukewarm dismissal. Its good to see Dershowitz signed on. This will be hard to ignore PR dismiss.
/r/MensRights15/10/14 03:20 PM
3

I guess it would depend on the jurisdiction. In mine, the fapa hearings and general restraining orders are done by the family law judges. They're generally heavily involved with them as part of their topic matter, so I just assumed it would go to them.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 02:29 PM
36

A prior restraint... at an ex parte RO hearing? Without significant evidence? Either this judge is a doofus or something is up. Family law judges tend to have horrible knowledge of the law due to their largely inability to be reviewed... but they're crossing over into 1st amendment grounds here, well past domestic abuse. Nothing is more protected than prior restraint. It's all but a holy grail to get one, and this judge handed it out like candy. Something's odd here.
/r/MensRights03/10/14 05:30 AM
2

It's not nearly as common for local politicians to have been lawyers (as odd as that sounds). I think less than 50% in my state ever passed the bar. But even if they were lawyers, the are ex-lawyers that probably haven't practiced in 10 years... and that's assuming they were competent in the first place. It also assumes that they practiced something even remotely in the same field... lawyers tend to specialize and shove all the other types of law out of their brain. Imagine giving up a professio…
/r/MensRights15/09/14 02:07 AM
2

It's not lawyers that write these, it's politicians. Trust me, their inability to write clearly is far more frustrating for us than it is for the lay people. It's our job to interpret this gobbledegook for a living. While it gets easier... half the time, even if it's legible they're far enough from the actual practice of law that they have no idea what they're doing and forget things like mens rea (mental component of the crime).
/r/MensRights15/09/14 01:59 AM
4

I can see why they charged 2nd degree reading through the statute... looks like 2nd degree is regular murder, and you need some form of aggravating factor to get 1st (called aggravated homicide in most states). Premeditation doesn't appear to be a possibility, though torturous killings might count. I think you'd have to prove that she intended to torture her son, which might be hard, even if his death was hard. That knowledge component would be difficult.
/r/MensRights15/09/14 01:11 AM
18

You're going overboard... she's somehow only being charged with 2nd degree. How all that crap she did does not qualify as premeditation is beyond me. I'm going to have to look into NY's requirements for 1st, because if that doesn't count, I'm not sure what would.
/r/MensRights14/09/14 10:34 PM
1

The barber's shop I go to has women fairly irregularly, but consistently (it's Portland, Oregon so quite a few ladies with masculine haircuts). I don't really see a big deal either way, most ladies that go for guys haircuts aren't exactly the prudish annoying types that would kill a men's sanctuary vibe (though the lady from the story might be an exception).
/r/MensRights05/09/14 06:49 PM
5

I've rarely found decent barbershops to suffer. There's so few old school barbers out there, the waits tend to be in the multiple hours.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 09:01 PM
9

I wouldn't use the word evil, mostly just non empathetic without direct exposure to other's pain. We've been bombarded with women's perspectives and trials, so people have empathy. This is why it's so critical to start dialog about the trials of modern men. Empathy requires exposure. It's part of the us v. them part of our brain. Without a good dialog, people are going to stubbornly believe men are fine and there's nothing that can affect them due to the awesome bubble our patriarchy powers give…
/r/MensRights24/08/14 06:15 PM
2

Slightly different advice: your pain is probably souring your entire life. Many people underestimate how much of a global variable of unhappiness it is. Things that are tolerable suddenly become intolerable. Situations that are happy or neutral become sad or unhappy. You need to deal with the physical pain. It's screwing with your head. It will be near impossible to fix your life with it turning every good thing to dust.
/r/MensRights18/08/14 04:14 AM
1

Trying to think of a good Violent Femmes pun... but failing. Something something kiss off.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 08:40 PM
2

There's a lot of evidence that the PD would want the DA would never bother looking at or by witnesses the DA would not touch due to possibly exculpatory evidence (they only have to admit it exists if they find it, they don't need to search for it). If FB doesn't want to turn it over, the PD is out of luck or needs to have a login that would see the evidence.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 05:10 AM
4

I can never understand why articles about a movement are primarily voiced by a major figure of the opposition. I could see them getting a short quote about how the other side feels, but this entire article is the establishment opposition characterizing a new movement. They don't even attempt to ask someone in the movement their opinion or response to the opposition.
/r/MensRights03/08/14 08:35 PM
8

Or are no longer considered victims due to being a male over 16. You just get lumped into a number of dead genderless bodies or tossed into the the amount of dead "insurgents".
/r/MensRights21/07/14 07:23 AM
5

He's a largely prolific writer, my guess is we'll see more than a couple angry songs expressing doubt in humanity. Pretty sensitive soul in general, and a widespread sudden betrayal of everyone that you thought was your friends would hit pretty fucking hard. Listen to early Modest Mouse and Brock's faith and rage at humanity: Well, it took a lot of work to be the ass that I am And I'm really damn sure that anyone can, equally easily fuck you over These sorts of things leave major major scars, an…
/r/MensRights17/07/14 07:26 AM
3

Those two are both criminal, but not a likely prosecution unless there was a reason (e.g. lying under oath to protect the criminal behavior of someone else they're prosecuting, wasting the time and resources of the police). There generally needs to be some sort of departmental anger at the person for those crimes to be charged (didn't play ball, caused them to lose out on another case).
/r/MensRights14/07/14 09:13 PM
5

His fans seemed mixed. Most wouldn't believe it. He's just not the type, in fact, is the opposite of the type. He's more likely to be a self-loathing asexual than a rapist. There will be no criminal punishment. She didn't file a report, so she broke no criminal law. He can sue her for his damages (which could be very considerable as a major artist who was shunned as a result). Will she have that money? No. So largely he'd be paying out of pocket for a debt he can't collect and possibly look like…
/r/MensRights14/07/14 09:08 PM
2

I thought the fact that he was like 400+ miles away at the time he was accused of raping her would probably be enough to debunk things. It's been a few years and the nature of information getting out has changed quite a bit so I think the whole quiet retraction thing is gone, hopefully. The people that cared would know, but it's the fringe people that heard about the accusation but not the results of the investigation are where the problems lie. For Oberst, this lady was emotionally disturbed en…
/r/MensRights14/07/14 09:01 PM
2

Well if she had picked a more likely candidate than Oberst, it might have made sense. The dude's an amazing songwriter, but he's pretty much a SJW in ideology. Not exactly your best pick for likely rapist.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 08:54 PM
2

This whole thing was incredibly odd. If anything, Oberst is the overly empathetic type that would have a hard time hurting anyone. He's an admitted vicious drunk, but the idea that he could do something as emotionally scarring to someone as raping them is almost absurdist. Kind of like if the sensitive kid that cried when they stepped on an ant suddenly grabs a knitting needle and jabs it into the eyes of the beloved family Golden retriever. Glad to see his name cleared, even if the charges were…
/r/MensRights14/07/14 08:52 PM
2

That's odd, as I believe he helped found Saddle Creek Records, and is an executive on the board. Not to say they wouldn't turn on him. Perhaps he signed a record deal for publishing rights with another label. edit: Reading through the court documents, he didn't claim he was dropped by the label. He signed up with Nonesuch (Wilco/Black Keys indie label) for his solo album only. That apparently caused the confusion.
/r/MensRights14/07/14 08:47 PM
3

That being said, she's making the opposite claim, which would be unlikely given the data.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:12 AM
3

Likely its skewed for statutory rape would be a likely guess. Lot more 21-16 relationships than older.
/r/MensRights08/07/14 06:10 AM
1

Not a 1st Amendment case? Do you mean Free exercise v. Free speech? Freedom of exercising your religion is still very much a 1st amendment right. RFRA was a reinstatement of Yoder for Free exercise cases and was very much a 1st amendment case, just changed the level of scrutiny involved when burdening Free Exercise. If they were using the RFRA (haven't read the full ruling), that could be where they pulled the language. It did, however borrow the general concept of overbreadth (which applies to …
/r/MensRights30/06/14 07:47 PM
1

"burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests." Key words for overbreadth. It's an easy way for even a law with a substantial government interest to get struck down, when normally it would survive even strict scrutiny.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:31 PM
1

This exception was quite inconsistent with every other ruling out there, and applied quite unevenly (a big no-no in Con law). It's too bad they struck it all down instead of finding a way to make it more consistent, however. Perhaps after a few more deaths/assaults there'll be another discussion about how to fix it.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:29 PM
2

It's complicated, and largely depends on the forum. For traditional public forums such as a park and outdoor public facility, there's little to no allowed restrictions. They're allowed to make TPM (time, place, manner) decisions and that's about it. For limited public forums, like universities, the government can adjust the what is discussed as it is view-point neutral. So they can't be pro-life, but they can stop conversation about abortions. Non-public forums, such as military bases, and some …
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:18 PM
1

Here's the basic list of Unprotected Speech.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:02 PM
7

Nothing is objective - Well, you'd have to take a step back further than science to make that statement. You'd have to go to the bedrock of epistemology, and ask how do we know what we know? Science is based upon a few assumptions, none of which can be proven. Induction is the foundation of all science, as induction is the creation of a "fact" from multiple observations (i.e. science). But there's the issue of the problem of induction. We have to make a few assumptions that can never be truly pr…
/r/MensRights06/05/14 07:05 PM
1

That's hilariously bad... they could have at least put something randomized.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 06:53 PM
3

As an attorney that went through the hell of taking the Bar, why would you avoid taking the bar? It's purely voluntary, the only thing you could get would be your money back. The punishment is having to wait 6 more months to take the test again and being unable to work your profession in the meantime. Unless she was looking for some sort of special allowance (money back), this is not a useful claim.
/r/MensRights03/04/14 10:21 PM
1

Vice really needs to get over the coked up on-camera flash look for their pieces. Sure there's a couple famous photographers that made that "style" work, but now it just seems to be their default photo style for anyone they want to mock. It makes people look drugged up and pathetic - it could make your grandma look like that too.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 06:56 AM
2

Byron was one of the biggest lotharios in history. That's a very ironic name to use as a contrast. He held a very public affair with a married woman all the way back in the early 19th century. That would even be scandalous today.
/r/MensRights14/03/14 06:52 AM
7

The range of winning times isn't huge. It's pretty well known within a minute or so what a regular champion marathon runner will finish. Calculate the difference between men and women's times... make sure the offset is larger than that (by just a little bit, to make sure it seems fair). It's a bit silly, but I don't think anyone takes this as a serious "victory".
/r/MensRights10/03/14 05:11 AM
6

The problem with this is often the methodology of deciding severity is the eventual crime the perpetrator is charge with. And you can guess how that could possibly be skewed...
/r/MensRights07/03/14 06:56 PM
22

Knowing a little bit of photography, those initial shots were pretty terrible, and unflattering. If they hadn't have known they were to be photoshopped, they would've worked much harder on the original prints. That's the procedure now, less art in the photoshoot, more in the photoshop. She's not a bad looking lady, but anyone bent over in the wrong posture can look unappealing. As an amateur photographer, I'd rather they work more on the initial shoot... but I think that boat has sailed long ago…
/r/MensRights17/01/14 11:53 PM
1

I would have sued the living fuck out of them and won easily. Referring to someone as a potential rapist just for the heck of it and publishing it through photos and names.... yeah, you can't do that and not expect repercussions. That's every element of defamation of character on a silver platter. Malicious, highly publicized, highly defamatory, without any form of truth behind it. Also... to their idiot dean, it's not a form of free speech issue. You're a school providing a sounding board for a…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 07:02 AM
2

There's a whole world of issues that surround pretrial detention today. It was set up in a day where you had about 6 days before trial, and you were capable of moving 100 miles and be unrecognized. Nowadays with 60-90 days being the minimum fro a minor trial, and flight being near impossible long term, it's become a method of coercing pleas and punishment for a case they know will never actually go to trial. The second they allowed "preventative detention" they gave the courts the ability to hol…
/r/MensRights02/11/13 05:52 PM
1

Not a family lawyer, but generally these sort of sessions are hated by all involved. They're often required by law or the judge and have little to no chance of getting what either side would agree to. The attorneys have little interest in it settling that way, as they're uninvolved with this process and probably not going get get much billable hours out of the case. They generally advise their clients against settling at these meetings for obvious reasons (you don't know what you're signing up f…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 01:31 AM
2

If you got a specific amount out in order to give to someone, and you end up stiffing them, it's going to be a very bad thing. This is a stupid, worthless prank that could possibly have negative blowback for their clients.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 03:21 AM
6

Second result I get for men is: men cannot be trusted, also men cannot live without women. That's about as sexist as it gets. Incompetency and lack of basic worth for trust. I'd much rather someone doubt my ability in a profession than someone doubt my humanity or competency in general. Assuming they mean "cannot be feminists" in the sense of desiring gender equity, that's also a pretty offensive statement.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 11:15 PM
8

The question is: what phrase starting with "women can't ...." that wouldn't be sexist? Implying that 50% of the population can't do something IS sexist, unless it's a physical impossibility (e.g. women can't produce sperm). It sounds like it's a meaningful point, but it's not. It's basically key words to see what sexist phrases pop up. If it put women ... and those phrases came up then it would be concerning.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 09:20 PM
1

Americans pursuing fertility treatments are more likely to be going for a girl IF they already have a male child. If they are childless, then there's no tendency in either direction. This is pretty different from the data I've seen so far. The last stats I saw indicated an 80% selection for female in infertile couples seeking IVF.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 06:18 AM
1

Criminal assault is a harmful touching. Doesn't have to be completely intentional, unlike the tort. If she just intended to hit him lightly, and he bites is tongue or breaks a tooth, the crime would be based on the results, not the intent.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 07:32 AM
1

Criminally it would depend on the state. Could range from a non-assault touching to misdemeanor assault. Could even be feklony assault if it caused a serious injury ( broke a tooth or something).
/r/MensRights03/09/13 07:29 AM
0

Only if you mime the throw to make them believe they'll be hit. A threat must be immanent.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 07:26 AM
1

Prenuptial agreements would generally not cover any gains made during the marriage. I'm not too big into family law, but i would guess that any agreement otherwise would be thrown out as unconscionable. Prenuptial agreements are for the protection of assets held prior to marriage. A housewife/husband would still be entitled to the earnings of the breadwinner during marriage. The contracts traditionally are for the limited protection of large assets held prior to marriage.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:05 AM
1

Prenuptial agreements would generally not cover any gains made during the marriage. I'm not too big into family law, but i would guess that any agreement otherwise would be thrown out as unconscionable. Prenuptial agreements are for the protection of assets held prior to marriage. A housewife/husband would still be entitled to the earnings of the breadwinner during marriage. The contracts traditionally are for the limited protection of large assets held prior to marriage.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 10:04 AM
7

Jail is not prison. Prison is a system, people there live large portions of their life inside. Jail is a temporary place where people are always coming and going. Prison is a life changing experience that I imagine few people leave unscarred.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:33 AM
10

From my local experience, weekends is an option, normally chosen by the jail, not the judge. A judge sentences you, the jail normally decides how you'll do the time. The judge decides what programs are available, weekends or electronic detention for example, good time served as well. So the judge can cut off the options, but the jail has the final say. This is why jails can release people without permission from the judge. Regardless, this is a minimal sentence for such a huge damage to someone'…
/r/MensRights20/08/13 02:06 AM
2

a gold-plated Borderlands pistol. Jakobs seems like the only appropriate for gold plated. Perhaps Bandit, but who the fuck would carry one of those :).
/r/MensRights15/08/13 08:01 AM
1

To be honest though, doing pushups while fat is actually a harder exercise. Slimming down significantly reduces the difficulty of the exercise. Being trim and muscled makes them significantly easier.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 06:34 AM
4

Actually that is covered. It's a fairly well known secret hooters pays off male applicants after threat of suit. Sex discrimination is illegal for companies over a certain size. At will does not include discrimination against protected classes.
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:34 PM
3

It's a psychological phenomenon called the "bystander effect". Essentially the more people that are that witness an event, the less likely a person is to intervene or call for help. People get more confused and less decisive in groups. If they're the only one around they know they are the person that needs to act and generally will do so. The Men in Black quote is actually pretty on point: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
/r/MensRights03/08/13 05:01 PM
1

Aus = Oz (with the accent) .... wow, I can't believe it took me this long to figure that out.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:37 PM
7

But safe search IS the default setting...
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:34 PM
2

I do know of a few awkward individuals that are deer in the headlights with if enough cleavage is shown.
/r/MensRights22/07/13 12:52 AM
3

Well, to be honest, "that girl has big tits" is all you can really ascertain at a glance. Other forms of more valuable traits require time and personal acquaintance. If you refuse to find that she has other values upon given an opportunity to meet her, it becomes a problem. If your staring is making them uncomfortable, then that becomes a problem. Using a highly observable physical trait when no other traits can be known to distinguish a person isn't a problem per se.
/r/MensRights21/07/13 09:33 PM
0

So I put an electric fence wire around the property. Sitting on my deck enjoying sunset one day, a group of stupid drunken women get out of the river, start climbing the bank, and reach out to lift the wire so they could go under. Be careful there. If she were to electrocute herself, fall in the river and drown, you very well could be liable. You have a liability to expected trespassers not to create manmade deathtraps. I don't know the voltage you got on there, but even so, be careful. That's a…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:32 AM
1

You can record them outside legally. It's not a private conversation (despite the location). There's absolutely no legal expectation of privacy in a communication between a Tenant trying to remove someone from their property.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:24 AM
1

Took his keys, wallet and phone as well. That moves it well beyond a stop. Unless the OP was getting violent or creating some alternative reason for the cuffing, that's an arrest.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:22 AM
6

Nope, that's arrest legally (and I know a little bit about the subject). Detention in a patrol car with handcuffs would be considered an arrest in any court. Additionally took his license, etc... That's a defense attorney's dream arrest.
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:19 AM
2

I'm actually not seeing probable cause for arrest at that point (and handcuffs are an arrest, without question). Two people with differing stories would create a wash at most in evidence. Doesn't seem like the two even claimed to have permission to be on the property. That would leave with two people complaining about their treatment upon being asked to leave while trespassing. The officer could just as easily (and with more objective facts) arrested the two girls. Unless there was good reason t…
/r/MensRights13/07/13 06:12 AM
2

I think presenting it as financial planning is the best way to go. I luckily have a very sensible wife, who's far more financially savvy than I. We got married with nothing, so no prenup, but we've since planned out our contingency plans. It's not hard, and can be done with a loving wink, given a someone sane partner.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 07:37 AM
2

It'll be a wonderful surprise when people find out their spouse can bind them to just about any contract or purchase :). Don't marry someone bad with money, you'll be bad with money by proxy.
/r/MensRights11/07/13 07:33 AM
2

I think people are missing her lack of knowledge on the subject. She seems to misunderstand the general use of a prenuptial agreement. It seems like her impressions is that it requires them to keep all funds acquired during the marriage separate, instead of keeping property acquired prior to the marriage off limits during a divorce. From my interpretation, she's seeing two parties hording their cash while married, and not using any of the money to support one another. I could see how under such …
/r/MensRights11/07/13 07:26 AM
1

Your point reminded me a lot of Sufjan's Steven's song John Wayne Gacy, Jr. The song memorializes Gacy while humanizing him and holding him in horror at the same time. There were many people viscerally upset by the song due to it finding some humanity in him, as well as the controversial last line of the song comparing Sufjan's own mistakes to Gacy's. Human's need for people that do horrible things to not be "human". They can't be "one of us", because we can't do that. I've met a lot of people w…
/r/MensRights09/07/13 06:11 PM
4

Generally, an assault with gasoline is treated as an assault with a deadly weapon (or possibly attempted murder if attempting to light it). I'd be curious what they end up charging her with (assault ranges from a mid-ranged misdemeanor to a serious felony).
/r/MensRights02/07/13 08:14 AM
8

Even with objective data there is often interpretation involved, especially within the courtroom. She's most likely the one called as an expert witness testifying to what she saw in the data and the interpreting that data on the stand. Having a concrete stake in the outcome is a great way of introducing interpretive bias.
/r/MensRights02/07/13 05:06 AM
16

That part was a bit of a give away for not being a divorce lawyer. Also, the best interests of the child is no longer the mantra of family law. My own experience in family law is limited enough that I can't speak to what other jurisdictions are doing so I can't call anyone out. to me it just sounded like someone that knew some law, but hasn't been practicing it actively or exclusively.
/r/MensRights24/06/13 07:24 AM
6

I think the poster might be referring to when the court sequesters marital assets for use for one side's retainer, not a post ruling award. My jurisdiction allows for this at times when there's separate accounts and one side's solely owned account holds the lion share's of the couple's funds. Generally you can get attorneys fees whenever you're trying to enforce an already existing agreement that the other side violated. That's about the only time I've seen them consistently recovered.
/r/MensRights23/06/13 09:28 PM
3

How in the world would being a member of a group that consists of 50% of the population qualify you for anything? I've never heard this sentiment. I think people ASSUME that's what happens, but it's a misread of the situation.
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:20 AM
1

I fully understand where the term comes from, and it does happen at times, though I believe not for the reasons stated. I really think it boils down to a difference in gender speech patterns. Generally, male to male conversations are often more full of interjections, direct debates of facts, and quick interruptions. It's more fluid who the speaker is, and there's little reverence to their position as "talker". Female to female conversations involve listening for the entire time, and generally no…
/r/MensRights20/06/13 05:05 AM
6

I'd go a bit further than just ignoring valid complaints. I'd say the worst "femmsplaining" is when women's studies majors tell us how guys think. I can't count the time I've been told the "men think this" and "Men want this". All the guys in the room raise their eyebrows and give them weird looks. Deny it, and they have "proof" of how men think. I been told to my face that this "fact" was exactly how guys think, even after every guy there denied that specific "fact".
/r/MensRights20/06/13 04:56 AM
5

Many of the National Guard style conscriptions work as help during emergencies. There's a lot a well trained group can do for a country that doesn't involve shooting at invaders. Additionally would help teach responsibility and discipline to young ones, and some fitness training would be useful in general. Of course most of their training will likely involve learning to shoot and what not, but there could be a decent argument for a mandatory, short-term peace-time military groups.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 04:17 PM
2

For some a phase of their relationship with drastically reduced sexual intercourse would make this behavior more likely to occur. Assuming a lot of things but from context: post-partum, her working full time supporting family, dad probably not bothering to dress well due to being with kids all day, and him not fulfilling traditional masculine imagery in the woman's head. It's a large assumption, but there's probably a good chance that he's most likely not getting a lot of intimate time with his …
/r/MensRights14/06/13 01:20 AM
1

This is actually pretty close to a common law principle that may or may not exist in your state. Consent by fraudulant misrepresentations can actually negate the consent element of sex. There's been several cases like this where the husband was found to have raped his wife due to his infidelities. Couldn't imagine a prosecutor actually trying to prosecute it in a modern jurisdiction... but that doesn't mean it's necessarily not still technically a "crime". Basically: If you do an action that you…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 04:22 PM
3

Roofies were invented in 1972, and the song was written in 1944. The saying far predates the concept of putting a drug outside of alcohol in a drink.
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:08 PM
9

Considering Flunitrazepam was first synthasized in 1972, and the song was written in 1942, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say she was not referring to a roofie in her drink, but to the strength of the drink (what proof of alcohol). Cocktails were quite common in that day, but they could vary strongly in % of alcohol. The whole song is written as her feeling the need to come up with an excuse to stay (to overcome her worries about how it would look to her socially or with her family). Everything sh…
/r/MensRights03/06/13 06:04 PM
0

I've never stated I didn't understand her "vocabulary", perhaps you're confusing me with another poster. I just pointed out that the terms were being used to hide a basic everyday complaint of "people are doing things I don't like that don't really effect me, but I want to complain about it and feel justified in doing so." I find it about as disingenuous as straight people complaining about gay people marrying. "am guilty", "because I thought it was a cool thing to do" - These are not positive c…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 06:04 AM
3

I think it was stated a little harshly, but I do imagine there's some element of obfuscation through buzzwords of hatred of butch behavior by the author. It reminds the author of men, and the author finds that offensive in a group she identifies with. She's looking for a way of further subdividing the group so that she's no longer in the group with the behavior/actions she despises. People in general have actions of others/groups that annoy them. The author here is trying to justify in an absurd…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:59 AM
2

"Choosing masculinity to be cool is privilege" That statement actually doesn't make sense, unless she's arguing that even the expression of your sexuality is set, i.e. femme lesbians must be femme lesbians and have no ability to actual butch. Otherwise, it's not "priviledge" because you can choose to act that way. Perhaps I'm a little vague on the concepts, but a "privilege" based upon a mutable characteristic wouldn't be a privilege, but a choice. Choices would end up having good consequences a…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 02:53 AM
5

It's funny, because it's bigger than a normal hat!
/r/MensRights18/05/13 06:32 AM
1

It would be near impossible for rape to be punishable by death, even if you believe that that was a good idea. The facts and evidence involved in capital cases are met with a whole different level of scrutiny. Even if found guilty of the crime, the punishment part of the trial would just utterly fizzle unless it's a fairly brutal rape with insurmountable evidence of guilt. The blurry facts generally relating to rape cases would very very rarely allow for the sort of clarity needed for the senten…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:45 AM
2

While I agree no one should take action against a specific person, I believe it is entirely appropriate to forward this blog to the admissions department. It should be brought to their attention and left up them to decide if it's real or not, and what actions should be taken. It is concerning for us and concerning for them as well, and I don't see that as harassment.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 07:36 PM
1

I'm not sure when the Irish were considered white either. Definitely not at the turn of the 20th. Ironic considering the paleness of their skin.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 07:30 PM
39

Trolling through the dredge there was a great comment that is sadly being ignored. Republishing for those unwilling to face the dreck: Eh... I'm a male feminist and not in favor of MRAs. However, part of the problem I've been finding lately is that while the feminist community totally should be talking about a lot of these problems, and while the logical steps that these problems are part of patriarchy are there and sometimes recognized, I don't find the feminist community actually addressing th…
/r/MensRights29/03/13 06:56 PM
4

You also can resell that rebuilt car when done... an expensive handbag loses about 75% of its value as you walk out the front door.
/r/MensRights18/03/13 07:07 PM
15

Pretty sure by "in her feed" means someone she is friended with posted it, not the wife herself.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 05:05 AM
-2

Sounds like from her comments that he's a provider and a great dad. I'm guess most likely works more than her (possibly she's a stay-at-home), and is exhausted from doing that and helping take care of an infant. I'll keep speculation to a bare minimum, people I've know in similar situations were beyond exhausted and emotionally drained. That's a rough time in life for all involved, and not a time to be writing about how your feelings are hurt by minor changes in behavior. That's buckle down and …
/r/MensRights27/02/13 09:30 AM
1

I thought it was Rape, Murder, Arson, then Rape?
/r/MensRights16/01/13 06:11 AM
16

Hard to tell from the article, but "glassing" someone normally isn't throwing a glass at their face. It implied using it like a blunt object with the intent to break it and cut them badly. I'm pretty sure if she had just tossed it at him, it would have broken, and a couple pieces would have fallen away. That cut looks like it's got a full continuous swing behind it.
/r/MensRights25/12/12 10:00 AM
2

Except that schizophrenia most commonly manifests in young adult men. It tends to develop around 19 to 25. This is not nebulous and is relatively predictable and treatable.
/r/MensRights19/12/12 07:32 PM
1

It's technically hearsay, but since these are hearings, not a trial, it's allowed. Hearsay can be allowed in hearings if it is deemed credible. This is up to the judge, but in cases like this, it seems unlikely to be refused.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 11:46 PM
8

It's also Australia, where the term is all but a term of endearment. It doesn't have the drastic overtones that are in US society.
/r/MensRights09/10/12 08:58 PM
1

This is vouching - commenting upon the credibility of another witness. This is not allowed under the rules of evidence, and should not have been allowed. Most state case law specifically forbids this sort of thing (trust me, they love doing it for child witnesses).
/r/MensRights08/08/12 06:12 PM
8

Someone committing a crime against you does not get rid of the crime you committed. Both are guilty. And the OP has a court date with a judge, that is not going to be happy with this behavior if it's brought up. There are possible defenses against the assault, but behavior like this makes those arguments seem weaker.
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:50 AM
6

A&B is definitely not a misdemeanor. There is misdemeanor assault, but this is not it. http://law.onecle.com/massachusetts/265/13A.html Permanant disfigurement (chipped tooth) will put this well within the felony range. 5 year in jail max for that assault(meaning it's over the year max of a misdemeanor).
/r/MensRights16/07/12 04:48 AM
36

Reread your initial issues. You need to be very careful. Don't practice in MA, and don't know the rules. Likely you committed at least assault 2 (or something similar) which would be compounded by it being domestic. The statute of limitations on most violent crimes is often VERY long (3-5 years). If she's documented when and what happened, it doesn't mean you're in a safe zone from prosecution. The big thing you got going in your favor is that it was a one time deal and provoked. Massachusetts h…
/r/MensRights15/07/12 11:34 PM
2

This sort of thing is handled with post conviction relief complaints now days. Incompetent representation is the primary method of success. You would need to prove there was a line of defense or objections that Should have been done by a competent attorney. Seems like the case here. Old cases like this, prisoners don't have the records or evidence to prove their complaint. Luckily some good souls doing pro Bono dug it up. It's not easy, and you only get one crack at it.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 07:46 PM
4

Not to discuss trial strategy. Strictly prohibited. Can try to make rulings and sentencing more favorable. A new pd should not have been working such a serious felony. 18 months isn't brand new, but this might have been her first felony trial.
/r/MensRights31/05/12 07:36 PM
19

It amazes me that someone could graduate with an M.D. and not understand such a basic concept of statistics and dynamic systems. The treatments are working better for men because men aren't currently living to the normal human life expectancy without illness! Women already are approaching that limit, thus better treatments aren't helping much. The only way this would be concerning would be if humans had a drastically longer lifespan that we weren't achieving.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 06:07 AM
3

"gender-balanced judiciary"... an odd idea. Where is this suddenly coming from? Does someone think there is a large prejudice against female judges? My county is pretty close to 50/50 by the sexes, and that's pretty amazing considering the gender disparity in the age ranges of judges (45+). That generation of the bar was closer to 85/15. You'd be required to pick some fairly mediocre (or relatively younger) females to hit parity in most counties. Qualified judges don't appear from thin air, and …
/r/MensRights04/03/12 08:10 PM
2

There's little a lawyer can do once given an order like that. Family law doesn't get many appeals, and often family law judges are mini-regents similar to administrative judges. On appeals, they'll just rule that the judge was "reasonable", even if they disagree with the ruling. It's a factual conclusion, not a legal one, sadly, and that's not one an appeals court is likely to overturn. Best scenario in most situations is to obey as best as possible and ask for a modification later.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 06:07 AM
2

There is a mens rea requirement for Rape in the First degree in Oregon, it's not a strict liability crime nor criminal negligence. They would have to have shown intent or reckless ignorance of her condition beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering his condition at the time, and likely her responsiveness to his attentions (if either has any memory of the event)... it's a tough legal battle, and the case was probably dropped for a reason.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 10:39 PM
1

It' can be a really high stress job. A lot of really good trial attorneys burn out really quickly due to the cycle of high stress performance followed by binge drinking. For some, it's a desk job, for others it's gladitorial combat. Being able to manage your stress level is useful. There are many functional alcoholics in the field though.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 10:36 PM
9

Why would you assume that I believe she has the right to demand child support from an unwilling father? I never stated anything close to that, and I believe the exact opposite.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 09:58 PM
11

Tell that to men who want to raise their kids that were shuffled off to the adoption system without their consent. I was merely responding to your own example. Out of that context, I'm very likely to agree with the generality. However, prior to birth, men have no claim whatsoever to reproductive rights that affect the woman's body.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 08:50 PM
16

That's entirely a different system. Their "body rights" end upon birth. If you're comparing whether the father should have first adoption rights, then that's a different discussion from abortion.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 08:07 PM
2

Nothing that we're discussing is a capital R right except for a child's ability to demand support from a parent. A mother doesn't have the right to demand the money except as the guardian of the child. All court issues are "in the matter of..." for that reason. However, is there a statutory or administrative procedure that allows you give your child up for adoption in every single state? Absolutely yes, with little to no restrictions. Can a father intercede? Some states allow for this, many if n…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 09:53 PM
2

I compared a woman's right to financially/socially terminate her parental rights to a man's ability to similarly terminate his parental rights. As far as I am aware, women have no such right. Adoption. That is the definition of it. Abortion isn't the only option given a woman, were she to object to the procedure. My discussion about hearings were to answer your question about how the courts can drive good parents to bad, it was unrelated to the other part of the discussion for the most part, oth…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 03:01 AM
1

You seriously think that life is sexist because women are the ones that get pregnant, carry and deliver babies? You reduce the entire process, with all its complexity, to the mother's right to terminate a pregnancy - then conflate it with a mother's right to not have to pay for the child and demand a compensatory right.> That's one of the worst framing turn arounds I've ever seen. I did nothing of the sort. I compared a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy or financially/socially terminate h…
/r/MensRights09/01/12 01:30 AM
3

Giving the mother sole control of adoption, abandonment and some other choices are issues that MRA can take a sound aggressive stance towards and improve fairness. We do support that, as I stated earlier. "Improving fairness", however is what we're also working towards, as the right to adopt and abortion still stands as last I checked. Saying life isn't unfair, and men are then ones that have to suck it up is sexist and yet another example of "tough it out", "be a man" etc in another form. The e…
/r/MensRights08/01/12 10:04 PM
3

This is far from the standard credo of the MRA movement. This discussion has been had many, many times in the past, and the right to choose by the woman has always been the vastly predominant viewpoint. MRAs wish for a financial support choice for men, allowing the woman to make the choice of abortion/adoption/keeping the child while knowing whether or not they would be supported by the father. Neither side has a completely mirrored right, but it's about as close as biology will allow.
/r/MensRights08/01/12 07:52 PM
2

Turtles all the way down?
/r/MensRights20/12/11 10:07 AM
2

24 hours shifts are far from the max. 36 is the most common overnight call shift.
/r/MensRights04/12/11 04:56 AM
11

There is awe-inspiring levels of privilege being espoused in the comments. "I often ask to split the bill!" is 95% of the comments. The other 5% don't if they didn't like the guy. Ask? Ask whom? The waiter? The bill is half yours. You ordered food and are obligated to pay for it. There is no other reality than that. That a site supposedly dedicated to examining gender roles and boundaries can be so blind to their own privilege is jaw-dropping.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 06:08 PM
15

I think the idea is that she's a foodie and these are restaurants serving food and wine out of her paygrade. It's a little different than someone taking you out for a burger.
/r/MensRights30/11/11 05:58 PM
7

Go watch the lower one about the man getting repeated kneed in the crotch. Violence of that magnitude should not be used for a cheap laugh, and would not be used with the genders reversed. Imagine if an ad started with, "Does paying for car insurance make you feel like you're getting beaten by your husband?", and then proceeded to demonstrate this throughout the ad.
/r/MensRights21/11/11 08:44 AM
9

The only issue with this thinking is that you make MORE money not retiring earlier, not less. The only way your plans would have to change would be if you already put in your plans of retirement to your boss. Otherwise, you'd have a net gain in money made, just more worked years.
/r/MensRights21/09/11 02:21 AM
9

Do give the website a bit of credit, 80% of them are heavily criticizing the author's unjustified opinions. Some quite heatedly. TBH it's kind of hilarious. The author was expecting the usual circlejerk, and actually stumbled into the prickliness and word-sensitivity that is normally saved for outsiders.
/r/MensRights03/09/11 03:49 AM
4

Best way to find a cheap lawyer: Find your state's bar webpage. They should have a "finding a lawyer" section. Hopefully your state will possess a low-income lawyer recommendation section. There's tons and tons of unemployed lawyers right now, all you really need to do is find one that's even mildly competent. Don't have to be great to be 1000x better than pro se.
/r/MensRights02/09/11 01:14 AM
11

While I am in complete agreeance with your discussion on irrational fears, I think the overall tone of the article was very off-putting. If you had aired this discussion free of childish name-callling and insults, and broken down the facts and the incorrect assumptions being made, your point would have been extremely more poignant. Not only that, it would have appealed to a broader group of people, and would not give others the ability to scream "misogyny" whilst you are pointing out quite valid…
/r/MensRights05/08/11 10:22 PM
5

He's had many, many incidents. This is just the latest. He's obviously not well, and I think he's burned through almost all sympathy and support. I don't like rushing to judgment anymore than anyone else here, but context is important.
/r/MensRights25/07/11 04:59 PM
1

Be careful with pro se (without a lawyer) complaints. Judges are very tolerant of pro se petitioners, considerably more lenient than they would be with attorneys. That being said, there's only so many times a complaint can be brought, and you could be wasting a valuable opportunity (and the judicial system's patience) bringing it yourself. A good attorney will move the process along quickly and efficiently, and can save a lot of misteps. I've watched a lot of petitioners crash and burn on a case…
/r/MensRights20/07/11 10:25 PM
1

That was mostly my point, that it is merely a matter of miscommunication and miscues, which a very sensitive person would see as being sexist.
/r/MensRights15/07/11 03:03 AM
9

I have found that male and female circles have different timings and social cues for when to speak. My SO grew up in a largely all female family. When they're in a group, they wait until the very very last second of a person talking to speak. There is no cue to speak other than a final complete sentence and silence. My (largely male) family has a much more interjecting style of conversation. There's constant comments from the peanut gallery, and many interjections into the conversation whilst sp…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 05:39 PM
1

I have found that male and female circles have different timings and social cues for when to speak. My SO grew up in a largely all female family. When they're in a group, they wait until the very very last second of a person talking to speak. My (largely male) family has a much more interjecting style of conversation, with commentary from the peanut gallery being much more common. My SO often worries about me being seen as being rude in conversations. There's constant comments from the peanut ga…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 05:28 PM
2

This is what happens when all the sane, egalitarian justices in support of civil rights are forcibly removed from their positions. There's a negative halo effect.
/r/MensRights11/07/11 04:57 AM
1

Congress tried to use an outdated term (that does not exist in criminal law), in order to stymie less severe assault members from receiving abortions for free. Despite what people may think, most Congressmen are pretty dumb about constructing law and how it will be interpreted, especially young "passionate" representatives. They don't write laws the way they're needed to in order for them to actually be used... this is why judges have a full time job interpreting them. This brought up a FBI disc…
/r/MensRights04/05/11 07:10 PM
1

I agree it is an important task, one that will bend the publics future thoughts on the crimes. I was merely commenting on the fact that it really isn't up to the FBI to redefine it, at least not for criminal purposes. That is a task for the legislature. The current complaint is just that, that Congress is trying to underhandedly do that through their abortion bill.
/r/MensRights04/05/11 06:56 PM
2

That's an odd question, because 1) the FBI does not define anything (except for in reporting numbers), they're not an legislative or administrative branch, but an executive one 2) the federal government has no statute for "rape", but a myriad of sexual assault statutes. The real problem with people's understanding of the law in this category is the fact that its all a form of sexual assault. It's tough to understand what happens when the newspaper reports an assault, which varies from low level …
/r/MensRights03/05/11 08:05 PM
1

/s is a tag that implies sarcasm. I was mocking the commonly used misandrist phrase.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 06:13 AM
1

I agree fully with your thoughts. I've seen people rise and fall on equal efforts, as well as the poorest struggle with being born poor. However, Cronyism and reliance on networking is far too common for me to believe things are likely to occur on merit alone. I do see people busting their ass and getting rewarded for their efforts as well. This is the system working properly. If they were aware that they would be losing their spot to someone of a certain class due to a misguided quota system, t…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 08:45 AM
1

Not to defend it, but one could at least make a good argument for affirmative action for black people. As a group, they need something, and I'm not sure what it is, but something has to happen. Otherwise, the US will fall from grace far before the black community nears parity. That being said, I could never support it other than its most benign, taking race into account, where all else is equal. That was the original design, and it doesn't mesh with quotas and the abuses that come natural to suc…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 08:29 AM
2

Possibly elementary school teacher. Those jobs are hard to get, and they're near desperate for any man willing to deal with the incredibly harsh working environment. Boy does that sound like an odd description of a kindergarten teacher.
/r/MensRights29/04/11 08:23 AM
3

It really is a matter of amount. The richest CEOs can claim they work hard and deserve the large amount of money they have gained. This is absurd, because the only reason they were allowed to make that much money was a system built on the backs of thousands of workers. There was nothing in their efforts that was 1000x times better than those making a fraction of their pay. That being said, there needs to be SOME difference between working and not. If there is no incentivization of work, the whol…
/r/MensRights29/04/11 08:21 AM
2

"It has been revealed that his law firm at the time he withdrew, Adler Pollock & Sheehan, was representing the University in federal court at the same time..." That's a disbarment waiting to happen. There's no way they wouldn't know they had a fucking Federal case for the University.
/r/MensRights28/04/11 07:01 AM
1

But without men, there wouldn't be war /s.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 10:34 PM
2

"Some feminists will not be satisfied until every scintilla of masculinity (regardless of its redeeming or boorish quality) is driven out of society in order to comport with some infantile fantasy of societal/human perfection." Good comment... might steal the phraseology.
/r/MensRights24/04/11 02:58 AM
2

Obviously this wasn't written by the law school. No journal would let such a hole-ridden, uneducated opinion laden, long term policy-free article hit print. Yuck. I'm pretty sure they'll not be printing a counterpoint if they let that go through.
/r/MensRights18/04/11 11:26 PM
2

I'm fairly certain this would get struck down as a violation of due process. However this is civil law, so the standards are a little different. For those that need a slight primer for the subject: From uncertain to completely certain the standards go as such: Reasonable suspicion (it COULD be true) < Preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) < Clear and Convincing Evidence (very likely true) < Beyond a Reasonable doubt (I couldn't imagine it being wrong). This recent update would kno…
/r/MensRights11/04/11 11:53 PM
9

It's "benevolent" because it "hurts" them in the long run by ... ... ah ... maintaining gender roles and expectations. Something something patriarchy! ...Just ignore the fact that the same could be said about all "white male" privileges.
/r/MensRights25/03/11 05:55 AM
1

The initial trial used the Nebraska law for illegality, where the charges were criminal in nature. The second suit was civil in nature and used the Federal Wiretapping Act. It was a suit for damages due to privacy violations. Under the Wiretapping act it probably isn't illegal, but the person can sue for damage would be my guess without looking into it further.
/r/MensRights09/03/11 02:02 AM
2

While it can't be used in court, it can be given to a prosecutor as evidence. The judges can also use it prior to trial to judge whether or not the case should be tossed. It only can't be introduced to a jury or trier of fact. There is a question of the Wiretapping being illegal per se. I think this was mostly a Nebraska only law, so I can't comment on the nature of the law. There is likely an attached "expectation of privacy" clause for the wiretapping rule. Obviously this was violated recordin…
/r/MensRights09/03/11 12:07 AM
-3

First, call the cops, this is indeed kidnapping. Second, start looking for a family practice attorney. Odds are someone is whispering in her ear to lawyer up, and you don't want to be caught with your pants down. Third, if you're not named on the birth certificate, then get that fixed quickly. Do whatever it takes in your state to qualify you as the legal father.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 12:58 AM
4

I was implying by omission that there were far more reasons than this (which once again beats the misandric drum of "men are walking penises"), that would make men very likely to see marriage as a giving relationship.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 11:20 PM
14

"Because ultimately, marriage is not about getting something -- it's about giving it. Strangely, men understand this more than we do. " Hmm... how could men possibly have a tendency to think marriage is about giving and not taking?
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:38 PM
8

Reality is: humans are fearful and insecure by default. It would've been easier just to recognize this aspect as part of being human, then to attach it to a gender. As this is an instruction to women to find men, I can handle the criticism somewhat. Finding security and a sense of calm is the greatest thing about a long term relationship, and it could've been handled in a somewhat more tasteful or positive fashion.
/r/MensRights15/02/11 07:32 PM
14

There's a cold shower, then there's near ice cold ground water. If this was wintertime in New Jersey and no hot water was turned on to balance it out, that's about a half step down from waterboarding. Way too many tortures revolve around water for us to casually dismiss this as not abusive. This is at the hands of his mother, not interrogators.
/r/MensRights29/01/11 02:52 AM
33

The video really needs to be seen to put this into context. He is obviously extremely scared of his mother, and is terrified of his punishment. He lied in order to get out of it. And it all revolved around a mild disappointment, not serious misbehavior. Its pretty obvious from his behavior he would have received a similar punishment regardless of the lying. This punishment happens regularly and has obviously not fixed the behavior. Her interactions in this are reprehensible, bordering sadism. Pu…
/r/MensRights29/01/11 02:45 AM
2

If you cannot afford an attorney, there are dozens of Legal Aid NPOs around the nation. I'm sure there'd be one for Detroit, but there could be something of a wait. Check out law schools as well. A lot of schools have legal aid clinics that are ran by students. Sure, they're just students, but they're a hell of a lot better than pro se. They also are helped out by people that know a lot more, so don't be scared to use it as a resource to at least get the ball rolling.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 04:34 PM
2

Obviously not trying to rub salt into open wounds, but you should not have allowed "joint" custody in that fashion. Of course at the time, and I'd bet you were trying to be accommodating. I'm sure a good lawyer can attack that as a legal fiction. Good luck. I'm not in family law, but it sounds like you have a great case. Keep your head up, and get an injunction ASAP!
/r/MensRights25/01/11 04:10 AM
2

Your child was in residence with you and the suit was filed in another state? No joint custody at the time? You really need to lawyer up. That suit shouldn't have gone through without better jurisdiction grounds than that. There's hope. Get a good lawyer, and return the favor and hold nothing back.
/r/MensRights25/01/11 03:17 AM
2

Not as much in family law judges, much more likely to be female. Regardless, prejudice against fathers as primary caretakers is deeply ingrained in our society. It really doesn't matter the gender of the judge.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 03:32 AM
2

No damage element is ever needed with sexual assault criminally or battery for torts. "Harmful touching" can be any unwanted touching that is sexual in nature. You'd have to claim that you would not have allowed that touching if you had known. The obvious defense of consent would be voided by misrepresentation. You'd have a hard time showing that misrepresentation led to a fraudulent consent in American courts. It occurs, but is not that common in anything short of lying about being infected wit…
/r/MensRights11/12/10 04:24 AM
7

I've been married for near a decade now, quite happily, to a wife that makes and will continue to make substantially more than I. I guess I'm a double minority in that sense. I don't see that as a limitation to understanding and appreciating men's issues. There's many men's rights issues that exist outside of crumbling male-female relationships. Injustice doesn't only exist when it happens to you. There's dozens of issues within the courts that affect all men as well as the general portrayal of …
/r/MensRights07/12/10 08:56 PM
1

Wish they had pulled that off while I was still in school. Would've loved a mens volleyball team.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 11:58 PM
3

This will be overturned in a second... and I imagine a reprimand to boot. Not sure about our Canadian brethren, but the American Bar does not like even giving the slightest whiff that contracts and wills aren't sacrosanct. It's big money, and a vital service. Bad bad precedent to set.
/r/MensRights01/12/10 05:01 PM
7

There's "cold" showers, where you don't turn on much warm water, then there's cold showers where you turn up the cold water full blast. Might depend on the ambient ground water temps I guess. Even in the summer months in the midwest, I couldn't stand a couple seconds of full cold showers. There's a reason why several forms of torture involve cold showers, it's unconscionable. I'd much much much rather get slapped around than that. Forced naked, screamed at, and ice cold water running full blast …
/r/MensRights30/11/10 10:07 AM
1

Don't confuse Family law judges with Federal Court judges. They're apples and oranges when it comes to knowledge of the law and due process. It's their job to clean up messes like this, and granting summary judgment upon appeal implies she was pretty revolted at the lower courts actions. They're supposed to examine cases in a manner most favorable to the trial judge's opinion and she didn't even let it get to trial before reversing. Luckily they got the suit in before his death. They'll be able …
/r/MensRights27/11/10 08:31 AM
2

No, it isn't. The consent didn't exist. The wife can choose not to press charges, but that's different. Don't confused "failure to press charges" with "consent". Whether she pressed charges or not, she had been raped (using the limitations on consent from Tort law) You're misunderstanding my point. You're just reiterating a strict statutory reading of the text. My point is that her reaction to it: "was I assaulted?" is never known until post hoc. The case I read had no indication that the husban…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 09:31 AM
3

It's retroactive due to the fact that it is subjectively decided whether or not consent was given by the wife after the fact. The wife has the ability to see the unfaithfulness as a condition of whether or not she would be willing to sleep with her husband. The husband did not know at the time that a condition for sleeping with his wife was faithfulness, and that by concealing his extramarital affair he was committing sexual assault. It is this later decision that by definition makes it retroact…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 08:10 AM
2

It's not that new of a concept. There are several cases here in the US of a wife suing successfully for sexual assault after she found out her husband was sleeping around. Since the "consent" was based upon "fraud" or "misrepresentation", it was not an informed consent, and thus invalid. Bam, retroactive revocable consent*. *This is in a civil tort action, however, not criminal.
/r/MensRights17/11/10 06:19 AM
2

Sounds like you're in the clear. Especially with judge's approval of the process so far.
/r/MensRights15/10/10 01:16 AM
6

Much of you getting a default judgment will rely upon notification. Do your BEST to notify her. Do everything in your power, and give the judge no wiggle room to say that she wasn't notified. If done, your default will much more likely. "Do you know anyone that would have her current address?" "Why didn't you contact them?" These are the sorts of questions you're going to have to be able to answer. Default judgment is not intended to punish those you can't find, just those that willfully do not …
/r/MensRights14/10/10 11:41 PM
1

This would more than likely be a transfered intent though. I may mean to "tap" you with a baseball bat, but if I miss your chest and split your skull, it's still murder. I INTENDED to hit you with the bat, the fact that I killed you instead of just wounding you is largely irrelevant to the case.
/r/MensRights14/10/10 05:18 AM
0

Welcome to Costco, I love you? Seriously though. What's your relationship with the father? He could be a good source of information/mediation. He should be reasonable, and would obviously understand the circumstances, but sometimes FL attorney's get caught up in the craziness of working constant divorce issues and lose their objectivity. Obviously she can't prevent you from going to Costco. Theoretically she could get a TRO placed upon you if she could convince a judge you were stalking her, or …
/r/MensRights03/10/10 07:04 PM
5

The tort is called Intentional infliction of emotional damage/harm. It covers her situation perfectly, and no mention of rape is necessary.
/r/MensRights01/10/10 07:34 PM
5

Doesn't really sound like much of a change. Only losing one dept. that had "gender issues". This is worldwide though. Most 3rd world countries are bad for women, and as gender rights activists we should be the first to admit that. We're not going to win any people for our cause if we act like there isn't a huge disparity in genders in much of the poorest nations. Unfortunately the side effect would be their effect on 1st world countries and the lack of representation on overzealous gender activi…
/r/MensRights16/09/10 03:08 AM
1

The two main forms of it, Common law (Anglo-saxon) and Civil law (Roman heritage), both do not allow it. And places of public accommodation are not private property. You're a service industry, inviting people in by the definition of your industry. These are not people's houses. It's always been the rights of the government to interfere in the matters of business (taxes, tariffs, rules of tenants, etc), so there's not real history of law to back you up here either.
/r/MensRights09/09/10 03:37 PM
1

"Right" according to whom? The Supreme Court, State Courts, Legislatures of all levels, and hell, even a majority of the general populace disagree with you. Not quite seeing your point.
/r/MensRights09/09/10 08:15 AM
3

Public accommodations are not private property by definition, they are held to a different definition and standard. They are considered under the Commerce clause of the Federal Government, and thus the Federal discrimination statutes as well. Discrimination on hotel service was explicitly forbidden in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: ** (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of …
/r/MensRights09/09/10 12:23 AM
18

From my law school experience so far: Judges don't like tricks(I've heard several county judges rail about it for over 30 minutes). It annoys them greatly. They've seen them hundreds of times, and don't like people trying to skirt the law. The less scummy dealing the judge sees on your part the better. If you're partner goes the low road and gets caught, it WILL go against them. Trying to remove property after an injunction (regardless of the side) will get the rest of your motions looked at not…
/r/MensRights03/09/10 06:15 AM
2

That was a very gentle way of summarizing a lot of hate speech.
/r/MensRights31/08/10 02:46 AM
1

This alone is the reason I give for being a men's rights advocate. It's sad but very very true. There'll be a generic egalitarian movement eventually, but there'll have to be balance in advocacy groups for that to happen.
/r/MensRights06/07/10 06:36 AM
7

I disagree. The parts are what are being sexualized in this very blog post the thighs, butts, and legs were sexual in nature to them. For them to touch them on a person in a manner of a mild sexuality, "Nice arms", is the exact same frame of reference a male would try out touching a girl's breasts. Sure it's not as taboo, but the intent involved matches perfectly. You'd be pretty grossed out if you found out a foot fetishist was giving you a foot massage and enjoying it in a profoundly sexual wa…
/r/MensRights26/06/10 07:01 AM
14

I never can understand how you can do anything but physically objectify a stranger. You don't know them, so you can't comment on their personality or any other trait. The only thing you can do with a picture of a person is gauge attractiveness. Just like you can't get to know the woman across the street. The only thing you know about her is what she looks like. The issues arise when you are unable to recognize value outside of this attractiveness. So were the attractive woman across the street a…
/r/MensRights26/06/10 06:47 AM
1

We all have attractions towards unhealthy partnerships. It's not like you'd end up in a happy relationship if you actually ended with an honest-to-god MPDG. Also being drawn to near-crazy females with a dark past that you want to try to protect from the world isn't very healthy either, nor likely to get you a sane stable partner. The big difference is that most people know the difference between a underlying destructive draw and a real, honest to god connection. Well at least they do once they g…
/r/MensRights24/06/10 08:34 AM
3

While I'm hardly shocked that all nuance is removed from the National Broadcasts, I was particularly disappointed with the "campaigns" use of that misrepresentation. Anyone in charge of running public service ads should be extremely well read on the literature, not reading snippets from news sites. Of course it could be that they are aware of the full results and just aren't acting upon it due to their dispositions (thinking of a certain UK minister with this).
/r/MensRights23/06/10 10:34 PM
2

Puberty is directly related to body fat percentages. Most of the time you can't hit the proper percentage until your growth spurt is over due to such a high metabolism you have at young ages. However... you can figure out the rest. My wife was particularly small and didn't hit hers until a couple years later than average.
/r/MensRights17/06/10 11:27 PM
7

Behavioral neuroscience is about as far away from thought experiments as one can get, unless you think recording electrodes and neurochemical blocks are just made up goobledy-gook. Comparing neuroscience to evo psych is insulting at best, but I'll just chalk it up to ignorance. Behavior is simple, the animal either does the behavior or it doesn't. Link it with parts of the brain by trial and experimentation. Not a lot of thought experiments except for the thinking needed to come up with them :).…
/r/MensRights12/06/10 09:40 PM
6

Got a masters in behavioral neuroscience, yep I do. I also know the value of isolated behavioral data, and the utter bullshit that is metadata you seem so fond of. The study checked if there was a null hypothesis.... that there was no bias. This hypothesis was NOT confirmed. That's how science worked, you assume the null, and when it's not confirmed, you start to scratch you head why all this data points towards a thesis. Criticize parts of the methodology if you'd like, but don't tell me behavi…
/r/MensRights12/06/10 09:21 PM
8

By that definition, all science is a thought experiment.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 09:05 PM
9

A study using real courtroom judges that uses scientific methods to balance and isolated variables shows that judges are heavily biased for sex doesn't interest you? Why are you here? No padded figures, no fudging data, just raw data from those that make the decisions. There's already been a study for the federal courts showing this very thing you were looking for, it was linked in the article.
/r/MensRights12/06/10 08:58 PM
1

It would only take 22 years for the father to go bankrupt at that rate, assuming that his net worth is even liquid enough to take that sort of abuse. Is this supposed to just be a siphon of money from one to another? Alimony my ass.
/r/MensRights11/06/10 07:09 AM
1

Already did :). That being said I'm in law school as well.
/r/MensRights09/06/10 06:33 PM
1

When they do the studies for effectiveness of birth control, they take all forms of issues into account and still end up with a 99.999% effectiveness if taken correctly. There's multiple ways that it works to prevent pregnancy, so that not just one form of immunity or issues would cause it to have issues. In other words, theoretically possible, but very very highly unlikely, especially someone at the nadir of fertility.
/r/MensRights31/05/10 06:27 AM
1

I'm pro-choice, for all involved. And the legal system is nothing if not malleable. Inequality eventually finds a way of working its way out. This is just further down on the list do the somewhat new nature of abortion rights. You trying to absolve the woman from the responsibility in her own choice is extremely ironic considering your earlier arguments.
/r/MensRights28/05/10 06:35 AM
0

You're suggesting having a child when you cannot afford it and knowing the father will not be around is the definition of responsible? Responsible is knowing when to bring a child into the world and the right circumstances needed to support it. Pregnancy is not a child. It is the mother's decision to make it a child. This is not a disagreement, this is discussing the child's existence. It exists or it doesn't. The choice is the mothers.
/r/MensRights28/05/10 04:21 AM
2

Why do you believe that 9 months of carrying a baby is a greater burden than financial insolvency for 18 years? One of the is a huge livestyle change that affects an extremely large portion of your life, the other is physical discomfort and possible medical injury for less than a year. Both are not pleasant, but you can't make blanket statements saying one is more important than the other. Either case can be made, but regardless, both are large burdens that mean both parents should have their sa…
/r/MensRights28/05/10 03:19 AM
1

That is in no way a rationalization. The child only exists due to a choice of the mother. It is by her actions that it exists due to choices she makes with full knowledge of the father's support. If she knows the father does not want the child, and goes ahead with it, how is that him being a deadbeat father? That's a nonsensical argument. The only way that works is if having sex = agreeing to have a child. Under those exact same rules, a woman should not be able to have an abortion or give the c…
/r/MensRights28/05/10 01:11 AM
2

I love how the woman in the article got pregnant twice while "on birth control". This is while in her upper 30s. She's either the most fertile turtle in the world, a liar, or extremely incompetent. Birth control pills are not this inaccurate, in fact it's overkill x30. You don't get pregnant twice in the same year while taking it properly.
/r/MensRights28/05/10 01:00 AM
10

My best advice is this: humor is to read in a forum. What you may think is smart, cute or witty can come across mean-spirited and provoking in the written word. We're not all dead serious, but some people are here due to their lives being utterly destroyed. I'm pretty sure as long as you keep things positive, and don't come across as petty or mean, you should be treated pretty well here overall. I'm sorry if you feel like that hasn't been the case.
/r/MensRights25/05/10 05:26 PM
22

Many of us are egalitarians first, and drifted to mens rights due to the general vacuum that currently exists. Inequality is inequality regardless of history, but we find it hard to get our case across. Often the bitterness that occurs is a result of much longer arguments, and people feel like they're repeating themselves over and over with no avail. Just assume you're walking into a very long conversation, and are trying to gauge the lay of the land. Give respect, don't be harsh or "witty", and…
/r/MensRights25/05/10 03:13 PM
0

I read their sign as Dad suk. They might want to rethink that web address.
/r/MensRights22/04/10 05:28 PM
5

The major issues part was good. My wife and I agree on 99% of major life issues, and are flexible about the 1% we don't. If that had not been true, it could've turned sour quickly. People don't respect that enough. It's not likely to change and they'll come up eventually. Major differences in beliefs/values/money spending are less cute and fun to argue about after 20 years. The rest was mostly fluff and inanities.
/r/MensRights13/04/10 06:35 AM
18

While I can't complain that Cleese is on tour, this settlement is devastating to someone supposedly entering their retirement. There's just no words to explain how horrid these sorts of arrangements are, though I'm sure John will have a few pointed words said in his monologues. Wish this had been up earlier, because he was in town last November. Losing all the wealth you've accumulated over a lifetime to a marriage of a decade, and saddled with a ridiculous yearly alimony (900k pounds) when you'…
/r/MensRights04/04/10 08:16 AM
7

Was this the same person that wrote that article a couple days ago? As a neuroscience grad I can tell you that article was the largest amount of stupidity I've seen in a very very long time. She was using concepts such as region size and neurotransmitter abundance to connect huge concepts like altruism and social behavior. That's like counting the number of atoms in a plane in order to judge how fast it's going. While size of a region can tell you basic things (rats of a huge Olfactory bulb that…
/r/MensRights25/03/10 07:58 PM
2

It did seem like she was lumping ageism and classism with sexism issues. All are issues, and can worked in combination, but call something what it is, and not inflate your own issue.
/r/MensRights25/03/10 02:46 AM
2

I had a similar thought. Verbal and psychological abuse are much more common in females than males. Getting these things seen as DV wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily. Perhaps they should just call it Domestic Abuse, and having a subset by the type (physical, emotional, etc).
/r/MensRights23/02/10 09:52 AM
1

I've quoted it once, but I think it will always be relevant to new causes. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Ghandi.
/r/MensRights20/02/10 09:57 AM
3

I'm 6'1" and I married a 5'1". Sometimes the shorter ones like tall guys too.
/r/MensRights14/02/10 11:20 AM
2

While I do believe there's example of both men and women being oppressed throughout recent history, however I'm to have to agree that historically the women were much more likely to receive such treatment. Does that mean that men's lives were better in general than those of women? No, not at all. However, the general lack of power within the 1700-early 1900s would leave women in a much more vulnerable position than men. The inability to own property, run a business, and vote would leave you depe…
/r/MensRights14/02/10 08:31 AM
8

I agree with Cryptogirl half the time. She's intelligent, logical and presents the other side of the coin. If we can't allow good posters like her, then we don't deserve the name forum.
/r/MensRights08/02/10 04:14 AM
20

I feel it's in our best interests to keep the forums as wide open as possible. Trolls make their own look bad. Getting a stupid statement downvoted to hell is our best form of showing how we feel. This goes for both misogyny and misandry. Banning is just a crutch for a bad forum in my opinion, or the inability to deal with dissent or opposing viewpoints. As it is, we have a good forum and we don't censor out ideas. I personally believe we downvote valid complaints instead of upvoting good thread…
/r/MensRights07/02/10 11:09 PM
3

You're probably correct. I'm sure it's just a slang term for these feminists. Though the fact that it matched a term for a sex doll just seems too good to be true.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 06:10 AM
6

I myself don't harbor any ill will towards people. I like just about everyone, to be honest. That being said, you can still marvel at people's hatred and isolation and feel sorry for them. Please don't confuse me with people that are blaming the feminists for everything. I've done my best over my time here to be an egalitarian interested in Men's issues.
/r/MensRights07/02/10 03:01 AM
7

Looked it up... apparently a pozzi is a sex doll. I think she's insulting any female that has sex with males. If correct that means she hates (men, women that sleep with men, transexuals, and third wave feminists). Added up that's an impressive amount of humans, like 99.99%. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pozzi Seems to fit her usage... and definitely isn't a polite nice term.
/r/MensRights06/02/10 11:52 PM
7

I'm afraid you're going to have to translate that for me, I'm not fluent in idiot. Basically, she's blaming (sex-pozzies?), third-wave feminists, and transgenders for bringing to light men's issues and distracting them from their guerrilla warfare against "the Man"?
/r/MensRights06/02/10 11:41 PM
1

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that YOU were the source of the idea, should've tagged with /s. There was an Elle article awhile ago discussing "gender disappointment". One of the stats linked was that of those using IVF for gender , 80% were female embryos. Not quite the same as aborting female babies, but in some ways I think it shows a preference even stronger. They didn't have to struggle with the abortion issue, they just has to straight up pick gender, and it was very strongly female by choice…
/r/MensRights06/02/10 10:23 AM
3

So a millenia-old Chinese tradition of the son caring for the parents conflicting with a modern 1 child law is related to Western gender relations how again? It's not like they HATED girls, they saw it as a means of survival within their culture. In know way arguing for it.... but don't try to paint something as different than it is. Besides, MALE embryos are the ones that are aborted by a 4:1 ratio when people are choosing genders in the US. If that's endorsed as her as a form of sexism, then s…
/r/MensRights06/02/10 09:22 AM
2

Obviously both sides need to be addressed. We have way too many men already swallowing guns to stick with the "be strong and silently suffer" route. What needs removed is the stigma of gender stereotypes that push you in either direction. If a guy needs to talk about his feelings, then it needs done. If a girl needs to "man up", then it needs done. Trying to stereotype the needs of 50% of a population is idiotic.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 08:45 PM
1

"That has been one of the primary motivators of feminism. Have you heard of the book "The Feminine Mystique?"" Absolutely... that's why I would assume that one of the primary forces of feminism's war on words and stereotypes would know the power of word choice. One could almost assume its intentional in such a case, or at least very very hypocritical. Anyways, thanks for keep things civil and rational, good discussion.
/r/MensRights04/02/10 08:39 PM
5

The question remains: Is the current cultural conception of maledom considered negative while the conception of femaledom is acceptable? If you were trying to separate people's misconceptions of what it takes to be a man from reality, you would say so. You wouldn't use a word that defines the sex and use it as an inherently negative concept. There's no way to get around masculinity = maleness. If femininity had such a inherently bad aura around it there would be outrage from the feminists. Excus…
/r/MensRights04/02/10 09:19 AM
8

The true test is to reverse the situation an see if it remains offensive. If we started to use the term femininity as synonymous to weak, infantile, and mercurial would you be offended? "The tyranny of femininity has locked women in the kitchen and prevented them from fully reaching their potential, making them fearful to leave their comfortable lives of protection from tough decisions." When you use the essence of their sex (masculinity/femininity) as a term that is inherently negative and some…
/r/MensRights04/02/10 08:23 AM
2

Our concerns highly overlap. We're trying to remove the idea of masculinity from the social preconceptions. We're fighting for men to be seen as primary caregivers. We're fighting for men to be treated equally under the law for all cases. All of these should be common interests with the gay community.
/r/MensRights29/01/10 12:48 AM
7

You guys realize that Gattaca wasn't an instruction manual, right?
/r/MensRights24/01/10 10:31 PM
5

The easiest approach I would find to trying to understand the context is to think of it in terms of men finally trying to combat the male gender roles that remain in society. Women were largely freed from theirs with the sexual revolution, but much of the men's roles still remain buried deeper and harder to get rid of due to not being as obvious as "get in the kitchen". Most of these princess issues are due to old gender roles for men bringing out the worst in certain women. While the roles them…
/r/MensRights08/01/10 01:38 AM
3

"Men, you are NOT allowed to hit a woman simply because you can't find the right words to express your anger." As long as the converse was assumed to be true, I wouldn't mind the statement. Wouldn't object at all. Especially if it was written in something titled like "how to be a proper husband/boyfriend" or "how not to be a douchebag. I thought the author did a good job of constantly saying that the reverse was true, and that this was only directed at women due to the prevailing societal views …
/r/MensRights07/01/10 11:05 PM
5

Why wouldn't Carchamp be the one to stay at home? Did she offer for him to take turns with time off? The child only needs a primary caregiver for the first 5 years of their lives. I'm sure if it was deemed 100% necessary a proper compromise could have been developed, insuring equal parental attachment and freedom of career. "I'm going to be the stay at home mommy with or without you" is not choice done by equal partners.
/r/MensRights07/01/10 10:45 PM
3

I just find this sort of hyperbole hurts the cause more than it helps. All people need to do to invalidate these claims is show that it isn't always the case, and poof, you're wrong and they're right. However if you make a wiser claim backed by REAL numbers and figures, they have to try to invalidate a more sensible claim which is impossible without some severe number tweakings.
/r/MensRights07/01/10 08:32 PM
14

I just grabbed my wife's butt while she was sleeping... I think I just raped her. All those times I touched her breasts while spooning.... I was raping her all this time. If only I had known. And all those time she bribed me with sex. I think we both sexually assaulted each other. This is really depressing. Hell, we've had crazy sex while drunk... If rape or sexual assault is defined as evoking anything physically or mentally sexual while the other isn't interested, and women are less interested…
/r/MensRights22/12/09 11:27 AM
1

I'm not faulting the judges, and I agree with the ruling. I'm merely pointing out that that the people only saw it as discrimination when it was females that were put out. No one was suing for the males, or thought enough of it to bring it to courts.
/r/MensRights22/12/09 03:05 AM
1

Do you really think that this was any different than the programs that were run when women were in the minority? I doubt they suddenly came up with a brand new system for AA for the college. It just wasn't an issue when females were the target. Men complained, but people just ignored it. The odds that these are the EXACT same policies that were used for women originally are very very high.
/r/MensRights22/12/09 01:08 AM
2

What exactly is the charge of 2nd degree battery equal to? I would think assault with any weapon that would cause permanent disfigurement should be about as far up there as you can get. This is about one step below tossing acid on someone's face, and could end up with about the same results if the grits are sticky enough.
/r/MensRights11/12/09 11:19 AM
4

Ironically, yes. But I minimized quickly. Can't let her see me say nice things about her.
/r/MensRights05/12/09 10:48 PM
3

Assuming failure in a venture is not a logical step. That's like saying starting a business isn't worth it due to the fact that bankruptcy sucks. It completely ignores the possibility of a great success. A lot more can be done with pooling your resources than not. My wife went to medical school with me supporting her. Now I"m looking for a job while she's supporting me. An equal partnership is a wonderful thing, and is one of the things I assumed us MRAs were fighting for.
/r/MensRights05/12/09 10:23 PM
1

1) Societal recognition of a permanent relationship. People recognize that your partnership is important and treat it as such. Think of the different statements: "My wife died last year." "My girlfriend died last year." This also will cause you to treat the relationship as more important as a result. 2)Tax benefits obviously 3)Easier to pool money together. Less difficulties acting as one entity in business/life. Treated as a unit. 4)Kids: a partial chance of getting kids in a divorce. Better th…
/r/MensRights05/12/09 02:34 PM
4

Considering that your tastes in women eventually center around the ones you've known and loved the most, yes there is. I've been with her most of my whole adult life, so now she IS what I want. Never said she was perfect, just that I've never met a single other woman that even came close to matching me. Not a one, and I'm no religious hermit. I have many friends, and spend tons of time away from my wife. Marriage does not equal never leaving your house and minimization of outside socialization.
/r/MensRights05/12/09 02:28 PM
5

Married 7 years after dating for 3. Didn't need justify it to me, it seemed purely logical for our lives together. We finished college, and were ready to move to a new town for grad school. I was going to marry/live with her no matter what. My parents are conservative and would've thrown a righteous fit if we lived together, and her parents would not have helped with the wedding costs if we lived together prior to marriage. We were poor, but we both have good futures and are really good together…
/r/MensRights05/12/09 10:08 AM
9

Getting married isn't that bad, but that's not the response I'd want to hear from a potential spouse. Alarm bells would be going off in my head if their first thought about marriage concerns the wedding day. It's your life and choosing your partner for the rest of it. How the hell would the party thrown the day of the start of it be even one millionth as important as that decision?
/r/MensRights05/12/09 05:14 AM
6

Perhaps a few more articles like this and some of the older feminists will start to wake up to what articles are written under their name.
/r/MensRights02/12/09 11:36 PM
2

Hell if they even worked half-time as PCPs it would improve things... My wife almost did Derm just for the hours and easy pay, and she's about as much a tertiary care person as one can get. Working 70 hours a week and living a lonely life with only your little seen spouse and kids is a nasty choice to make.
/r/MensRights26/11/09 12:26 AM
6

My wife would find that t-shirt hilarious. Doctors are for the most part tired, bitter, and a little numb. At least the residents are. Just give it a couple years. Right now there's still a lot of male physicians, but they will be retiring shortly. Within 10 years it will be a highly female dominant field and these clubs will just seem absurd. In the mean time, that's a highly offensive shirt. I can't imagine any other major cultural division wearing a t-shirt saying why they're better than the …
/r/MensRights26/11/09 12:05 AM
2

The most interesting part of the whole conversation is the discussion around "how are men and women differentially disadvantaged". Normally I'd be all for such a discussion, however the topic being discussed was an either/or benchmark of gaps in pay. This is a number on a scale that can favor one gender or another, it's odd how all of a sudden they start deflecting away from the topic. "This was the point:To not reward countries for having exceeded the parity benchmark." That doesn't even make s…
/r/MensRights21/11/09 01:00 PM
7

I've had similar experiences. On one of the few times I have discussed it with my wife (a highly intelligent doctor), the first things she brought up was how some of the topics bordered on misogyny. The funny thing is I hadn't even mentioned women yet, so this really threw me off. I was just talking about some of the general injustices the modern male faces, and somehow it got shoehorned into talking about women. It dawned on me eventually that there's a link between men standing up for themselv…
/r/MensRights17/11/09 11:30 PM
1

I took a Nietzsche and Kirkegaard class in college and read all of his major works chronologically. It was hard to accept his later books because they contradicted much of his earlier works. I couldn't take much of what he said later on too seriously between that and coupling it with his oncoming madness. The funny thing is most people generally quote ideas from his later works. There are gems among the madness.... but I prefer someone with a more even keel. That was 10 years ago for me, so I de…
/r/MensRights13/11/09 09:40 AM
1

He actually went crazy, as in batshit insane. He was an invalid in his sister's care for the last year of his life. It's argued about what caused the mental breakdown, but there was no argument that it occurred. The real conversation is how his philosophy was affected by his madness, especially since several books were written shortly before and published posthumously.
/r/MensRights13/11/09 09:32 AM
5

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Seems like we've moved past being ignored at least.
/r/MensRights09/11/09 10:05 PM
16

The question assumes that there's a set of balanced scales where one side is either on top or the oppressed. Both genders can be simultaneously oppressed by society due to the fact that people are individuals, not collectives. A man can automatically lose his children in a custody battle the same day a woman is looked over for a senior position due to taking maternity leave. The point of fighting for equality is not to take the other sex down and raise yours up, but to remove gender from the equ…
/r/MensRights06/11/09 12:38 PM
8

I loved the section with the woman who wanted to move to Mexico. She seemed shocked that she would lose custody by leaving the country. Even then she tried to argue for it. She was "satisfied" by receiving custody for the summers, and paying no child support. I'm more than willing to be if men received such "satisfaction" there would be a lot less members of MRAs.
/r/MensRights17/09/09 08:25 PM
11

Your posts were great, articulate and well reasoned. Thanks for putting so much time and effort into trying to explain how our causes were not in opposition with each other. I thought the point about how MRAs are not blaming women for their issues is an incredibly vital point to drive home.
/r/MensRights09/09/09 09:59 PM
4

Stabbing someone in the abdomen IS attempted murder for all intents and purposes. You never know what you're going to hit and no matter what it'll be thousand and thousands of dollars in medical bills. Hit one of the major arteries and he's dead in minutes. Slashing = trying to hurt, stabbing = trying to do severe damage.
/r/MensRights18/07/09 03:08 AM
12

I've never seen any Men's Rights even vaguely as misogynistic as 1/10th of those comments on that page. The fact that that is a dominant feminist blog is very scary to me. I understand that there are all sorts of feminists, many of which are just egalitarians with an unfortunate title mix-up. Dear lord, the hate and arrogance and ignorance... It saddens me. I'm beginning to think the extreme end of feminism might be one of the largest ordained hate groups allowed by society. If you changed gende…
/r/MensRights07/07/09 07:12 AM
5

This author has a very hard time separating causation with correlation. People tend to marry people with the same education level as them due to.... the fact that generally similar amounts of men and women went to school, generally of the same intellect. However if men are opting opt of education, but are still just as smart as they were before, are women going to not like them? The key for attraction was intelligence, which in the past has correlated strongly with education. However if the corr…
/r/MensRights02/07/09 07:02 AM
2

I have no issues with having children in general, I'm definitely not one of those types that disapproves of kids. However, having kids shouldn't be an assumed part of life, and is DEFINITELY not for everyone. If you decide together knowing full well what is coming, then you won't be surprised at how difficult it is. This is not what most do. Most get pressured in by life and family to have kids well before they've come to a realization how difficult it will be. They blame their life and spouse f…
/r/MensRights30/06/09 04:02 AM
5

She not only loves her baggage, it's the FOCUS of her definition of marriage. She can't figure out why it's not working when her idea of marriage is so rigid there's no way it could work.
/r/MensRights18/06/09 07:17 PM
14

The oddest part of this whole thing is that she doesn't consider the real issue with her marraige: children. She automatically ignores them because she considers her love for them to be unconditional. The reality of the situation is that marriage and lifelong companionship is one of the largest indicators of happiness. Children, however, are not. It can help or hurt a relationship, depending on the couple. The truth is that if she had less responsibility, less work, all the things she says she's…
/r/MensRights18/06/09 06:56 PM
3

That'd be like American Psycho for teens. Can't wait for them to come out with the brightly colored version with a free mini-butcher's knife.
/r/MensRights30/04/09 10:42 PM
11

I think the irony of the whole argument is that what they're denouncing is unorganized, unlawful prostitution. Their descriptions are of back alley, drug addicted prostitutes with no choice in life. Legalization and workers rights would: 1) Protect those that would choose to be a prostitute. 2) Provide a legal alternative to the current reality that is causing these horrible lives of back alley sex workers. edit: ack... didn't see Tyler's comments, I guess I predicted the argument near verabtim.…
/r/MensRights29/04/09 12:12 AM
20

You're not weird, and everything you said is perfectly reasonable. It's just frustrating that something so blatantly obviously detrimental to sex roles is still widely accepted in our society. It's just weird that a woman can say, "I want to feel appreciated" and somehow think that that is a one way street. Do guys not want to feel appreciated? Sure it'd be fine to pay for each other occasionally as you're getting to know each other. But it should be a gift within an established relationship. Th…
/r/MensRights28/04/09 08:59 PM
1

I'd think if they retaliated after being reported to HR with no previous complaints about your record, they could be up for a much more serious censure. That's definite lawsuit territory, even more than the original offense.
/r/MensRights21/04/09 08:18 PM
2

I think HR is the appropriate place to bring the complaint. It can be done anonymously and the supervisor can be admonished by the proper people.
/r/MensRights21/04/09 07:56 PM
8

What is your reasoning behind not bringing in men to the meetings? Getting more women into the workforce is a goal everyone can share, and I'm sure everyone's viewpoint would be helpful. Imagine if there was a men-only club that was designed to replace women with more men? Would you see this as discriminatory? Even if you shared the same goal, the act of not allowing everyone into the task force is insulting at best.
/r/MensRights21/04/09 05:33 PM
3

I just took this as a call to stop getting this type of test immediately, and to not have your prostate biopsied or removed using it as a recommendation. There are very few other ways of detecting prostate cancer; and this is by far considered the most useful and accurate. Recently it's come into question how effective it is, as well as the large possibility of ED attached to it. A yearly digital examination is the traditional method. However, this only can tell if it has changed size and shape,…
/r/MensRights20/03/09 10:47 PM
1

It's actually a weird insult. Saying "man up" to someone who's complaining about the challenges of being a modern male is like shouting at a hurt person to heal themselves. If males don't feel that way, how can something be masculine?
/r/MensRights05/03/09 02:48 AM
1

Please don't worry about rambling. That was one of the most honest, interesting sex roles discussions I've read on Reddit. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate the situation from all viewpoints. If more of the posts were like yours, these clashes wouldn't happen so often.
/r/MensRights05/03/09 02:46 AM
1

I'm not sure I fully understand this article. While I'm of a newer generation, ~30, I find it odd to think that men nowadays DON'T take equal responsibilities in the home. Obviously there was going to have to be a time of transition from women running the home to equal share, but from my standpoint, outside the delusions of the entertainment realm, the transition is pretty far along. While there are still some obvious role issues that are backlogged from history, I think the IDEA that things nee…
/r/MensRights12/09/08 08:29 PM
10

I think everyone would agree that the group you suggest is the ideal form of advocacy (or lack therefore),however I do believe it to be impractical for that group to spring up without opposing sides first existing. I think the larger issue currently is that feminism has been supposedly doing the job of Egalitarianism watch-group in the eyes of the larger public. The assumption that females were always the injured party sneaked into the mindset of the modern society allowed for this one-sided con…
/r/MensRights21/08/08 10:46 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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