~ archived since 2018 ~
~ archived since 2018 ~
| Upvotes | Title | Category | Author | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|
| Upvotes | Comment on | Subreddit | Date (UTC) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Apparently men can't even enjoy their hobbies anymore without women tearing them down 🤦♂️Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that some women may actually realize that a guy holding a rare fish in an exotic location is adventurous and skillful. It's certainly more impressive than posing with food that you paid someone else to make for you. | /r/PussyPassDenied | 01/08/20 01:21 AM |
| 25 | Had to bring this one back, it’s just too good!Every time I see this I'm astounded at how stupid this girl is. And not for the reason you are probably thinking. Do the math. 16% of 21,000 respondents said they would buy her used yoga pants. That's 3,360 people who said they would buy her pants. She could sell 10 pairs of her used pants every day for an entire year. Basically, she proved that a market exists for her used yoga pants, and she could stand to make tens of thousands of dollars by selling them. But instead she got upset about the p… | /r/PussyPassDenied | 27/08/19 09:10 PM |
| -9 | Female British YouTube vlogger accuses Dublin hotel of bullying her after it refused her request to stay there for free and posted their scathing response saying she 'lacked dignity' onlineEh. I'm with her on this one. You can ask for whatever you want, it doesn't mean the business should be expected to take you up on it. I'm guessing she sent a similar message to all of the hotels in the are hoping that someone would take her up on it, and if they had extra rooms available, I'm sure some of them would consider it. On the other hand belittling someone and ridiculing them to this extent seems simply for proposing a business arrangement seems to be an unnecessary escalation. Just sa… | /r/PussyPassDenied | 18/01/18 11:14 PM |
| 3 | A bitch who don't wear no jacket is a bitch who's coldThere was a great scene in Curb your enthusiasm about this exact thing. Why does the guy who thought to bring a jacket have to be cold? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6thU6TtqxI | /r/PussyPassDenied | 08/01/18 10:02 PM |
| 3 | Judge Judy Gets ItWeird how the dialogue kinda loops. I really appreciate the sentiment also. I have seen other quotes from Judge Judy that indicate that she is standing up for men as equal partners in parenting. I understand that social tradition sees the woman as the caregiver, but we should not support that as a legal construct when it comes to a parent's rights. | /r/MensRights | 24/05/17 04:12 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to check all your posts in a discussion. I don't have to respond to every question each person poses. Especially not from combative assholes who are obviously making no attempt to understand the argument I am making. You keep making bad analogies to distort the case, then when I correct them to make them similar to the case at hand, you say I'm distorting the analogy. Jokes on me for coming to a sub standing up for men's rights and making a case tha… | /r/MensRights | 06/04/17 05:23 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...Unless the husband withheld information from the firm, which is what the suit is about | /r/MensRights | 06/04/17 02:09 AM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...A couple things: If the court said it was worth $90mm and the ipo netted $3mm, I do think revisiting the settlement would be fair, if not legally required. The reason this is a legal issue is that the valuation was given by information he provided. And the whole crux of the issue is how much the company was worth at settlement. It seems as though the real value at settlement was drastically different than the court determined valuation, possibly because the husband withheld information. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 11:20 PM |
| 2 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...Well my assumptions are based on the idea that the company was substantially similar at IPO and at settlement, and that the timing between the two events was very close. Like I said, my only issue is with the accuracy of the valuation at settlement. If the business differentiated itself or the market moved after settlement she has no claim. Nice chatting with you, see you in some other thread :) | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 11:07 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...That is what the lawsuit is about, and it seems apparent that he did from the small amount of information available. My whole premise that she may actually be entitled to some money is based on the concept that the value of the company at settlement was inaccurate. If the value was accurate at the time and it became worth 30x more since the settlement, I would agree that she has no case. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 10:55 PM |
| 2 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...If you are asking if she gets to reap the rewards that he gained through the IPO because he withheld information about the ability of the company to earn that reward, then yes she does. There is legal precedent for that. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 10:47 PM |
| 0 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...You said it was hypothetical pure pulled out of his ass speculation. I assumed that he had some evidence to support his claim that the business was worth 30x more, and he was withholding the info that would lower the valuation. In that case your hypothetical would have been applicable. If the court said the business was worth $93mm and she took shares in the business in return for cash and assets, then it was later determined the company was only worth $3m we would be having this same conversati… | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 10:19 PM |
| 0 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money........right. Which is why the case is to determine if substantial information was withheld that led to an inaccurate valuation. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 10:13 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...What he didn't do, she claims, is tell her that she was thinking about an IPO That's one of the things she claims. It happens to be true, and is material to the case from the standpoint that she might have been able wait and acquire a settlement in the form publicly traded shares. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 10:10 PM |
| 4 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...My whole point is about the value of the business at a static point in time. Nobody believes a business is a static asset. I was being charitable to the husband by saying that he didn't know how much the business is worth. I don't know how much insight he has into the operations. I really think that he did know it was worth much more than the consideration he gave her, but that's not really relevant. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 10:05 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...fair enough. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:59 PM |
| 0 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...I have answered that at least 3 or 4 times to other comments. Yes. If she withheld critical information about the value of the company and the company sold for less than the consideration she paid, she could sue. There is legal precedent for this. I don't understand why you are so combative and outraged by this. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:59 PM |
| 2 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...replace the words "expectation" with "legal requirement." I guess that wasn't clear in my comment that it is a legal expectation which is why she is able to bring a suit against him. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:56 PM |
| 0 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...If he went off telling her it's the most amazing company ever worth 30x that she got greedy and took it in the divorce then it went bankrupt a week later would we be having the same conversation. Yes. She would still be suing him for withholding critical information relative to the value of the company. That would be the exact same case. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:54 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...I agree in principle. I will, once again, point out that the case is about his withholding information that would have been informative to the court's valuation of the business. I'm sure she said she had no interest in being a part of the business and sought fair compensation for the portion she was legally entitled to. The issue is that the compensation was based on a valuation that was grossly inaccurate. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:53 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...Exactly. If the dog could have generated a ton of money as a stud that would have been considered in the settlement. If you told her the dog was a mix and neutered, and then put it out to stud she would be able to sue you for withholding information critical to the valuation of the dog. That is what is happening in this case. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:47 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...I like how you completely misunderstand how this legal process works but make insulting comments and insinuations anyway. Your whole comment was "nuh-uh," and an irrelevant comment about the passage of time. We are only talking about the value of the company at the time of the divorce settlement. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:45 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...When is there not an expectation that the original sale was a fair value for the vehicle? Every time a vehicle is sold. I suppose I should have said "legal requirement" rather than "expectation." Rather than go by line item through all of this, I will just point out that the court case is about whether the husband withheld information that would have affected the court's valuation of the business. That is the whole crux here. We aren't talking about 1% or even 10% difference here, the court assi… | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:40 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...Oh, so because I used the term "fair valuation" instead of "true valuation" you think it's less valid? | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:38 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...Yes. If she provided documentation that showed that the business was worth $93mm and he decided to buy her out of it, then the company actually sold for $3mm, I think he could sue her for the difference. Do you really think he didn't know that the company was worth 30x more than the value they assigned in the court proceedings? e: notably, she is not suing him just because the company sold for more than she was compensated for. She is suing him for withholding critical information relevant to th… | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:15 PM |
| 3 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...The dodgers sale was actually at least 6 months after the divorce agreement, and all these same questions were asked. In that case it was determined that because she was the organization's ex-CEO, Frank had provided 220,000 pages of financial documents, and the settlement occurred during bankruptcy, she knowingly took a haircut to avoid the risk of the valuation and sale of dodgers assets in bankruptcy. A good example for the case in this article because it shows the consideration given and the … | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 09:10 PM |
| 1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...I agree with that logic, but the differentiating factor is that all of the information that led to this valuation was provided by the husband, and it led to a valuation that was about 30x less than the valuation the market sustained a short time later. Reasonable to assume that critical information was withheld or misinterpreted, which should justifiably result in re-negotiating the settlement. I'm sure there is some clause about substantial errors or omissions in the divorce settlement which wi… | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 08:41 PM |
| -1 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...He provided the information that led the court to value the company at the amount it did. Neither he, nor the court, is the one determining the valuation of his company. The market is. Exactly. The court took a guess based on the information he provided, then the market gave a hard valuation shortly after. Unless the business changed in some major way between the divorce finalizing and the IPO it is fair to assume that the court assigned a vastly lower value to the business than it was worth at … | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 08:34 PM |
| -5 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...The difference is that this is his company, and he provided the information that informed the valuation. If he said it was worth $6mm and it turned around and sold for $93mm, he is at best not well informed of the business operations, but more likely intentionally misleading the court about the value of that asset. Especially if they discussed an IPO, even informally, ahead of the divorce proceedings. e: The analogy of selling something is completely unrelated to this case. The court has a duty … | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 08:17 PM |
| 0 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...But how much time had passed? I think this all boils down to whether the business became more valuable after the divorce, or if it was improperly valued at the time of divorce. My thinking is the court and lawyers assigned an estimate of the value of the business for the purpose of dividing assets, and then the company had it's IPO and the market determined a much higher valuation for the same business. This is like if I were divorced and had a pretty painting of flowers. The court says that it'… | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 08:12 PM |
| 0 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...Not his problem that he manage to make it more value after divorce This is the problem. He didn't make it more valuable by listing it in an IPO, he set a hard market valuation for the company and business that was already in operation. This isn't about the creation of new money, this is about changing the valuation of the ownership in the business which was apparently considered part of their community property. | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 08:07 PM |
| -5 | Woman divorced her husband and got $15m. He later listed his company on the stockmarket and earned $93m. You guessed it: she's now suing him for more money...I disagree somewhat. I think your reasoning is sound for the analogy you gave (apple) because that is bringing a new product to market. I think this case is different. Presumably the husband disclosed that he owned (at least a portion of) this company. I assume that the court and lawyers assigned a value for these shares as consideration in the divorce proceedings. What is really happening here is that the husband is selling his ownership in the company at a much higher valuation than the courts… | /r/MensRights | 05/04/17 08:04 PM |
| 3 | Female high school student's assignment attempts to prove that feminists are hate-filled & intolerant, by tweeting a pic in #Meninist t-shirt. Feminists rush to help her.I'm very liberal leaning, but I think she makes some cogent points This is exactly my point. This is not a partisan or conservative/liberal issue. The fact that she is pro-Trump and the publication is conservative should not matter. All of the political context was added by the writer and the publication. | /r/MensRights | 27/03/17 09:56 PM |
| 50 | Female high school student's assignment attempts to prove that feminists are hate-filled & intolerant, by tweeting a pic in #Meninist t-shirt. Feminists rush to help her.Martin told Red Alert Politics that liberals started threatening to egg her car, wishing she’d learn her lesson by getting raped, or telling her to die. The article did this a couple times, saying that "liberals" threatened her and that "third wave feminists are only accepting of liberals." What does this have to do with liberals or conservatives? This is about sexism and third wave feminism overreaching its mission. There are "liberals" who would appreciate the point she is making, and I assume… | /r/MensRights | 27/03/17 06:40 PM |
| 2 | Judge Judy agrees with us, for Men's Rights.Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but the tone of her statement here implies that no one is speaking out about this. The last paragraph seems to suggest that men aren't doing anything to address the issue. It does not seem to acknowledge the issue the top level comment addresses, which is the rejection of the idea that the "privileged class" is treated unjustly in anyway. Or maybe that these complaints are invalid because of historical advantages in other areas. | /r/MensRights | 30/01/17 11:07 PM |
| 7 | Laws to protect men from paying child support for children that aren't theirs is now "slut shaming" and "punishing women"It "harms" the woman by "forcing" her to reveal her sexual partners. There was already the recourse of DNA testing to prevent men from paying for babies that aren't theirs. The purpose of this law is to allow men to recapture up to 2 years of child support payments, presumably from the actual biological father. Which raises another issue. You have sex with a girl 3 years ago, never speak to her again, and then all of a sudden get hit with a bill for 2 years of back payments on child support. Tha… | /r/MensRights | 02/09/16 04:12 PM |
| 30 | Montana quarterback receives $245K settlement for university’s ‘unfair and biased’ rape investigationRight. The point made in the article is that the burden of proof a school uses to suspend and expel students is not the same as the burden of proof in court. The school's mistake was not adhering to their own stated burden of proof. BUT, none of this changes the fact that we shouldn't blame the girl for accusing him just because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. We don't know that he didn't sexually assault her, just that there isn't enough evidence to prove he did. IF he could prove … | /r/MensRights | 19/02/16 08:12 PM |
| 30 | Montana quarterback receives $245K settlement for university’s ‘unfair and biased’ rape investigationWhile I agree that the punishment for girls who make false rape accusations isn't strong enough, it doesn't sound like that is the case here. The article doesn't give all the details, but it sounds like they had sex and she tried (not convincingly enough) to tell him she didn't want to. The school ruled that there was a preponderance of evidence that he sexually assaulted her, but there was not clear and convincing evidence. This issue is not black and white. The court ruled that the evidence wa… | /r/MensRights | 19/02/16 08:05 PM |
| 8 | Montana quarterback receives $245K settlement for university’s ‘unfair and biased’ rape investigationDid you read the article? She didn't make up events that didn't happen. She just didn't make it clear enough that she didn't want to sleep with him, and she allowed it after he was "pushy." Seems like there is a fine line between convincing a girl to have sex with you and sexual assault. | /r/MensRights | 19/02/16 08:02 PM |
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter