TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

unkz Archive

View 0 posts and 244 comments by unkz 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)
1

She came out after her second fight, at which point the organization clarified their rules and explicitly allowed her to continue fighting. She's had two fights since, the most recent being only a couple months ago (which she lost).
/r/MensRights21/12/13 08:04 PM
4

Sadly, STDs spread to all your partners. If someone is pretending to be monogamous but isn't, which is hardly rare, then people who have no reason to suspect they are exposing themselves to disease will be.
/r/MensRights09/12/13 02:17 AM
157

The only downside to the male pill is that stupid people of both genders are going to stop using condoms in parallel, leading to a wave of STDs.
/r/MensRights08/12/13 08:10 PM
1

Just because you have a label for a behaviour doesn't mean that behaviour is bad.
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:12 AM
1

So you have decided to ignore the remainder of the comment and instead focus on the only part you could easily attack? Because you make yourself so easy to attack, you make yourself so easy to dismiss. What possible purpose does adding that last sentence have in advancing your argument?
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:10 AM
5

On the contrary, I think it's critically important that people be allowed to say things like this, particularly in an environment like reddit, because it gives the community the opportunity to publicly denounce the behaviour via commenting and voting, providing repeated proof that this sort of behaviour is on the fringe. The fact that these comments are frequently voted below the visibility threshold provides empirical evidence in support of same. The best case would be an open forum where every…
/r/MensRights04/11/13 05:09 PM
5

If you think that you have the right to tell other people what they and are not allowed to say I have the right to tell people what I think they shouldn't say. Take a breath and actually parse that sentence before responding, since you seem to be a bit reactionary. Whether you choose to accept my argument is up to you. However, if you think that dressing up your argument by referring to women as cunts or bitches is going to bring people to your side in an argument, you are simply wrong. You are …
/r/MensRights04/11/13 05:05 PM
7

Were you lifting with your back? If I see someone doing something truly unsafe at the gym, I'll tell them about it regardless the gender. Maybe this makes me an annoying busybody, but not a sexist.
/r/MensRights04/11/13 12:52 AM
8

If moderators start deleting comments and posts that contain those words, solely because they contain those words, then I'll consider that to be forbidding. However, free speech doesn't come with the right to freedom from criticism.
/r/MensRights03/11/13 11:11 PM
11

Would you find it offensive if you were told to lift with your knees instead of your back?
/r/MensRights03/11/13 09:58 PM
-1

Have you considered the idea that feminism is so much more effective than the MR movement because they have a better grasp of PR? What's more important to you: getting what you want, or venting on the internet?
/r/MensRights02/11/13 03:04 AM
5

Why is being an ex-Marine such a big deal?
/r/MensRights23/10/13 09:02 AM
3

I don't think you know what common law is. It's got nothing to do with "common practices" as in frequency or custom. The root of the word comes from the fact everyone was subject to the same rules -- ie they have them in common. The determination of common law is strictly defined and has no loosey goosey "common sense" involved. Common law is simply the practice of judicial precedent, which means that judges are bound by prior similar rulings. It doesn't matter how often people do something, if …
/r/MensRights09/10/13 07:17 AM
4

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/rapist noun: a man who commits rape. It's the same in both. If you check the definition of rape in that same dictionary you get http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/rape?q=rape noun 1 the crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:he denied two charges of attempted rape he had committed at least two rapes literary the abduction of a wo…
/r/MensRights07/10/13 03:18 AM
7

I think you're entirely misreading that paragraph by taking it totally out of context. The entire purpose of that paragraph is to reassure the reader that he takes domestic violence against women seriously, because the next paragraph says But it is also clear to me that we have not said and done nearly enough to address the needs of men as victims of domestic violence and we still don't. Where you say Note the lacuna - what about any woman who does violence to a man (or children, for that matter…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 03:03 AM
27

Seems to me that perjury that results in jail time should be prosecuted as something akin to kidnapping or false imprisonment as well. If she had kept him in her basement for four years like Joseph Fritzl I am sure she wouldn't be facing 2 months, and I don't see how this is different -- I'm sure being in prison for 4 years for sexual assault led to him being assaulted by other inmates on a regular basis.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:20 AM
11

A big part of being creepy is being unable or unwilling to abide by the culture's standards of behaviour. It's not an objective measure, there is no underlying logic to it, so there's no reason to demand a logical reason. For example, if you go around hugging Japanese people after having lived in Japan and having learned how people behave, they'll (rightly) think you're creepy. This guy, unless he's mentally handicapped, knows that going around sniffing people's hair is well outside the American…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 04:00 AM
17

Maybe mildly irritated at society, but positive towards the venue.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 04:28 AM
2

They closed far more spaces for boys than girls, so I think that's a reasonable interpretation.
/r/MensRights08/07/13 04:36 AM
17

"As well as causing distress to innocent people accused of this terrible crime, cases like this distract officers from supporting real victims and prosecuting real offenders. The judge explicitly mentioned the falsely accused as the primary victims in this case, and mentioned other rape victims as secondary.
/r/MensRights07/07/13 09:55 PM
1

I note that the heading specifies a particular theory of why women don't commit crime. Does the next section detail a different theory? How many theories are considered, and what are they? This single image excerpt doesn't tell us much.
/r/MensRights26/06/13 07:21 PM
11

I've gotten the discount before. I'm pretty sure that the actual policy is only one discount per child.
/r/MensRights04/06/13 06:37 PM
1

Yeah, I "could" claim any number of things, but it doesn't make it credible.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 04:53 PM
-2

Nobody has actually claimed they were sexually harassed. It's a strawman.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 11:50 PM
0

Title is pure speculation.
/r/MensRights26/05/13 11:49 PM
8

I think it was pretty clear from the article that it was primarily men assaulting men.
/r/MensRights18/05/13 02:27 AM
3

Why should people not find the common physical characteristics of one ethnicity more attractive than another? The line exists at the point where one can rule someone out for any role based on the single criteria of race without knowing any other factors. Whether that's employment, serving them in at a business, or dating. Like it or not, there are subgroups within each ethnicity that are very strict in which ethnicities that they will date. I never even remotely denied this. Just want you to kno…
/r/MensRights12/05/13 06:10 PM
3

I'm not sure what you're implying by "more traditional Asian women".
/r/MensRights12/05/13 04:26 AM
6

If you wouldn't even consider dating outside of one specific "race" because of characteristics that you believe that race to have, then yes, I think that definitionally makes you some form of racist.
/r/MensRights12/05/13 04:26 AM
2

That's how I understand the phrase, what nuance are you seeing that I am not?
/r/MensRights12/05/13 04:24 AM
1

Where I live child support starts from the point of separation, which would be when she walked out the door and didn't come back.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 10:28 PM
8

Let's assume the state did actually provide child support. If this were a deadbeat dad, I would assume that the state would pursue them for lost child support even if it were not financially efficient because of the punishment element of the law.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 10:26 PM
3

It's not an alleged rape. She was raped, unless you're claiming that a four year old can have consensual sex.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:48 AM
4

Are you blaming a four year old for giving incorrect testimony after an hour of interrogation?
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:48 AM
1

How do you get "pederast" from that article? I really don't understand your perspective. The author says, she was initiailly uncomfortable about the question (, and then decided that it was reasonable because the context was completely desexualized, since it's a 3 year old's question. At no point is there even the faintest hint that she is getting off on this in any way.
/r/MensRights17/04/13 01:32 AM
2

Are you seriously claiming that the author was getting sexual gratification from educating her child about her own sexuality?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 09:11 PM
2

Nothing in the article implied that happened. You are inventing a straw man fantasy in your head and getting enraged about it.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 09:02 PM
2

So, do you have kids of your own?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 07:27 PM
0

Yeah, but I'm asking if you have actually taken a bath with your kids. Or have kids. If you do, or if you ask most parents, you'll know that 3 year olds want to see what "private parts" are all about. This is a totally common scenario. It seems like the only people who would actually be up in arms about this are non-parents.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 07:14 PM
2

Have you ever taken a bath with your kids?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 06:42 PM
2

Her kid isn't going to need therapy because she saw her mother's vagina. Nothing bad happened here at all.
/r/MensRights16/04/13 06:19 PM
3

Can you explain what exactly is wrong with a 3 year old seeing her mother's vagina?
/r/MensRights16/04/13 06:17 PM
4

Do you have any source for that supposition, or did you just make that up?
/r/MensRights05/04/13 07:04 AM
2

I think it's called Stockholm syndrome, and it's why self reporting from victims isn't a very useful indicator.
/r/MensRights18/02/13 04:10 AM
6

What he does say, quite clearly, is that he doesn't have a belief that it is definitely bad. However, I'm going to be brave and be the first one to say that fucking your children is, in every circumstance, obviously the wrong thing to do.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:44 AM
-5

I find prepending the Dr. honorific to bolster someone's credentials about as irritating as people always saying Dr. Ron Paul. Which is to say, fairly.
/r/MensRights17/02/13 08:38 AM
2

Who destroyed the concept of family?
/r/MensRights31/01/13 02:31 AM
1

Yeah, because now nobody thinks Obama is a closet muslim who was born in a foreign country.
/r/MensRights19/01/13 02:17 AM
4

Only one case, and not by a man. Ok: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/global/07minors.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Mr. Tate said his most recent case, filed in state court in Fulton County, Georgia, involved a 13-year-old girl who was allegedly molested by a male passenger on a flight from Anchorage, Alaska, to Salt Lake City, Utah, last March. The girl, who is not identified in the lawsuit, said she fell asleep during the flight and awoke with the man’s hands inside her pants. A suspect …
/r/MensRights17/01/13 07:01 AM
8

Fine, post an article about Qantas and Virgin then. Don't repost stale articles about a company that has changed its policies.
/r/MensRights17/01/13 06:58 AM
1

What is it exactly about idiots that makes them talk about blue pills all the time? Next you're going to call me a kool-aid drinker.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 08:05 AM
2

I think there are a lot of instances where men are getting the shaft in the west, specifically alimony and parental rights, and selective service in the US although it doesn't personally affect me. I'd like equality between genders. You, on the other hand, appear to be a personification of everything SRS believes about this subreddit. Although it's refreshing to see that most people are downvoting your head comment's nonsense, at least partially proving SRS wrong.
/r/MensRights10/01/13 12:26 AM
2

How exactly am I failing to comprehend what you're saying when you're saying something as simple as "subordination of female to male" is a good thing? What you're saying is repugnant.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 11:46 PM
2

So basically, you actually are a misogynist who justifies himself with the bible.
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:03 PM
2

Just to clarify, you're saying that Genesis 3:16 is correct?
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:21 AM
3

Like this +1465 vote post that cherry picks 41%, 50%, and 60% as false accusation rates? http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/166d02/the_truth_about_false_rape_accusation/
/r/MensRights09/01/13 06:18 AM
5

From what I've read elsewhere, the key factor here is that women have already been heavily targeted by education campaigns and the media to avoid putting their personal details on the internet for fear of being raped or what have you which has the added benefit to them of not being as easily targeted for identity theft and similar crimes, but men have not and are therefore at higher risk of having their personal information misused.
/r/MensRights03/01/13 09:49 AM
1

You're thinking of Jeanette Lee, but she was never ranked that well -- it was all just advertising hype. She certainly got more air time than anybody else at the time though.
/r/MensRights18/12/12 08:13 AM
2

I think it's a general rule that votes in the comments and votes on the headline are mostly unrelated.
/r/MensRights09/12/12 10:47 PM
7

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Extension_of_the_Suffrage_to_Women.html?id=yEgZcgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y 3 pages on her position on this matter. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B1EF73A5D15738DDDA80994DC405B8585F0D3 Mrs. Francis M. Scott on the Female Suffrage Question. A STRONG PLEA FOR AMERICAN HOMES The True Women of This Country, Mrs. Scott Says, Have No Desire to Assume the Burdens of Politics. http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/03/09/live-blogging-womens-history-march-9-19…
/r/MensRights09/12/12 06:06 PM
13

How exactly is hyphenating a name about undermining the rights of men?
/r/MensRights09/12/12 05:54 PM
1

I'm saying that the question is one that exists only in theory since we have no concrete examples to prove the case either way.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 04:01 AM
1

Theoretically speaking.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:44 AM
1

In my city our public washrooms clean themselves, so this is fine with me.
/r/MensRights07/11/12 12:43 AM
1

Isn't that practically the battle cry of this subreddit though?
/r/MensRights28/10/12 09:27 PM
1

According to the police report, he refused to let go even while she struggled and tried to escape, and he ran off when another person walked over to see what was happening.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 04:53 AM
1

there becomes no real reason not to assault someone just do what the fuck you want Uh, besides not being a sociopath? I don't roam around holding back an urge to assault people due to a fear of punishment.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 10:51 PM
3

Nice graph: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_20.pdf From 1940 to 2002 the ratio never went outside 1.046-1.058:1 which less than a percentage point of change over 60 years. Tabular data by race for 20 years, again showing marginal variation. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005083.html Much more well cited information about this for various periods of time reaching back to the early 1900s for a number of different countries. https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/177…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:55 PM
3

Yes, there are vast numbers of studies about this. This is non-controversial except in your head. Assuming good faith that you are actually just woefully ignorant and not just trolling: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00259.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-7660.00130/full http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2938438?uid=3739392&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101199042923 http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/3935
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:32 PM
3

This is nonsensical. We have gender ratio statistics from various countries going back over 125 years and they are all roughly in the same range +- 2%. The birth ratio in China was exactly the same as the rest of the world in in 1979, and has risen steadily year by year until the current point when it is now ~19% higher than normal. Sex Ratios at birth over time in China:[xxv] 106:100 in 1979 (106 boys for every 100 girls) 111:100 in 1988 117:100 in 2001 120:100 in 2005 According to the US Congr…
/r/MensRights25/10/12 07:25 PM
1

Whose sockpuppet are you?
/r/MensRights28/09/12 07:13 PM
2

There was a huge outcry over this, front page of CNN etc. This is actually from July 20th, which makes it really old news on the internet, which is probably why you aren't seeing much about it at this very moment.
/r/MensRights20/09/12 10:52 PM
3

I like how you manage to combine a complete lack of understanding of the statistics at hand with an equal amount of smugness. I suppose it's because... Some people just don't understand the selection effect. But, please feel free to explain how the children of single mothers are abused by their non-present fathers.
/r/MensRights09/09/12 04:37 AM
1

No, the concern being put forward is that it would be more likely that a child would be harmed if it were left alone with a man than if it were left alone with a woman.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 11:42 PM
2

It's a sort of stupid statistic because it ignores the amount of time that women spend time with children vs the amount of time that men spend time with children. Since women are overwhelmingly the primary caregivers, it stands to reason that they will also by numerically larger abusers. Similarly, even if white people are only racists 20% of the time that black people are, given any set of uniformly random encounters black people will still encounter 100% more racists than white people. However…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:46 PM
2

Hate has a big tent, I'm sure we can all fit.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 09:42 PM
1

Everyone should know what exactly?
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:12 AM
5

That's all well and good for a father who opts out before birth, but I don't think the point stands when it's a guy who leaves a 10 year old. Most people here don't see a distinction between those two cases, but there is one.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:06 AM
1

This is the natural consequence of an adversarial legal system.
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:01 AM
0

In this case, you're creating a punishment for those who don't falsely accuse -- having a baby the woman doesn't want. Seems lose-lose to me.
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:20 PM
2

Without the support of men, feminism wouldn't have put men in the legal position they are in now. Without the support of women, men aren't going to reverse that course. This is the consequence of a 50%+1 democracy.
/r/MensRights22/08/12 06:11 AM
2

Sounds reasonable, that show is fucked up.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 05:39 AM
2

He said the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud.
/r/MensRights20/08/12 11:55 PM
2

It doesn't mean anything, because it's a false statement.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:10 AM
0

The seven comments above this one fail to point out that the topic of discussion is actually bullshit, pulled out of thin air to induce rage. I know this isn't /r/askscience, so we can't all have citations, but actually just making shit up ought to be frowned on a bit more.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 04:09 AM
1

I dislike this exactly the same amount I dislike any kind of preferential access to public officials. Do what you want when you're not in office.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:14 AM
1

It's not really a private event if it is about public officials. She's the premier of the province.
/r/MensRights15/08/12 01:13 AM
-3

Sadly, non-rage-inducing comments and facts don't get much action on reddit.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 06:41 PM
1

Since intent is a subjective state, that's pretty much how it works.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 05:43 PM
11

Well, the author does say that's what his post is about, so I think it's safe to say that's the message behind the post.
/r/MensRights10/08/12 02:29 AM
-2

http://pastebin.com/ZFbenav0
/r/MensRights10/08/12 02:27 AM
-1

Is the title really something that all MRAs agree with? Let's set aside the imbalance between men sacrificing for women. Is it actually an MRA issue that people sacrifice their lives for people that they love?
/r/MensRights05/08/12 08:06 PM
2

and like women people like these tend to age like milk instead of wine Come on, now.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 12:54 AM
2

It's probably worth mentioning that men are primarily and increasingly responsible for violence resulting in death. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/intimates.cfm In the US, women are currently killed by their intimate partners (boyfriend/husband/ex) at a rate of around 3.5x that of men. For some reason the number of men being killed is dropping rapidly -- in 1975 there were 1.2 men killed for every 1 woman killed. This appears to be partially due to murder decreasing in general for eve…
/r/MensRights03/08/12 01:17 AM
2

No, like I said, it's the same rationale. The state wants to move money into the hands of one's descendants so that the state never has to deal with them. Like an adult spouse, or an adult child.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 05:31 PM
2

It's essentially the same rationale for assigning child support and spousal support: there's money there, and any other route may potentially lead to the state having to support the descendants.
/r/MensRights01/08/12 03:35 AM
6

Each province has its own variant of the law, but in Canada this is pretty well known and non-controversial. http://www.disinherited.com/article/disinheriting-adult-independent-children/ The B.C. Wills Variation Act was examined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1930 case of Walker v. McDermott (1931) 1 D.L.R.662. In that case the court decided that a child did not have to demonstrate financial need as a prerequisite to a successful wills variance claim. The court interpreted the British Col…
/r/MensRights01/08/12 01:54 AM
7

I was thinking the other day about how Bill Gates and Jackie Chan won't leave their fortune to their kids when I realized that it's perfectly legal to do that. In Canada you basically can't write your kids out of your will. To get out of it your children would have to be documentable scumbags. Simply not wanting to give your kids money is definitely not a valid wills variance claim.
/r/MensRights31/07/12 09:31 PM
-2

Don't you think that the 1400 net upvotes indicates that a lot of people agree with this sentiment?
/r/MensRights26/07/12 01:38 AM
4

Well, that's really awful. Glad they don't have that where I live.
/r/MensRights19/07/12 01:59 AM
4

What's this about?
/r/MensRights18/07/12 06:28 PM
6

BBC is a tabloid? CNN is a good news source?
/r/MensRights08/07/12 03:50 PM
0

I hope not. There's enough censorship on reddit already these days.
/r/MensRights06/07/12 04:11 AM
5

Also, we should separate our schools based on race, because it's unfair to have white children competing against black children competing against asian children -- asians are so good at reading and math, but black children are such great runners and jumpers, and this just leaves white children feeling left out. I think it goes without saying that Jewish children should be in their own separate economics courses. (that was sarcasm)
/r/MensRights01/07/12 04:55 AM
1

His basic flaw is that he begins a priori with the assumption that things are the way they are because of some handwavy intrinsic characteristic of the thing under study, applies statistics, identifies the difference, and then attributes that difference to the proposed intrinsic characteristic. He then proceeds to entirely ignore the difference between correlation and causation. What he's doing is no more than descriptive statistics, but he's imputing characteristics to them that have no foundat…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 02:54 PM
0

Pretty much every one of his articles (I haven't read all of them, so I can't say for certain) takes the same approach: make baseless assumptions about distributions of complex social issues, apply second year statistics techniques to those assumptions, and add graphs. The only folks who cite his works are white supremacists who appreciate his arguments for the intrinsic criminality and violence of black and hispanics and the superior intelligence of white people. Given that he appears to only h…
/r/MensRights30/06/12 06:58 AM
1

You may find this interesting http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-human-condition/2009/06/01/sharon-begley-the-math-gender-gap-explained.html
/r/MensRights30/06/12 05:51 AM
4

Source articles. It's not quite what the reddit article says, it only applies to some metropolitan areas, and it's only single, childless women in their twenties. Overall, women still earn less when you factor in the breeders and/or old ones. http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-09-01-single-women_N.htm http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html
/r/MensRights25/06/12 12:37 AM
2

Well, maybe. I can think of a few instances where people are coerced into raping, like in wartime scenarios, such as the Janjaweed gang rapes. I suppose intoxicated might qualify as mentally disturbed too. But none of those things are equivalent to or even overlap significantly with the psychopathic population.
/r/MensRights25/06/12 12:32 AM
13

Are you trying to say that all rapists are psychopaths? Are you just using psychopath as a (incorrect) synonym for "bad person"?
/r/MensRights24/06/12 06:32 PM
1

I hate videos of text. I can read faster than anyone can speak intelligibly.
/r/MensRights16/06/12 05:31 AM
2

The fact that a small handful of political hot button entries are heavily edited doesn't make the other 3.9 million articles a "joke".
/r/MensRights12/06/12 03:53 AM
12

Kelly Hruska with National Military Family Association said NMFA opposes Turner's bill because of the risk to families of custody cases landing in courts with no family law expertise. This seems like a fairly valid point. Federal courts are going to end up handing out some pretty crazy judgements if they suddenly become arbiters in a tiny subset of all family law cases.
/r/MensRights11/06/12 03:18 PM
2

This has been all over the news for the past three years. Google around for "soushoku danshi" and you'll find much more. It's unsurprisingly somewhat overblown in the foreign media -- basically, foreigners heard that Japan also has hipsters, but because it has a catchy phrase attached to it they make it out to "crazy Japanese stuff".
/r/MensRights30/05/12 03:10 AM
4

What do you mean by better off?
/r/MensRights27/05/12 07:34 AM
1

Are you saying that the only reason assault cases dropped was from a reduction in false reports?
/r/MensRights20/05/12 05:34 PM
3

I'm sure his life is still fucked from it though. I can't imagine he got his job back.
/r/MensRights13/05/12 10:29 PM
-1

Trying to equate not having a forced child support scheme with starving children to death is definitely an emotional argument. In fact, even bringing up starvation as some sort of argument is utterly ridiculous in a western country like the US. Considering how cheap food, the availability of jobs, the plethora of government assistance programs as well as private charities NO ONE in the United States is going to die from starvation. Which is why I specifically brought up the state as an alternati…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 07:36 AM
2

Yes, I also believe that the government should fine people who don't clean up their dog's shit or leave their garbage in the street. In general, I do not want people transferring their responsibilities to me. Before you go off about how women are transferring the responsibility of childcare onto unwilling men, I should point out that I fully support the right of men to walk away from a pregnancy without financial responsibility at a time while the fetus can legally be aborted. If a man and woman…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 06:09 AM
-2

I don't see that it's an emotional argument. Followed by I see no reason why anyone should be able to simply decide that a child should starve to death Yeah, that's not emotional. Heh. No, it's a strictly legal argument. Starving a person of any age to death is murder. The question then becomes: who is responsible for this person? For an adult, we have welfare. For a child, I think the parents ought to be on the hook. And they do. Each parent pays to support their children when each parent has c…
/r/MensRights28/04/12 06:02 AM
-1

Because I played no role in creating the children?
/r/MensRights28/04/12 05:56 AM
-2

I don't see that it's an emotional argument. Somebody needs to pay to support children -- I see no reason why anyone should be able to simply decide that a child should starve to death, and I see no reason why the state should be forced to take on the responsibility. If those two statements can be agreed on, that means that someone has to be responsible, and the most reasonable candidates are the parents. It seems unreasonable that either parent should be able to escape that responsibility.
/r/MensRights28/04/12 05:06 AM
2

FTA She would donate her eggs and carry their baby.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 04:59 AM
2

Sounds like they fucked up the contract.
/r/MensRights23/04/12 04:57 AM
1

And her boss, a man, also stole from the company and was not prosecuted at all -- no criminal record. I fail to see how this is an example of a woman getting special treatment.
/r/MensRights19/04/12 03:57 AM
1

Hospital visitation rights is one standout that comes to mind. Health insurance is probably a big factor for Americans too. Also, anyone in the military is probably going to want to be able to move their SO around as they are ordered around to different bases, and boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't give you that capability.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 06:02 AM
4

I assume the police are involved because the restaurant called them. I don't really understand why the women weren't arrested though, since they ate food and didn't pay for it.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:54 AM
1

As to how much of a dick move that was of him, that too, is up for debate. It seems to me that it isn't all that unclear. He clearly stole his share of the meal from the restaurant, which is a solid dick move. Fuck the rest of them, they should be charged too.
/r/MensRights17/04/12 05:52 AM
-3

TBH, I would laugh if I heard that a woman tried to rob someone and got raped instead. Being raped is, in my opinion, better than being killed, and I would also find it funny if a woman got killed while robbing someone. As the saying goes, don't start nothing, won't be nothing.
/r/MensRights13/04/12 12:44 AM
1

I suppose the exact disconnect between our positions is that you are asserting that only the expenses of a blob of flesh that has legal personhood should be the responsibility of the male, whereas I believe that the male should have financial responsibility for any blob of flesh that he wants to eventually be a parent of, from the point of conception forward, since that's when the costs start accruing. I don't really see what the basis is of your position though. People have legal (and financial…
/r/MensRights13/04/12 12:38 AM
1

So, following that logic, "freeriding" on prenatal costs should deny you all parental rights? Yes, absolutely. If a person is not providing their share of parental expenses while at the same time having the capacity to pay, they shouldn't have any parental rights. What justification does someone have for having parental rights when they aren't willing to act as a parent? Parenting in my opinion is a dynamic act more than it is a static state, and providing financial support is part of that actio…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 11:59 PM
1

Conversely, why should someone be allowed to freeride on the prenatal costs and still reap the benefits of parenthood? Or would you require that the father's share of prenatal costs be reimbursed after paternity is positively established? I could see that as being legitimate mechanism. Simply not being responsible for any costs incurred before the point where the father feels like stepping in seems unreasonable however.
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:34 PM
5

It sounds to me like the child was apart from the biological father for 15 days at which point the state adopted the child out. While the child did spend 6 years with an adoptive family, it should have only spent a month or so in temporary care while the details of the biological relationship were being worked out.
/r/MensRights11/04/12 05:31 PM
-4

Consistent prenatal financial support Payment of prenatal and natal medical care for the mother and baby Child support payments proportional with his ability to pay Consistent contact and visitation with the child Assistance with educational and medical care of the child These seem like reasonable and minimal standards for being a parent. If you've got available financial means, you should be providing access to those means to your children. The only problem I see here is that the state won't re…
/r/MensRights11/04/12 05:29 PM
5

It was not a case of forced or arranged marriage. It was a love marriage. Then on which basis his wife could file the petition to nullify the marriage?” That sounds like he's arguing that divorce (of consensual marriages) should be outright illegal? I get that the handling of divorce can and should be improved, but unless I'm totally misreading this statement, that sounds insane.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 06:02 PM
8

and they are respected and praised for it. No, not really. There are daily posts excoriating /r/atheism for being a big whiny circlejerk, and the comments shake out roughly the same as MR -- half in favour, half against.
/r/MensRights09/04/12 04:17 AM
2

There were two separate obligations, one to the state and one to the mother of his child. The state relinquished their claim (around $55,000) but the mother of his child did not (leaving around $55,000). His ex-gf (or whatever) is an asshole for that, but the title and facts on this post are incorrect and somewhat misleading.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 10:10 PM
4

Isn't this the same case where the state did not require the man to pay any child support to the state? edit: yes, it is. The state Department of Social and Health Services has a program for forgiving child support bills in hardship cases, and it waived its share of Northrop's balance in November, within a few hours of receiving an inquiry from an Associated Press reporter. But Northrop still owes tens of thousands of dollars to his former partner, and the state is garnishing his wages to the tu…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 06:23 PM
3

Don't forget the right to see your wife in the hospital. If you're a "boyfriend", you may as well be a complete stranger as far as most hospital visitation rights go.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:48 PM
1

The subject of this discussion is, "higher graduation rates for women are not translating into higher employment rates for women in high paying jobs." That's not how a thread works. Each comment is a reply to the previous comment, not the top level. Ailer was specifically stating that he believed that 20-30 year old women have more high paying jobs than 20-30 year old men, which is why I responded with information contradicting his statement. Your data does not bear on this question because it i…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:30 PM
1

The comment to which I replied said In the 20 to 30 age group, I would definitely suspect that's the case. Maybe not so much in the age groups above that. which was in turn a reply to my saying Are you asserting that right now there are more women in high paying jobs than men? neither of which were statements about relative rates of growth. We were talking about the instantaneous proportion of men and women in high paying jobs, that women were the majority. This is not the case. You seem to be t…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 06:14 PM
1

Maybe you could elaborate a little, because all I see of interest in that link is that women are grossly underrepresented in high paying jobs and overrepresented in the lowest paying jobs. Also, the data from http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/income-age-and-gender implicitly includes graduation rates, since it is broken out into age cohorts. Even the most recently educated people have a bias in income towards men.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 05:22 PM
2

As of 2009, no. http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/income-age-and-gender
/r/MensRights30/03/12 03:13 PM
2

Are you asserting that right now there are more women in high paying jobs than men?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 02:37 PM
0

I think you're rather discounting the number of women who will stay in the secretarial pool and other female-specific low wage zones. Even when comparing the low end of the wage spectrum, shitty male jobs pay better than shitty female jobs. Also, at least currently, the higher graduation rates for women are not translating into higher employment rates for women in high paying jobs. I think for the foreseeable future (like 10+ years) that to think that men will end up as the minority earners on a…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 12:49 AM
1

What's that got to do with anything? rogersmith25 was saying that he owed the state money. He doesn't.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 10:44 PM
8

RTFA before talking. Instead, Northrop was told he owed $111,000 in back child maintenance payments. About half of that sum was owed to the mother of his children and half to the state, which helped support the family while Northrop was incarcerated. The state's Department of Social and Health Services has a programme for writing off child support bills in hardship cases, and it waived its share of Northrop's balance in November.
/r/MensRights26/03/12 10:22 PM
3

From the article: On the flipside, women who gain power, like Margaret Thatcher and Condaleeza Rice, are often hawkish, suggesting that power, not gender, determines belligerence. Women in the judiciary dole out harsher penalties than men. And woman are committing more acts of domestic violence that previously recorded. Maybe you should read the article instead of me-tooing.
/r/MensRights25/03/12 11:30 PM
3

Did you actually read the article?
/r/MensRights25/03/12 11:28 PM
1

Ok, but what about those cases that do exist? I assume you're not going to argue that close to 100% of cases of single parents are the result of children who only the woman wanted and the man wanted to avoid. There are lots of people who get married, have children together and then get divorced.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 03:25 PM
1

How does this address a parent who simply leaves? Are you proposing mandated equal custody? Also, if I just leave, why should my partner be fined because I am unwilling to come to an agreement?
/r/MensRights22/03/12 12:20 AM
1

This is great for a parent who wants to walk away from a child without any responsibilities, but I don't think that's an acceptable outcome for society. Are you saying that if two people consensually raise a child together for ten years, that one parent should be able to simply disappear leaving the other parent to solely support the child?
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:21 PM
1

Which is great for a parent who wants to simply walk away without any responsibility, but unreasonable if they previously consented to having the child.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 06:14 PM
1

He did agree that he was the father. The way I read it, he traded fatherhood for citizenship, so I don't feel bad for him over the consequences.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 06:10 AM
1

Shouldn't be too surprising, those agreements are rarely valid.
/r/MensRights09/03/12 06:05 AM
3

Just a reminder to all that if you don't want your sub dominated by fucking memes, you have to do your job and downvote.
/r/MensRights08/03/12 04:43 AM
1

I suppose fundamentally our difference in opinion comes from the fact that I don't think unborn "children" have or should have any rights and the fact that I consider the right to control over one's own bodily integrity to be absolute.
/r/MensRights07/03/12 01:35 AM
1

pssvr said: I would like to see the law revised as follows: If a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, the father must have an opportunity to declare intent to look after the child. If he does, and if he is willing to spend his own time and money to cover the cost of the C-section and the baby's medical needs, then the woman cannot get an abortion. I don't think that's very ambiguous. Nonetheless, I support abortions beyond the point where the fetus may potentially be viable post-surgical extr…
/r/MensRights07/03/12 01:21 AM
1

What we're talking about is taking a fetus that is abortable and legally compelling a woman to carry it until it is viable by C-section. Were you not paying attention to the thread?
/r/MensRights06/03/12 10:22 PM
4

I never argued against male birth control, I pointed out a side effect. I am strongly pro-male birth control. It's a factor that needs to be taken into consideration, probably through our sex education policies.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 08:32 PM
3

I suppose that depends on your definition of a baby.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:45 PM
3

I'd like to address two issues with your statement. First, relatively speaking, C-sections are more dangerous than abortions. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm Interpretation: From 1990 through 1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. In 1998 and 1999, the number of abortions continued to decrease when comparing the same 48 reporting areas. In 2000, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly. In 1998 and 1999, as…
/r/MensRights06/03/12 07:41 PM
9

Probably a lot more STDs too. A positive side effect of the current status of male birth control is that if a man wants to guarantee that he has no children, he also has to virtually guarantee that he doesn't contract any diseases.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 06:22 PM
17

A C-section is major surgery, with substantially greater risk of death than an abortion. I think it's extremely unreasonable for the state to mandate life endangering medical procedures on someone under any circumstances.
/r/MensRights06/03/12 06:05 PM
7

Getting promoted is.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 01:26 AM
2

Why let yourself be defined by someone else? Is this like the MRA version of "taking back the night"?
/r/MensRights03/03/12 06:20 PM
1

Or maybe men commit more crimes?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 03:58 AM
8

I think it's reasonable that companies make allowances for people of either gender to have children and still work. The situation right now is heavily biased against anyone with childcare responsibilities -- the distribution of childcare responsibilities is an entirely different issue with its own problems.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 02:46 AM
2

I'd rather a song than a broken jaw.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 05:53 PM
1

Ensuring your safety and pursuing legal recourse should be the extent of fixing an abusive situation. You'd think /mensrights would understand the unfortunate limitations of the judicial system.
/r/MensRights14/02/12 05:52 PM
-1

Hardly, it's simply pointing out the tautological aspect of saying you don't miss something you don't remember.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 08:36 PM
-3

Alright, removing a finger then. A hand with 4 fingers (or 3 fingers and a thumb) also functions. Whether you're radically crippled, mildly crippled, or not crippled at all, wouldn't it have been nice if you had been given the choice?
/r/MensRights10/02/12 08:24 PM
-5

If someone cut off your hand at birth you could say the same things about it, but I think we can all agree that cutting off a baby's hand (even for religious reasons) is child abuse.
/r/MensRights10/02/12 07:44 PM
0

Setting aside the quote from the actual article which is an egregious example of victim blaming, all that chart really tells you is that women perform a vastly higher amount of childcare than men. It tells you very little about how dangerous men and women are under the same conditions, relatively speaking.
/r/MensRights28/01/12 01:50 AM
3

Why do you think that women are inferior?
/r/MensRights27/01/12 05:49 AM
2

That seems unlikely due to the enrollment rates, which are largely equal. Initial enrollment in a field strongly indicates interest, yet by graduation there are few women remaining. Anyone who has completed their education presumably had a strong interest, yet their representation in the workplace is even lower. What's the explanation?
/r/MensRights23/01/12 06:55 PM
1

I think the obvious answer here is that the representation itself is not considered to be the important factor. Working with the assumption that men and women are more or less equal, it's a probable indicator of an underlying problem, that being some form of institutional discrimination against women. Arguments can be made either way about the current state of education and industry, but it's inarguable that only a few decades ago you simply couldn't get a STEM education as a woman. Since the do…
/r/MensRights23/01/12 05:08 PM
5

He's saying that it should be legal.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 04:57 PM
10

If you don't tell the mom now, you're fucked. You need to control the discourse. Can you imagine how fucked you'd be if the stepdaughter were the one to bring up the subject? Getting raped in prison fucked, that's how.
/r/MensRights22/01/12 04:55 AM
0

Here in Canada, the very first man to be given shelter space happened in Calgary, in April of 2011. So no, things aren't better here. I'm not clear on what you mean by this. There are tons of male-only shelters in Canada. What kind of shelter space are you referring to? Is it some specific kind of shelter?
/r/MensRights21/01/12 04:45 PM
1

Is it valid? I think there are some significant assumptions being made here, namely that the behaviour that you described is the actual cause of being "unsuccessful with women". There are lots of men who behave similarly to that who are have successful relationships. Maybe there's something to be asked about in the definition of "success" with women?
/r/MensRights16/01/12 12:57 AM
1

I've worked as a cleaner in mental homes and shelters. It's by far mainly men. Nice study.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 10:23 PM
-1

Your personal experience trumps actual studies?
/r/MensRights15/01/12 09:49 PM
1

Well, that's a pretty awful thing to do to the other guy and the kid.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 06:54 PM
53

Don't you think the mens' rights movement has a similar issue? There are valid points being made, but they are quite often accompanied by a fair bit of negativity. There's a strong parallel here, which from what I can see, MRAs are generally unwilling to admit. In fact, it would be pretty straightforward to take your entire post and reverse the genders. My point here is that this is a general characteristic of groups, not feminists or MRAs specifically. It's hard to look critically at your in-gr…
/r/MensRights15/01/12 06:39 PM
3

What's a "Nice Guy" and why is it bad?
/r/MensRights15/01/12 06:31 PM
1

Do you happen to know where he said that? That sounds like a pretty extreme position for anyone, so I would like to assume he had a more nuanced argument than "women should be allowed to commit paternity fraud".
/r/MensRights15/01/12 06:13 PM
3

How is this a male-specific prerogative?
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:48 AM
4

I dunno about that, rapists are predators. The recidivism rate for sex offenders is around 4x that of non sex offenders, and about 2x that of murderers. Also, this is based on rearrest, and as is well known, sex crimes are often unreported while murders almost always are -- this implies that the recidivism rate is even higher than it appears to be for sex offenders. For an unrepentant sex offender, I don't really see anything wrong with a life sentence.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:29 AM
-4

Murder can have lots of mitigating factors. I would say that most people can conceive of a justifiable murder, that is a murder that isn't necessarily self defense, but still worth doing. For example, somebody rapes and murders my child -- sure, the justice system should be involved. If I could, I would almost certainly murder the murderer. There's no conceivable instance where I would feel that the "right" thing to do would be to rape someone.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 02:23 AM
1

Still, it seems to me that he's closer to the MRA POV that the majority of the population, and aside from this one specific point where he's on the fence, he seems to be promoting a more logically consistent view of sexual consent than one would typically see. Simply saying "This guy is a moron..." looks to me like somewhat ignorant black and white thinking, where any disagreement renders the rest of the person's opinions null and void.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 01:12 AM
4

Why's that?
/r/MensRights14/01/12 08:34 PM
1

Racism is a MR issue?
/r/MensRights14/01/12 01:55 AM
2

Who said I blame the victim? I think you're reading more into my statement than I actually wrote.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 11:13 PM
5

I think it is illustrative of character, and provides some insight into what led him to be in this sort of position. It seems far more likely that this would happen to someone who is pretty reprehensible in the eyes of society, as otherwise you would expect friends and family to occasionally check up on him. Knowing that he's a convicted child molester clears up that question in my mind to some degree, since if I knew any child molesters I would probably never visit them or inquire as to their w…
/r/MensRights13/01/12 10:36 PM
4

Sorry if this seems like splitting hairs, but what's the difference blaming a woman for being raped and saying a woman is responsible for not preventing herself from being raped?
/r/MensRights13/01/12 09:46 PM
3

Presumption of innocence has almost no bearing in Canada. It's instead based on a balance of probabilities that take into account a number of different factors, in which the judge has enormous latitude for discretion. Wikipedia has a really good section on this, but the primary grounds are (extracted from Wikipedia): Primary grounds refers to whether detention is necessary to ensure the accused's attendance in court.[10] Considerations include the accused's criminal history, their behaviour in t…
/r/MensRights13/01/12 08:41 PM
7

I get blaming rapists instead of men in general for rape, but blaming women for actually being raped? Really? Or are you talking about women raping men?
/r/MensRights13/01/12 08:26 PM
9

It's probably because, as the article states, he has prior convictions, while she (probably, as the article doesn't mention any) does not. Bail decisions are generally made based on the charges and prior criminal history.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 08:19 PM
1

Your past never means nothing. Are you particularly concerned that his past as a child molester was brought up? Would you have brought up the same concern if he were a convicted murderer?
/r/MensRights13/01/12 08:13 PM
1

Three things here: Men can also talk smack about you to their friends, have men you don't know in the apartment, manipulate your friends, and poison your food. Are you saying that these are things that only women do? Your relative size has no relevance to this conversation, as it's not about whether you want to live with women -- it's about why more women prefer living with women than man than vice versa. I understand you want to turn this into a personal issue, but that's not what we were talki…
/r/MensRights13/01/12 03:29 AM
1

It's not about the likelihood of something happening, it's about the practicality of doing something about it should it happen. People don't buy insurance because they expect an earthquake.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 03:04 AM
1

Setting aside cultural mores which may or may not swing both ways, letting all other things being equal, the vast majority of women are physically weaker and unable to effectively defend themselves against a male aggressor. While males are often the victims of domestic violence, they can usually easily walk away from an abusive female roommate -- they aren't bound to them by marriage or children.
/r/MensRights13/01/12 12:13 AM
2

Why are there more women wanting "no men" vs. men wanting "no women"? Do you really not understand why a single woman might not want to live with a man she doesn't know?
/r/MensRights12/01/12 05:11 AM
1

Sounds like an accomplice to me. Obviously every country is different, but in the US the code reads: United States Code (U.S.C.), section two of title 18: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal. What the state i…
/r/MensRights07/01/12 05:20 AM
2

This seems to be a case of two people getting appropriately charged for something with no gender bias. The only tangential connection to men's rights is a game of make believe -- let's pretend the genders were reversed, and then let's pretend we know what the authorities would do, and then let's get ourselves worked up about this pretend discrimination. Aren't there real things going on in the world that we could talk about?
/r/MensRights06/01/12 11:53 PM
2

From my limited reading, it sounds like it would only cover that case if a woman were to shove something up a guy's ass or force a male to perform oral sex, and it's about FBI categorization of data, not changing laws. Women can already be convicted of raping men.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 09:20 PM
2

That's interesting, what's your take on RICO?
/r/MensRights06/01/12 07:23 PM
2

To take your scenario into a different yet familiar setting, a mob boss orders his henchman to murder a witness. Shouldn't they both go to jail on the same charge?
/r/MensRights06/01/12 07:16 PM
1

Fair enough, my point is just that breast milk is good, and 6 months is on the short side of what is good for children.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 04:40 PM
2

I have no idea what you are talking about.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 07:41 AM
3

I'm no laleche leaguer, but the benefits of breast feeding up to 12 months are extremely well documented. That may in some circumstances be balanced by other factors (family instability or similar, not nutritionally), but I hope that for any children you have you consider breast feeding for longer than 6 months if at all possible.
/r/MensRights06/01/12 06:00 AM
4

I would say there are definitely man hating feminists, and I'm certain there are woman hating MRAs. I just don't know what ignatiusloyola is actually saying. It sounded to me initially like he was saying that all "real" MRAs are not misogynists, but I still don't know.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 10:09 PM
10

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are saying. Are you saying that some actual MRAs are misogynists and that they give the rest of the movement a bad name?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 08:05 PM
6

Can you clarify what you are saying? Are you saying that these people are claiming to be MRAs but do not think that they are MRAs (lying about what they believe) or are you saying they are claiming to be MRAs, believe themselves to be MRAs, but do not fit the definition of MRA that you have?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 07:59 PM
-5

Cite source?
/r/MensRights31/12/11 07:48 PM
1

In politics, guys who can't shut up at appropriate times give their opponents tons of dirt to fling. It's not about being nice, it's about being politically aware of what they are saying.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 07:47 PM
13

This sounds a bit like a no-true-scotsmen argument to me. That said, look at all the misogynistic comments that get net upvotes. Seems to me that OP has a point.
/r/MensRights31/12/11 07:44 PM
3

Dividing the world in your head into people who agree with you and the enemy is the root of all conflict in the world. edit: apparently this comment got me banned by ss_camaro from /r/Rights4Men.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 07:28 PM
2

PR tip: portraying yourself as a fist crushing feminists is not going to win any hearts and minds.
/r/MensRights26/12/11 06:58 PM
0

Do you think this only in the case where a mother has a child without a father's consent, or do you think this applies even after a child is born whose birth was agreed upon by both parties?
/r/MensRights26/12/11 05:46 PM
0

Yes it does. Pretending it doesn't absolves women of the responsibility that comes along with having sex. If they want all the choice when it comes to abortion and adoption, they have to have some responsibility. I suppose the issue here is the what one calls responsibility. You appear to be of the opinion that the only responsibility of a parent is to ensure that a child doesn't die of malnutrition or exposure, and that you are willing to shoulder 50% of that responsibility. I would argue that …
/r/MensRights23/12/11 11:39 PM
1

Whether you agree with your supreme court or not has no real bearing on what your laws are. The underlying principle of removing the right of free speech under various circumstances has been specifically defined in Brandenburg v Ohio. Setting aside that, you omitted comment on Sheppard v Maxwell, which is another well cited example of the balancing act that must be performed when faced with a conflict.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 11:37 PM
1

it seems to fall down when addressing the case of a parent who, at a later stage in the child's life (say 1 year old) decides they want to leave It will lead to people picking better partners to have children with. No person is a wonderful partner for a year, then a great parent for a year, and then just suddenly leaves. This has no bearing whatsoever on responsibility. You're basically arguing that people should avoid contracting with people of low moral character. Being of low moral character …
/r/MensRights23/12/11 08:08 PM
1

While your case addresses the needs of some parents, it seems to fall down when addressing the case of a parent who, at a later stage in the child's life (say 1 year old) decides they want to leave and disclaim responsibility. If you want to change the system, shouldn't your change be a strict improvement on fairness rather than simply a rebalancing towards the other side?
/r/MensRights23/12/11 07:42 PM
1

Aren't parent in normal conditions able to abandon these obligations by handing their children over to the state or another couple, and without being forced to pay child support? In many jurisdictions you are still required to pay child support even if you abandon a child to the state. I would say that the time to decide that is before the child is born. I'm in favour of a a man being able to disclaim parental responsibility at some time before birth (and that time should be in any case tied to …
/r/MensRights23/12/11 07:21 PM
1

I am not sure I agree with that. Can you provide a compelling example of such a conflict? The classic example is the right to free speech and shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Also, Sheppard v Maxwell is a well-known conflict between the 1st and 6th. That's basically where I come down. However, I think the state is so unfair w.r.t child support that abolishing the system altogether would be a step up in total fairness to parents+children. I think it would be hard to say whether it would be a s…
/r/MensRights23/12/11 07:18 PM
1

The state can say that there is a minimum standard of living, but not a minimum level of money. I don't understand how you can meaningfully enforce a contribution towards a minimum standard of living without involving money.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 07:05 PM
5

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how this is a men's rights issue? Is the issue here that a girl went missing instead of a boy?
/r/MensRights23/12/11 12:10 AM
0

As your courts have consistently said, the rights enshrined in the Constitution occasionally conflict and must be weighed against each other. If we can agree that all parents have a minimum obligation, then we must agree that there must be some impartial arbiter of what that obligation is or it's meaningless. Since one cannot impartially judge one's own obligations, we must turn to the state, no? So really, your complaint is not that the state is in charge, your complaint is that the state is un…
/r/MensRights23/12/11 12:03 AM
-3

This rather ignores the cost of actually being responsible for the child. If I have a child 100% of the time, there are additional expenses that need to be factored in somehow, like the time off work that I will necessarily bear due to sick days, the costs of childcare that allow me to work, etc. This sounds pretty ideal for a person who wants to walk away from a child and immediately reduce their contribution to the requirements for bare sustenance, but I don't see how that's reasonable.
/r/MensRights22/12/11 11:55 PM
0

Not discrimination, women choose to earn less money. Studies have shown that women are paid less for equivalent jobs. Women also face hiring bias -- graduation rates from universities (essentially the last point where a person has complete control) do not translate into the same level of representation in the workforce. You have to assume that when a person buries themself in student loans that they intend to work. Are women facing discrimination, are they lazy, are they stupid, or is there some…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:26 PM
1

Alright, but it seems inane to point out what you are obviously already aware of: income, political power, and reproductive rights. Men earn more, are overrepresented at all levels of government, and have varying degrees of control over their right to bear or not bear children. These factors matter a lot to women -- possibly as much as the issues you are raising for the plight of men, or perhaps not. However, to claim that males suffer vastly more than women seems to show more of your lack of em…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:40 AM
3

When someone offers you an unsubstantiated assertion, you can't just respond with your own and claim a victory.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:16 AM
2

Women can generate an equal sized laundry list of complaints. The number of bullet points doesn't necessarily correspond with the degree of coverage of the needs and desires of human life. All you've really done is determine what's important to you, or at least Celda, but you haven't shown that your priorities correspond to a woman's, all women's, or even all people's. I do appreciate that you've tried to quantify the argument, but the (Celda's) argument appears specious due to its conspicuous l…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 07:11 AM
1

The argument may well be false. Only by quantifying the amount of discrimination experienced by men vs women can that argument be validated. Which is point I raised initially. In the face of a quantitative argument, the response claimed to address the quantitative aspect yet was clearly insufficient. The "discussion" becomes no more than a literal example of he said/she said.
/r/MensRights21/12/11 06:59 AM
3

I'm going to paraphrase your wall of text a little, but I don't think I'm going to radically mischaracterize you. Anecdotal Evidence? (paraphrase: men are discriminated against in some areas) Sure, I don't dispute that women are favoured in some areas. Personal experience is, at least so far still, an important part of social science issues. (paraphrase: social science is weak in data, so we have to use proxies) It might be weak, but it's all we have, because the alternative is weaker and possib…
/r/MensRights21/12/11 05:11 AM
1

If that's the structure of the argument, then the blue team is failing, because introducing evidence that doesn't contradict the premise is an invalid approach. If the argument is that men don't face remotely as much discrimination as women, the response can really only be "men face as much or more discrimination than women because here are statistics that show my case". Anything else is just idle speculation.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 05:35 PM
-2

Again, this doesn't actually address the original point. You've just modified it and said "look, over in this corner of the bin there are more blue balls than red balls", while not considering the whole bin.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 05:30 PM
6

It appears to fall down at the upper left corner where it says "Yes they do. For instance..." This implies an anecdotal response to a statistical argument. In essence, looking at a bin full of hundreds of red balls and one blue ball hearing "the vast majority of these balls are red" and replying "well, this ball over here is blue". I'm not weighing in on whether men necessarily face more or less discrimination than women, but this graphic is logically flawed.
/r/MensRights20/12/11 04:40 PM
2

Are you saying that women have most of the wealth in the world? What makes you think that?
/r/MensRights20/12/11 05:48 AM
1

I'm not totally clear on what point is being made here.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 09:45 AM
19

Hey, maybe I'll cut my losses and just hold her down real slow and fuck that sweet bitch mouth of hers. I'm a rapist and creep already right? Actually, you kinda sound like a rapist and a creep. That thought process never went through my mind at all. If these are the responses that float through your head, maybe you should seek counseling.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 01:13 AM
11

The police thought they had stolen the car. Then, after investigating, it was determined that they had not stolen the car, and they were released without charge. aka the system worked and people are getting upset about nothing.
/r/MensRights19/12/11 12:48 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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