TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

user1492 Archive

View 1 posts and 721 comments by user1492 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)
23

Edu./Occu.user1492/r/MensRights07/01/16 10:09 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
11

Im curious to know how you think they should pe "punnished", and also punnished for what? I didn't say they should be punished. I pointed out that they weren't punished for violating the law. I'm sure the law does provide appropriate penalties (probably fines) for engaging in illegal sex-based discrimination. Those penalties should be assessed against the group.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:06 AM
7

Are you implying that this wouldn’t be the case if genders were switched? No, I'm noting that there was no penalty for violating the law by this group. There is probably a good explanation why they didn’t punish the organizers. A law without penalty is no law at all. If there is no consequence for violating the law, what is the effect of the law? I suspect that if a men's group were convicted under this law they would be penalized.
/r/MensRights19/12/18 03:05 AM
899

there will be no penalty for organisers
/r/MensRights18/12/18 06:34 PM
6

People like this
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/18 11:39 PM
6

Unfortunately there’s a third group that doesn’t see post-birth murder as a problem.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/12/18 10:39 PM
-1

/r/drumpfisfinished
/r/PussyPassDenied12/12/18 12:51 PM
13

It’s literally no worse than an abortion Yes, it fucking is. This woman murdered her child. She should at the very least be incarcerated for the rest of her life. Stop justifying murder.
/r/PussyPass25/11/18 05:51 PM
7

If you are sworn in before the court or other administrative body to tell the truth then it's "under oath." If you're swearing that a statement is true then it's a "declaration." The distinction is (almost) completely irrelevant as the two are treated the same under the law. Both can subject you to charges of perjury.
/r/MensRights07/11/18 07:36 PM
8

There are countries where it is safe to live away from the cities. There are countries where it is not safe to live away from the cities. The difference between the two is whether homeowners are able to defend themselves against crime.
/r/PussyPass20/10/18 11:41 PM
11

No, he probably doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't racist. I'm hardly a tumblr type when it comes to this shit, but it's not hard to see the racist elements of this fetish.
/r/PussyPass19/04/18 12:56 PM
15

Interracial cuckholdry is a pretty common fetish. The objectification of black men in that fantasy is pretty damn racist.
/r/PussyPass19/04/18 02:54 AM
6

How do you not have time to cook dinner if you only work 50 hours a week?
/r/MensRights09/04/18 08:35 PM
1

Most courts have an easy solution for this: they provide an audio recording of the proceeding. If you want to appeal you have a court reporter listen to the proceedings and provide a transcript. the opposing party can then challenge the transcript and provide their own if they think the first party got it wrong.
/r/MensRights10/10/17 10:12 PM
25

Sounds like illegal sex-based discrimination. File a complaint here
/r/MensRights01/10/17 01:26 AM
4

Likely very few. Catholics are pretty clear on their opposition to medical birth control.
/r/MensRights14/09/17 08:59 PM
3

Get out of here with the crazy conspiracy shit.
/r/MensRights25/07/17 11:14 AM
3

And who are this "left" funded by? Progressives, mostly.
/r/MensRights25/07/17 11:06 AM
15

Lawyer up. There is no excuse for this. If they have made statements that you were discriminated against on the basis of your gender and/or age then there are laws they have violated. It doesn't matter if they're a private university.
/r/MensRights25/07/17 11:05 AM
1

My lawyer says this is only temporary, and we have a good shot at getting it reduced in the permanent ruling. This is high risk stuff. Your lawyer is right. Judges at preliminary hearings don't really look deeply at what's going on. They just see your current paycheck, compare it to hers, and make a decision. At the permanent hearing you will be able to impute income to her (close to what she was making) and get an order requiring her to pay.
/r/MensRights18/07/17 07:56 PM
1

but doesn't it fly in the face of MRA's supposed goals of male reproduction rights? Nope. In this case both the father and the mother had the ability to choose to become parents. She could have aborted. He could have signed his rights over to the adoptive parents. They both chose to have the child.
/r/MensRights16/07/17 06:14 PM
1

It's ok to be wrong.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 03:15 PM
1

If you know the nurse is female then you say "the nurse took care of her patients." If you know the nurse is male then you say "the nurse took care of his patients." But if you don't know the gender of the nurse you would say "the nurse took care of his patients." Some people might say "the nurse took care of their patient" or "the nurse took care of his or her patient". Both of these are generally considered grammatically incorrect.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 03:10 PM
1

I'm not sure where you learned writing, but there is no singular gender-neutral pronoun in English. When the sex of the actor is unknown there are typically two approaches. Either you use the gender-neutral plural "they" or you use the gender-specific singular pronoun "his." Standard English teaching has been towards the latter, but the former is gaining in popularity and use.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 09:55 AM
1

the pronoun his clarifies the sex of the nurse No it doesn't. The male pronoun is also used when the gender of the actor is unknown.
/r/MensRights15/07/17 02:06 AM
3

Because the Girl Scouts is shit top to bottom. Many girls in scouts want to do girly stuff. They don't want to go camping or shoot guns. The troop leaders aren't experienced in outdoor activities. They don't have connections with campgrounds. The resources and education aren't there for the kids. The national leadership doesn't care about those types of activities. They are more focused on urban-style Girl Scouts. Empowerment, learning to be a leader, etc. I don't think the Boy Scouts should be …
/r/PussyPassDenied02/07/17 01:57 PM
1

Because it has nothing to do with gender discrimination. At best it deals with LGBT issues which are not gender specific.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 05:08 PM
0

This has nothing to do with Men's Rights. Men remain unequal partners in marriage.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 02:09 PM
1

It's not legal. Those states have decriminalized it. This means that using marijuana will not be a violation of state law. But it still remains illegal federally.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 10:18 AM
1

any ruling based off that would get easily appealed and could become a clusterfuck of states rights vs federal law Nope, the issue is well settled. Federal supremacy means the state cannot overrule the federal government on issues like marijuana possession. There is an argument that federal drug laws are unconstitutional, but it would take a sea change at the Supreme Court and would severely limit the authority of the a Federal government.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 12:33 AM
1

Actually, he could use it as justification. The issue (presumably) the judge was relying on was a general penchant for lawlessness. Whether he is violating federal or state law is irrelevant.
/r/MensRights01/07/17 12:29 AM
1

I am not arguing that point. Possession and use of marijuana is illegal under federal law. Specifically, 21 USC 844 prohibits simple possession. Having THC in your system is prima facie evidence of possession.
/r/MensRights30/06/17 08:57 PM
1

Yeah, he can. Marijuana is not legal anywhere in the U.S.
/r/MensRights30/06/17 07:45 PM
1

Trisha is taking him back to court. He doesn't know for what, however it's probably regarding custody and visitation He better find out. He will get (or has been) served a copy of the motion that her lawyer filed. That will tell him what she is taking him to court for. If the first time he finds out is when he goes into court, he is gonna have a bad time.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 01:35 AM
15

Many acts which we would consider rape today would have been prosecuted as sodomy or assault at common law.
/r/MensRights28/06/17 01:28 AM
1

I would talk to a lawyer first who understands what you're trying to do and what you would expect him to do. This will help you limit your costs. Keep in mind that a lawyer can't represent both you and your ex. He will represent you and your interests. If she wants a lawyer (and she should if you've got one) then she should hire a different one.
/r/MensRights27/06/17 01:35 PM
3

Yes, you can do this all without a lawyer. I wouldn't suggest it, but it is not too difficult. This is not legal advice. I would draw up three separate contracts: a seperation agreement, a custody agreement, and a child support agreement. The seperation agreement will simply be how you divide up property and, if necessary, spousal support (alimony). List your assets, declare who gets what, and agree to transfer title on stuff that needs it. Also, make sure you aren't in a common law marriage. Th…
/r/MensRights27/06/17 11:34 AM
0

HR Sexual harassment complaint.
/r/MensRights22/06/17 10:38 AM
1

The military doesn't want to deal with the political fallout if they punish women for adultery.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 08:10 PM
1

Find a girl that is religious, doesn't have divorced parents, respects her father, and isn't majoring in liberal arts.
/r/MensRights20/06/17 08:02 PM
6

as a result she has pulled her consent to allow our daughter to travel Umm...what consent does she need to provide? You said there is no custody order, right? That means you and she have the same rights when it comes to parenting decisions and custody. Take your kid on the trip.
/r/MensRights19/06/17 11:30 AM
120

I'm left-of-center, and have spent my entire adult life fighting for the rights of women, children, the poor, immigrants, and for people of color. Congratulations. Your efforts seem to have paid off.
/r/MensRights18/06/17 01:07 PM
4

Are there any cases on the subject of encouraging someone to commit suicide? I'm not aware of any, but I don't do this sort of work.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 05:45 PM
1

You can probably file an emergency petition with the court today. Whether you will actually be heard is up in the air, but it's a shot. Simply write down the details - you have custody this weekend, she said she's going to deny you custody, and you need an emergency order from the court instructing her to obey the order. Even if you don't get the kids file a motion for contempt on Monday. Don't let this shit stand.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 11:09 AM
2

If you're looking for reasonable women in college join a church group.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 04:52 AM
-1

It is literally just like giving an uncut guy a handjob. People on this sub make up all kinds of shit on circumcision and point to fringe cases as if they're normal.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:18 PM
9

I like Notch. He has "fuck you" money and isn't afraid to say "fuck you" a lot.
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:15 PM
3

Unless the job were "shoving things in your vagina" I'm not sure what job a man would be unable to do that a woman could. The advertisement you linked is blatantly illegal.
/r/MensRights01/06/17 05:38 PM
3

I don't think anyone seriously believes that the judge doesn't have the authority to sentence her to a suspended sentence. The question is whether the judge's decision to suspend her sentence is appropriate. Also, you get a year off your sentence for a "timely guilty plea"? That's pretty messed up.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 11:00 PM
36

The top time for men in the 10k swim at the 2016 olympics was 1:52:59.8 The same event for women was 1:56:32.1 If the women's gold medalist had competed with the men she would have ended second from last.
/r/MensRights20/05/17 06:29 PM
96

It's not just that there is no penalty. There is positive reinforcement for identifying yourself as a victim of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights19/05/17 02:46 PM
2

I think sending our feminists to the Islamic world is a good idea.
/r/MensRights08/04/17 09:29 PM
6

Start by not believing that everything on the right, or everything you disagree with, is evil.
/r/MensRights08/04/17 03:37 PM
2

The good thing you have going for you is that you are former military. Here is a site where you can find legal aid resources for your branch of service. That is where I would start. Insert normal "do what your lawyer tells you" disclaimer. However, if you can't get a lawyer, then you need to get in touch with the Texas AG personally and get a statement in writing of how much you're in arrears, how much you have paid (both active and towards the arrearage), and how much your wages are being garni…
/r/MensRights08/04/17 12:48 PM
1

File a complaint with the EEOC. You can also file a complaint with your local state office.
/r/MensRights05/04/17 11:13 PM
1

Federal law also applies in Virginia and Rhode Island. There's nothing special about being a "commonwealth."
/r/MensRights04/04/17 10:16 PM
1

She is 6'2"? Ben Stiller is a midget.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/04/17 11:50 AM
0

He got a fuck you 24 months for being a Republican.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 10:53 AM
17

"I will respect your choice to leave your diction choices ‘as is’ .. I will still need to subtract a point" Obviously the teacher doesn't understand what "respect" means.
/r/MensRights30/03/17 10:51 AM
-1

Had to do some reading on this. Here is a good discussion of paternity law in Florida. Most states have a presumption that the husband of a married woman is the father of a child born during the marriage. This makes sense for a number of reasons. But this presumption is reputable, and only requires that the putative father show that he is the biological father of the child. Florida takes this a step further. The putative father cannot override the presumption simply by showing he is the biologic…
/r/MensRights16/03/17 11:24 AM
4

Even if she were right (and she's not), simply because sexual violence against men is not called "rape" is irrelevant. Men are victims of sexual violence and sexual violence against men should be taken as seriously as sexual violence against women.
/r/MensRights16/03/17 11:00 AM
3

Sometimes "respect" means "defer to my authority." Sometimes "respect" means ""treat like a human." Sometimes people say "Unless you respect me, I will not respect you" and they mean "unless you defer to my authority I will not treat you like a human."
/r/MensRights14/03/17 11:05 PM
26

Drake, not Duke.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 10:59 PM
2

2xc is a default.
/r/MensRights11/03/17 10:16 PM
0

I understand that view, but if you read through the article she isn't in trouble for sharing that photo, or anything connected to that photo. She is charged with “neglected to supervise our children by allowing their images to be online and so put them at an unreasonable risk of harm.” She came within the sights of child services and they wanted to charge her, so they found something. Yes, it was a men's rights issue that put her in the spotlight, but it's abusive child services that kept her th…
/r/MensRights08/03/17 02:27 PM
-9

"It's certainly a loaded issue..." No it isn't. The woman is being prosecuted for sharing pictures of her kids online. It that were illegal Facebook would be out of business and millions of parents would be subject to prosecution. I still don't see how it's a men's rights issue, except to point out how broken child welfare services are.
/r/MensRights07/03/17 04:51 PM
1

Some provinces in Canada impose a common law marriage on two people if they have cohabitation in a conjugal relationship for several years. At least in the US you have to actually hold yourself out as married.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 02:33 AM
8

A failure? Why? Because someone was beating you up and you were smart enough to call the police? No, that's called being smart. There's nothing wrong with asking for help. A snitch? Why? Because you exposed a criminal to the police? If it wasn't you it would have been someone else. Criminals typically don't stop their behavior unilaterally. They need someone to stop them. Where do you go? Call the police. There's likely a victim's advocate you can talk to. He will help you figure out the process…
/r/MensRights02/03/17 12:04 PM
14

It turns out that testosterone therapy makes girls stronger.
/r/MensRights26/02/17 02:46 PM
13

Give her six months in jail, that will sort her out... But what about the children? Who will take care of them if you lock up their mother? Better make that two months probation.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 09:59 PM
1

Say a pedophile sexually abuses your 12 year old daughter. You want him to DIRECTLY have contact with her? In the same room, talking with her? That seems like a good idea to you? Yes.
/r/MensRights24/02/17 03:17 AM
2

Honestly, if someone actually was abused, do you want their abuser to DIRECTLY question them? Yes.
/r/MensRights23/02/17 10:00 PM
-3

By golly, you're right! Abortion is not about women's health, except for the roughly half of aborted children that are women.
/r/MensRights20/02/17 09:56 PM
-2

What other medical procedure involves murdering someone?
/r/MensRights20/02/17 09:25 PM
0

Buy a MAGA hat and move out.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 03:43 PM
81

"There's a difference between violence against women and men being violent towards each other." Caption of picture showing a man and a woman sword fighting.
/r/MensRights18/02/17 03:29 PM
1

I would complain to HR. Use the term "hostile work environment."
/r/MensRights16/02/17 12:14 PM
7

It's not legal. Unless there is a restraining order or existing custody order you can go see your kids right now.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 02:20 PM
6

There are already cases of rape victims being forced to support their abuser who carried a child to term.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 01:01 PM
4

I see what you're getting at but there's zero danger to a man's body, or even their life, with pregnancy Unless she keeps the baby, then he is indebted to her for at least the next 18 years. Maybe 18 years of forced support is worse than 9 months of forced support.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 01:00 PM
3

A child deserves both of their parents. Some things should not be for sale. Good point. Makes me wonder where the kid's father was in all of this.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 03:14 PM
2

More than half, less than all.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 03:11 PM
4

"Shut up," they explained.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 04:14 AM
2

Harsh? Nope, I'm pretty Ok with most of these.
/r/MensRights12/02/17 03:36 AM
2

Yeah, I know about home state laws. But wouldn't the issue of paternity be determined based on the state of residence where and when the child was born? For example, if Arizona says signing the birth certificate is not presumptive paternity and Illinois says it is (IDK, they could be the same) then the issue should be decided under Arizona law. It seems like the determination of paternity would be substantive rather than procedural and choice of law would favor applying Arizona law.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 11:50 PM
2

He will have to dispute it in Chicago, but I'm reasonably sure that Arizona law will apply. But I'm not that familiar with choice of law in Illinois.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 10:44 PM
19

Yeah, he's probably fucked on the 18k. It is going to depend on Arizona's laws on paternity. He could fight it, but it would be an uphill battle. Your friend needs a lawyer. That's the only advice he needs right now.
/r/MensRights04/02/17 07:34 PM
1

I don't know if the kid was moved to Ohio, but if you need a recommendation for a local attorney let me know.
/r/MensRights27/01/17 10:47 AM
9

That's because men - particularly white, non-college educated men - have not done very well in the Obama economy. CNN in general, and Fareed Zakaria in particular, are concerned with protecting the image of President Obama. If the facts don't support the image they want to present then they will selectively report the facts so that they do.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 09:51 PM
2

Just giving you some tips. When you're drafting legal arguments you don't equivocate. You state the facts and argue that they are in violation of the law.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 12:25 PM
6

It is my perception that the approach to sexual/gendered violence and other topics served to support a hostile environment by applying a false dichotomy between males and females. Don't say it is your "perception." You are filing a compliant because the course does treat men and women differently. Also, the complained of behavior did not "serve[] to support a hostile environment," the school's behavior created a hostile environment. This creates an environment in which it may be seen as one-side…
/r/MensRights22/01/17 03:26 AM
1

Very rarely are you going to find an attorney who doesn't suggest mediation or settlement. Good attorneys will try to save you money.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 03:24 AM
2

I don't think that rationale works with Unroh cases. Courts have strictly construed the statute against businesses. But I'm not a lawyer in California.
/r/MensRights20/01/17 03:20 AM
19

California has the Unroh Civil Rights Act that prohibits sex-based discrimination in all businesses. You could talk to an attorney that specializes in sex discrimination cases to see if you have a case.
/r/MensRights19/01/17 11:46 AM
5

True, STDs don't last for 18 years and cost $100k.
/r/MensRights13/01/17 08:09 PM
2

Oh absolutely. The judges were incredulous that they were actually arguing immunity here. There can be no question that the defendants (taking the complaint at face value) knew their conduct was not only an unconstitutional deprivation of rights, it was criminal. Like I said, under other sets of facts it is a legitimate argument. Under this set of facts it doesn't even pass the laugh test, which is why I'm convinced the firm is just padding their bill.
/r/MensRights12/01/17 01:10 AM
3

Basically what the attorney is arguing is "there is no case on point that says 'committing perjury to deprive someone of their rights is beyond the scope of employment.' If there's no case law, how do employees know they should avoid doing it?" It is an argument that has merit under other sets of facts. A public employee shouldn't be punished for doing something unconstitutional when they don't know, and have no way of knowing, that it is unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 04:01 PM
9

Is intentionally committing a felony in order to destroy a family within the scope of their job. That's the issue that was being argued. Whether they knew what they were doing was wrong, and therefore beyond the scope of their jobs so that immunity doesn't apply.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 03:51 PM
17

That is how it works. Individual employees of the state or federal government, when acting within the scope of their jobs, have immunity from suit as individuals. The aggrieved party could seek redress from the government itself. That said, this wasn't a serious argument. The attorneys knew that the facts and the law were not on their side. The firm was just inflating its bill by making this appeal so they could give a young attorney some practice arguing a case. The state is paying their bill a…
/r/MensRights11/01/17 12:00 PM
2

lobbying against homosexual marriage is good as social work for who? As social work for people who oppose gay marriage. Lobbying has little to do with social work.
/r/MensRights06/01/17 07:46 PM
1

This is a textbook case of viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional under the first amendment. The government can require people, as a condition of receiving a degree, to engage in certain activities, like lobbying or supporting social services. But they cannot, absent extreme circumstances, require students to take a certain side. There is no reason, beyond viewpoint discrimination, that the school could not give him credit for lobbying against homosexual marriage or working for a church a…
/r/MensRights06/01/17 04:49 PM
3

Depends on your state. /r/legaladvice is a good place for this, although they usually don't like hypothetical or "is this legal" questions.
/r/MensRights06/01/17 12:21 AM
1

If we can't prove within a shadow of a doubt that a person is guilty, it's better to try no one rather than convict an innocent person. Then no one would ever be convicted. It would literally be convicting on gossip/hearsay No, hearsay is when you repeat what someone else said. We are not convicting on hearsay, we are convicting on witness testimony. Keep in mind you're essentially saying the man in the original post had tough luck but he should just deal with the fact that the law makes mistake…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 12:23 PM
1

There's no requirement that testimony be supported by physical evidence.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 12:15 PM
-2

Testimony cannot be verified if it lacks evidence. Fortunately that's not a requirement in our legal system.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:21 AM
5

That's why there is cross-examination during most cases. Although I will readily admit this is a problem in rape cases - particularly juvenile rape - where cross examination is at best limited.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:14 AM
-8

So we should convict on essentially a he said she said situation? Actually in my example I never said it was a "he said/she said" situation. What if the defendant refuses to testify? So if I claimed you robbed me and we can't find proof of it, the court should find in favor of me and I should get your hard earned money? The court could, sure. You're talking about civil litigation, not criminal. If there is sufficient evidence to support a verdict that you committed a tort against me then the jud…
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:13 AM
-10

Suppose you see someone commit a murder right in front of you. You see him throw the gun in the river. The gun is never recovered. There is no physical evidence connecting him to the crime. Do you think that your testimony would be, or should be, enough to convict?
/r/MensRights05/01/17 04:44 AM
6

You can file an emergency motion for custody citing your history of raising the child, ongoing relationship with the mother, admitting paternity, and her threats of self-harm. If it's granted, such a motion would give you sole physical custody until a hearing can be held on determine if joint custody is in the best interest of a child. Personally, I'd fight giving her any amount of custody. If she is suicidal, imagine what she would do to your kid. Talk to a lawyer.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 11:09 PM
-1

He still has no legal rights to the child unless he goes and gets a court order for them. This is a common misconception, assuming you're in the United States. If a man is the legal father of a child then he has exactly the same rights as the mother when it comes to custody of the child. He can leave with the child, he can deny visitation to the mother, he can even take the kids out of state. Unless there is an existing custody order (or protective order, etc), the father has just as much right …
/r/MensRights30/12/16 04:04 PM
0

Ok basic ethics: don't harm children at all Is spanking harming children? How about surgery? Cosmetic ear piercing? Is any type of non-corporal punishment acceptable? Or would that contradict "basic ethics?" If "don't harm children" is basic ethics, why do so few cultures actually accept that as a standard?
/r/MensRights28/12/16 10:34 PM
9

Curious what she thinks about the Clinton presidency.
/r/MensRights28/12/16 06:48 PM
-1

Do you support doctors telling misinformation to parents about circumcision? I don't support doctors telling children anything false. But "false information" and "different opinion than mine" are two wholly different things. I'm going to trust the guy with years of medical training to give me medically relevant advice, not some guy on the internet. How about them selling the foreskin to cosmetic companies and laboratories? Not really, provided the parents consent. I'm not really sure how that ha…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 12:25 PM
0

False analogy and another false analogy. It's not a false analogy. I'm asking if you are consistent with your principle of "basic ethics." Apparently you are not, or you would have answered the question. How about you you answer shadowguyver's questions? How is that pertinent? Are you honestly going to make the argument that cutting off little pieces of baby boys and girls is ethical? I can. But we need to establish what we consider "ethical." Do you believe in an absolute moral authority? I tho…
/r/MensRights28/12/16 12:23 PM
-2

Is that a tenet of basic ethics? Quick question: do you support abortion? Maybe that's a bit extreme. How about ear piercing for infants?
/r/MensRights28/12/16 06:21 AM
-1

He claimed it was a violation of "basic ethics," not "medical ethics."
/r/MensRights28/12/16 06:19 AM
-2

Define basic ethics pls.
/r/MensRights28/12/16 05:34 AM
-1

Men who were not circumcised when newborn have little in the way of a valid opinion on the subject. They simply don't know.
/r/MensRights28/12/16 05:34 AM
9

First thing I would do is call your physician and speak to their HIPAA compliance officer. Figure out how to file charges for fraud and violations of your medical privacy. Next figure out past custody and child support. Support follows the child, so if you had custody there is no reason she should have been receiving money. If you were paying, you could try to set aside the agreement and ask for the money you paid in return. Finally is the issue of custody going forward. If your wife is ignoring…
/r/MensRights24/12/16 03:56 PM
1

Nah, it's probably covered by the hearsay rule.
/r/MensRights23/12/16 10:53 PM
4

So go file a sexual harassment claim. Title IX complaints are supposed to be treated with regard to the complainants privacy, and there are theoretically punishments for retribution against someone making a Title IX claim. Guess what would happen if an athlete at a major university filed a Title IX complaint over this? First, it would somehow get leaked to the press, who would pick up on the story and plaster the guys name all over the front page. The person who released the complaint would prob…
/r/MensRights22/12/16 03:28 AM
1

You're right. But the OP is asking for a good response to the "companies need to hire more women" argument. A good response to that is women already are disproportionately represented in a lot of industries - which tend to be higher paid and less dangerous.
/r/MensRights21/12/16 03:08 AM
2

Why should you oppose this idea? I think you should endorse it wholeheartedly. Women make up 65% of "Education Administrators." Put a quota of 50% (+- a few points) on that. They make up 75% of human resource managers. We need a 50% quota on that. Event planning, fundraising, psychologists, and counselors are lo over 70%. We need a 50% quota. Kindergarten teachers are 95% women. 80% in elementary school and librarians. It drops to 60% in high school. But where are these women going to go? Don't …
/r/MensRights20/12/16 07:21 PM
5

When I inquired about my due process rights, I was told by the Provost that I didn't have any Assuming this is provable, and not just word of mouth, he has a pretty easy case. When it comes to public employers, employees absolutely have due process rights. I might not agree with it, but they certainly exist.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 04:58 AM
5

Consent is necessary if the adoption agency knows who the father is. But in cases where the father is missing, or the mother doesn't know who the father is, it would be a ridiculously high burden to try to figure it out. The problem is that women often lie so they can just get rid of the child. And adoption agencies rarely investigate paternity with much diligence. In fact, they have an incentive not to investigate paternity. Some (most?) states have a "putitive father registry" where a man can …
/r/MensRights15/12/16 02:21 PM
8

The gender neutral singular pronoun is "he." You use it when you are unsure about an individual's gender. But when you are talking specifically about a person you would use the appropriate pronoun - he or she - given their sex.
/r/MensRights13/12/16 05:58 PM
2

They're not pro-choice, they are pro-abortion. They don't want women to choose because they might choose wrong.
/r/MensRights05/12/16 01:04 AM
1

Usually there is a requirement that there was some intention to form a lasting relationship similar to marriage. The idea was to provide marriage rights to couples who didn't go through formal registration of their relationship with the state.
/r/MensRights02/12/16 11:43 AM
6

Sorry, doesn't work when you're a man.
/r/MensRights01/12/16 06:39 PM
2

How can you consider yourself "liberal" while voting for Bernie? Anyway, the Men's Rights movement is neither left nor right. It is a single issue that has not been adopted by either side. However, the left has been very averse to the Men's Rights movement.
/r/MensRights27/11/16 12:35 AM
3

Eh, post it to /r/2x and see what happens. I'm sure there would be more than a few blaming the husband,
/r/MensRights25/11/16 12:23 PM
9

In principle, I agree with you. But there are no remaining men-only spaces, besides locker rooms and bathrooms. The reality is that men-only spaces are socially and legally objectionable and women-only spaces are praised. This is a problem.
/r/MensRights19/11/16 12:50 PM
10

Do you think that your daughter is benefitting from learning all this hateful material? If you think it is helping her, then I'm not sure what you are complaining about. If you don't think it is helping her, why would you continue to fund destructive behavior? Doing the right thing for your kids sometimes means not respecting their decisions. It sucks and is no fun, but you're doing the best for them.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 11:45 PM
12

Why are you supporting this behavior? She's 18, she can support herself.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 10:47 PM
3

no one else will be charged with Nikki's murder unless fresh evidence comes to light. Did they not charge the child's mother?
/r/MensRights12/11/16 05:11 PM
1

OK, then why does that matter? Women, as a group, tend to be more left-leaning than men. Men, particularly working class men, supported Donald Trump overwhelmingly.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 02:04 AM
1

No they didn't. CNN. Pew Women went 54% to Hillary.
/r/MensRights12/11/16 01:46 AM
1

The ironic thing is if there was no female suffrage Trump would have lost this election. You know that Trump received fewer votes from women than Hillary, right?
/r/MensRights11/11/16 04:37 PM
3

/r/TumblrInAction
/r/MensRights11/11/16 03:47 PM
1

Thanks guys.
/r/MensRights10/11/16 02:45 PM
1

Seeing this a lot on the reddit echo chamber and it's not true. Sanders wouldn't have been anywhere close to winning against Trump. Hillary was the better candidate against whatever candidate the Republicans chose to field.
/r/MensRights09/11/16 11:04 PM
1

If you don't want to have a kid, don't have sex. Or be a woman.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 11:44 PM
2

And if the children had been harmed by Koresh or his followers, then Janet would be blamed for not raiding them. No one would have blamed the attorney general for not raiding, murdering, and burning down a compound. There was never any suggestion that the Koresh cult was a danger to the children living there. You are engaging in post hoc revisionism to justify the awful things that Reno did.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 01:08 PM
1

The English language has a very powerful word. It is one of the most difficult words to say, but it can have a profound effect on your life if you can manage it. And now she is wanting me to pay for her bondsman fee and lawyer fees because I called the police. No. She is the bad person here, not you. You deserve better than someone who will physically attack you because she thought you were being unfaithful. Leave or kick her out.
/r/MensRights08/11/16 03:34 AM
16

It is to provide the university cover to protect the right people from losing their jobs by saying offensive or inappropriate things. The problem is this guy isn't expressing the right kind of offensive things.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 11:01 PM
33

This is why I always go through a clinic when donating supermarkets.
/r/MensRights06/11/16 01:46 PM
1

I won't disagree that a fetus after 21 weeks has enough brain development to be considered "alive", and this is largely why the limit on abortions is 20 weeks. There is no such limit in the United States. Abortion advocates argue that late-term abortion bans should be struck down. Even in states that prohibit abortion after 20 weeks there must be an exception for a woman's health, which includes mental health. There are plenty of opportunities for a woman to get a late term abortion without subs…
/r/PussyPassDenied25/10/16 02:10 AM
7

this petition infringes on the protected class of freedom of expression for the filmmaker Don't write this. This is nonsensical legal-sounding tripe. You could write something like: This petition seeks to silence the filmmaker for expressing a controversial view.
/r/MensRights24/10/16 11:48 PM
3

Morals (religion) should be left out of it. What other aspects of the law do you think should be free of religious or moral consideration? Personally, I think it is fine to impose moral beliefs on other people. For example, I think murder is immoral.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/10/16 01:45 PM
2

Damn politicians getting in the way of a woman trying to murder her children...
/r/PussyPassDenied24/10/16 01:12 PM
3

Women don't have to jump through hoops to get abortions.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/10/16 01:11 PM
3

There are no significant restrictions on abortion in the US.
/r/MensRights24/10/16 01:10 PM
1

The crazy part is that she could have quickly, easily, and relatively inexpensively gotten an abortion Don't murder your baby, murder your baby instead.
/r/MensRights24/10/16 01:08 PM
1

Married couples don't get health benefits? Hospital visits? Tax breaks? Inheritance/SS benefits etc.. as a widow/er? Those are benefits afforded by the government. They are not rights. Even if you want to argue that they are statutory rights, they are granted to individuals, not to the married couple.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 10:44 PM
1

Oh and as for comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Well just know that we can recognise a bigot when we see one. I didn't compare homosexuality to pedophilia. Although pedophilia is a serious problem in the gay community that no one wants to address. Obviously you lack any legal knowledge, so I'm not going to bother trying to educate you. Read through the Supreme Court decision and see how it justifies gay marriage but closes the door to any other "right to marry."
/r/MensRights22/10/16 04:20 PM
1

He needs to file for custody. Fuck her and her new boyfriend, he is that kid'a dad.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 01:32 PM
2

Why is it okay when Hillary does it? Because she is a Democrat. The media supports her both publicly and privately. Why would they publish stories that would diminish her chances to win?
/r/MensRights22/10/16 01:27 PM
0

Straight couples were allowed to obtain marriage licenses while homosexual couples were not allowed to obtain marriage licenses. Rights do not belong to groups, even couples. Rights belong to individuals. Individuals had the right to get married if they chose to. Allowing women to do something men are banned from is sexist and not equal. That's incorrect. There are real differences between men and women. Marriage laws were at the forefront of these differences, as the differences between men and…
/r/MensRights22/10/16 01:21 PM
-1

There's a huge difference between two people considering themselves married and the state recognizing their union. There's really not. I knew gay people who were "married" before the Supreme Court said "fuck you" to the state legislatures. No one cared. Why do you think gay people were so adamant they they deserved the same treatment under the law and straight couples? Mostly bigotry. They had the same treatment under the law.
/r/MensRights22/10/16 02:26 AM
0

It was not illegal for a gay couple to obtain a marriage license, they were unable to obtain a marriage license. A marriage license is not required for two people to consider themselves married. Lots of people figured out the whole marriage thing long before we had marriage licenses. Gay marriage was never "illegal" and it was never "legalized."
/r/MensRights22/10/16 01:29 AM
-1

Nope. You would never have been fined, imprisoned, or otherwise punished for having a gay wedding.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 10:57 PM
-12

Gay marriage was never illegal in the US.
/r/MensRights21/10/16 08:36 PM
65

"People would be offended" is not, under American jurisprudence and statutory law, sufficient reason to engage in sex-based discrimination. Find a copy of your school's policy. There should be a section on Title IX. There should be a person you can file a Title IX complaint with. File the complaint, explain that the administration allowed a female-focused group but refused a male-focused group. Just give them the facts. No opinions or statistics beyond "I think the school should allow allow a Me…
/r/MensRights16/10/16 01:13 AM
9

But what country? Public or private?
/r/MensRights16/10/16 12:37 AM
1

Especially if it was Carly. Do you remember Sarah Palin? Left wing nut jobs are still attacking her.
/r/MensRights15/10/16 03:55 PM
3

Rule 4: make them live by their own rules
/r/MensRights14/10/16 11:44 PM
1

The closest you get is Bush Jr, and even Trump out does that. Are you kidding? Do you not remember Biden telling the NAACP in 2012, "They want to put you back in chains?" The DNC making the argument that Republicans wanted to repeal the right of blacks to vote during the '08 election? I'm not sure what you remember about Bush, but Al Gore called him a traitor. Mainstream Democrats argued that he caused the 9/11 attacks - not policy, but launched missiles at the twin towers. That he wanted soldie…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 11:40 PM
6

If she was to run against any capable candidate, being a woman or not being a woman, she would never be elected president Wrong. Romney is a very liberal Republican and would have made a great president. He was humble, successful, and generous. Democrats savaged him as racist and sexist. They attacked everything about him except his political record. McCain is a very middle-of-the-road Republican. He had a history of working with Democrats in the Senate. Once again, attacked for being racist and…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:32 PM
3

/r/Politics is that way. The harassment allegations are nothing but politics. The left doesn't care about sexual harassment. They elected president, and continue to extoll the virtues of, a man who was accused of raping at least two women. Hillary is profoundly anti-male. I have no problem voting for Trump so she doesn't get in office and continue the anti-male agenda of the Obama administration.
/r/MensRights14/10/16 12:57 PM
3

Obligatory not your lawyer. You likely won't get a change of the custody order at a contempt hearing. If you want to do that you would have to file a motion to change the custody order. At the contempt hearing just show evidence that you were supposed to have custody, you attempted to take custody, and she refused you custody. This can be text messages, emails, voicemail, etc. If this is the first contempt hearing she likely won't face any consequences beyond a warning. Research some places midw…
/r/MensRights13/10/16 07:16 PM
3

Obviously the professor uses Bing.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 10:13 AM
6

Just take her in the men's room with you, that's what I do with my girls.
/r/MensRights13/10/16 10:10 AM
1

The perfect is the enemy of the good. If you're going to compare every candidate to a perfect, ideal candidate, then you are never going to find a candidate that you can support. President Obama has advanced anti-male legislation, like the [anti-]Violence Against Women Act, the infamous "dear colleague" letter to universities, and signed overtly sexist Executive Orders. The President panders to feminists and adopts their anti-male talking points. Hillary has promised to have more of the same. Th…
/r/MensRights12/10/16 03:00 AM
2

Trump was talking about consensual acts, not sexual molestation. The molesters are on the other side of the political aisle.
/r/MensRights12/10/16 02:55 AM
10

Not a Canadian lawyer. If you were in the US the first thing I would suggest is filing a motion for an emergency custody hearing. There you would present evidence that the child was born in your province, raised most of her life in your province, has an ongoing relationship with you (the presumptive father), and that moving her from the province has resulted in a violation of your informal custody agreement. I'd ask that the court decide that your province is her home jurisdiction, ask the court…
/r/MensRights11/10/16 06:20 PM
2

He linked to the section of the act that defines public buildings. It means buildings owned by the Federal Government.
/r/MensRights11/10/16 12:14 PM
2

MRAs don't need to apologize for or justify Trump's comments any more than Feminists need to apologize for or justify Hillary threatenening rape victims.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 08:33 PM
1

Those complaints would be meritless, because the boyfriend was not innocent. He received child pornography and (apparently) did nothing to report or stop it.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 06:01 PM
1

Consensual or not, he is complicit in producing and distributing child pornography.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 01:38 PM
1

Also ALL teens sext. No, they don't.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 01:37 PM
-3

innocent person The boyfriend isn't innocent, he is in possession of child pornography. You may disagree with the law, but the issue is clear.
/r/MensRights10/10/16 01:36 PM
2

It's not a violation of the First Amendment to accommodate someone's religious beliefs. In some cases it is actually required.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 09:23 PM
-1

Hah, no. I'd sleep in the spare room and tell the 5-year-old she can sleep with mom.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 07:41 PM
7

The Left hates Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin. Feminists have said some of the most ridiculous and offensive things about them. Hell, feminists idolize a rapist (at least under their definition) because he was left wing enough for them.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 07:38 PM
1

Kuwait Airlines refuses any service to Israelis. Kuwait chose to cancel their New York-London flights because the US found their discrimination illegal. Arab nations refuse not only Israelis entry into their country, but if you have an Israeli stamp in your passport you will be denied entry. The Muslim world is more intolerant than Israel could ever hope to be.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 07:35 PM
5

She is wrong. The airline has the right to accommodate the men's religious beliefs. Moving her seat was no major inconvenience for her or the airline. She is making a stink about it because she doesn't believe they have a right to have their private religious views.
/r/MensRights05/10/16 07:27 PM
1

Good for him for not apologizing. He's still producing left-wing agitprop.
/r/MensRights04/10/16 02:39 PM
1

There's no way to decide how the money gets spent. The custodial parent gets money and can decide how to spend it. Money is fungible, once she gets it there is no way to distinguish your support from other money she receives. Your best bet is to stop spending money on your child's necessities. The extent of your financial contribution should be the child support payment and any toys you buy stay at your place.
/r/MensRights30/09/16 02:19 PM
1

Men fetishize having female characteristics far more than women fetishizes having male characteristics.
/r/MensRights26/09/16 12:46 PM
1

No, I don't think so. It's hard to allow reasonable women and keep out the whack jobs.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 12:09 PM
8

Try having daughters. Girl scouts is so much worse when it comes to PC culture.
/r/MensRights25/09/16 02:49 AM
1

The important difference between the memes is that M&Ms are delicious and Skittles are concentrated balls of awful.
/r/MensRights22/09/16 06:25 PM
1

Eventually they will say the same thing about Saint Pancake.
/r/MensRights21/09/16 04:59 PM
13

If abortion laws were up to women abortion would be illegal. Men typically have more left-wing views on the subject.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 06:52 PM
18

If there's any justice, the case will be thrown out because the police talked to a minor without permission from his parents. But really, this is example number 379,921,014 why you should not cooperate with the police.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 01:22 PM
6

Only in Wisconsin and California. Most states have a lower age of consent and "Romeo and Juliet" laws.
/r/MensRights16/09/16 01:20 PM
2

If it wasn't in the E.U., I would say that this violates anti-discrimination laws.
/r/MensRights15/09/16 05:22 PM
2

A link that some people might be interested in.
/r/MensRights14/09/16 11:25 PM
2

I was looking into this a bit and ran across this story. What an awful situation for that father, the child, and the woman that wanted to adopt the child. The perpetrator of all this: the child's biological mother.
/r/MensRights13/09/16 01:46 AM
7

Do you have a custody order? Child support order? If not, you need to get those. The only way to get them is in court. You can do it yourself, but it's probably better to hire a lawyer. Until you get those orders, the legal system presumes joint legal custody. If you fear that she poses a risk to the children, you can file for an emergency protective order on behalf of the children. This would prevent her from contacting the children at all until you get the custody orders figured out. However, …
/r/MensRights13/09/16 01:18 AM
1

So to back up a step then, you're saying that Abe Lincoln would've been wrong to refuse to return slaves to their owners until the law had been changed? Yes. Are you saying the President wouldn't be wrong to refuse to enforce anti-slavery laws? But I believe there are times when your moral obligations should take precedence over your job. I agree, in part. But being the President isn't simply a job. He is literally the most powerful individual in the country. There is, for most Presidents in gen…
/r/MensRights11/09/16 12:03 AM
1

No. It is not the job of the President to decide what laws should or should not be enforced, except to the extent that he believes those laws to be unconstitutional. The President is not an ordinary person. He is the chief executive, and has obligations to that office. When he refuses to enforce the law he is abusing his office by taking power from Congress. Would you say it is morally justified if the next President refuses to enforce, on the grounds that it is immoral, the ACA? The EPA? The 14…
/r/MensRights10/09/16 10:15 PM
1

Comparing marijuana to slavery is ridiculous. Also, keep in mind that the President didn't order all officers to stop enforcing the law, only in states where it was "decriminalized." When the POTUS is helping organized crime, there's a problem.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 07:32 PM
8

Not all women lie about being raped. But all must condemn it.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 06:51 PM
1

I'm not simply dismissing it. The fact is that the only type of "systemic" discrimination is economic. Poor people have difficulty getting loans, are more likely to go to jail, etc. Yes, blacks are disproportionately represented in the poorer classes, but that's not because of racism.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 05:56 PM
1

The job of the President is not "to improve the country." His job, in fact part of the oath he takes, is to uphold the laws of the country. The President is the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. By refusing to prosecute people who break the law he is not doing his job.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 05:54 PM
1

Racially biased housing, loan, and prosecution largely don't exist. To the extent there is "systemic" bias in the system it is economic, not racial.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 03:43 PM
1

Why would you support the President not doing the job he was literally hired to do?
/r/MensRights10/09/16 03:41 PM
1

Lol, yeah he has. There are widespread marijuana growing, distribution, and sales that are not being prosecuted because of him.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 12:25 PM
1

Nope. It's a pseudo intellectual buzzword. It means "I don't have to back up anything I say"
/r/MensRights10/09/16 12:23 PM
3

You don't need Congress to start a war. Obama started at least three wars without Congressional approval, and at least one of them was illegal.
/r/MensRights10/09/16 11:54 AM
1

Directed to do this by a telephone call. There was no suggestion that she was threatened.
/r/MensRights08/09/16 11:28 PM
-4

Christian You know the Nazis, like most socialist movements, were anti-Religion, right?
/r/MensRights08/09/16 04:45 PM
7

He can tell the PD that he refuses to register as a sex offender as part of any plea deal. The PD will have to accept that, he cannot force him to take a deal. The other problem is you are mixing up the PD's advice - don't introduce certain evidence because it will make your boyfriend look bad - with what is admissible. I'm not sure what state you're in, but most states only limit admission of the "victim's" previous sexual history. Her mental state, previous relationship between the parties, an…
/r/MensRights06/09/16 03:50 PM
-13

Labor Day is a socialist holiday. Is it any surprise they are trying to tear down men?
/r/MensRights05/09/16 01:50 PM
2

It isn't a matter of forcing a woman to get an abortion. She can choose to get an abortion, or she can choose to carry the child to term. But if she chooses to carry the child to term she does so without burdening the father. A lot of people accept that a woman has the right, beyond the choice to have sex, to decide whether she wants to becomes a mother or not. Equality demands that a man is given the same choice. Financial abortion is that choice. Personally, I disagree with the concept of fina…
/r/MensRights04/09/16 08:08 PM
1

Do you support abortion?
/r/MensRights04/09/16 12:43 PM
4

If your pants are tight enough that someone can see your cervix, then they're probably too tight.
/r/MensRights01/09/16 04:32 PM
1

I've read a lot on Stalin, and don't recall any mentions of him being abusive towards either of his spouses. Although Nadezhda did have signs of mental problems and argued a lot with him.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 05:42 PM
1

According to Justice Ginsburg abortion is about population control, not "women's rights." Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 10:41 AM
3

The putative father registry can also prevent you from challenging paternity later on.
/r/MensRights30/08/16 10:36 AM
4

Well the opening post is legally correct. Under U.S. law you simply can't (a) waive a child's right to child support; or (b) agree to have an abortion. There are some arguments that the current understanding of our laws, particularly when it comes to the "right to abort," should be changed. That is a different argument, and not the point of that sub.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 10:47 PM
9

Sounds like you need some time to get back in your feet. Let him have custody. You can pick her up for school in the morning and drop her off when he gets home from work. If you need state support (food stamps, etc.) then you can apply for them yourself and it shouldn't affect him.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 10:39 PM
1

Here's some data 1974 Men were -11 Conservative, overall -3 Conservative 1979 Men were +3 Conservative, overall +7 Conservative 1983 Men were +12 Conservative, overall +16 Conservative 1987 +11/+11 1992 +4/+8 1997 -14/-13 2001 -10/-9 2005 0/-3 2010 +10/+7 Basically the male vote correlates pretty well to the overall vote.
/r/MensRights29/08/16 03:35 PM
3

Why do you care about being banned from a hate sub?
/r/MensRights24/08/16 06:25 PM
8

More recent information The kids are now 15, 16, and 20. Apparently a court in Quebec had granted her full custody at some point. I am pretty sure this is against the law as we have an agreement with Canada to respect custody decisions. Scary that Canada harbors kidnappers so much.
/r/MensRights24/08/16 11:40 AM
24

You're going to have to look at your custody agreement. Does it say anything about relocation? That would be the easiest. Under ORC 3109.051(G)(1) she needs to notify the court of her intent to move. You can file a motion to have a hearing on whether it would be in the best interest of the child and/or revise the parenting schedule. Edit: sorry, missed the part about her plan to move Wednesday. You can likely get an emergency injunction to stop her from moving your daughter at least until there …
/r/MensRights22/08/16 11:20 AM
36

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. That’s also not really the point. Feminism in a nutshell.
/r/MensRights21/08/16 12:45 PM
4

It requires more than a formal constitution. You need to have a judiciary that respects the Constitution and adheres to it. We have a Constitution in the U.S., but the Judiciary is losing respect for its authority. Mainly because politicians don't respect the Constitution, so they feel no need to appoint judges who respect it.
/r/MensRights19/08/16 02:15 PM
2

Auto moderator says I can't link to that sub. SRS stands for Shit Reddit Says
/r/MensRights12/08/16 04:16 PM
1

Children of Men is a movie that deals with global infertility.
/r/MensRights12/08/16 04:13 PM
2

The "get a lawyer" advice is, unfortunately, the best option. The lawyer should be able to write a nasty letter to the school and get them to back off.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 02:19 PM
2

That sub is actually pretty helpful and well run. If threads get out of control they lock them because the mods want to keep people from arguing about things that aren't an answer to OP's question. Also, larger threads tend to attract more people who try to answer questions, usually quite poorly.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 02:17 PM
10

Depends on what you want to happen. Look up the putative father registry in any state that you think she might give birth in. Note that this may prevent you from contesting paternity in some states. So make sure you look that up. Start documenting, even if it's in a daily journal. Instances of drinking, instances of leaving the house, instances of threatening to withhold your child from you, missed doctor's appointments, if you went to the doctor with her (you should), and everything you can thi…
/r/MensRights08/08/16 04:49 AM
1

Any lawyer that committed insurance fraud would be looking at a suspension or possible disbarment. It's not something the bar would take lightly.
/r/MensRights08/08/16 04:31 AM
1

Get your kid and yourself out of there. Go stay with your parents for a while if you can.
/r/MensRights05/08/16 03:18 AM
2

had just switched dormitories to live closer to the lounge, where she studied at least three times weekly Liar. No one uses that stupid study lounge. It's tucked into a corner of the Union that no one ever goes to.
/r/MensRights02/08/16 01:23 PM
1

No, Maryland's governor signed a bill to abolish the death penalty in 2013.
/r/MensRights31/07/16 11:32 PM
2

On a scale from 0 to 10, I am exactly 0.
/r/MensRights30/07/16 11:05 PM
2

You definitely started that argument. You and your wife obviously have different values, why stay married?
/r/MensRights29/07/16 06:50 PM
2

It wasn't forbidden to men (at least as far as I knew) when I went to school there. It was just a room that had, historically, been used by women's groups and was called the Women's Study Lounge. In the same way a residence hall named "Holme's Hall" isn't exclusively for people named Holmes. The only times I remember it being used were our semi-weekly D&D games. It was not a good place to study for a number of reasons. Times may have changed, I don't know for sure.
/r/MensRights14/07/16 06:03 PM
1

I will, under no circumstances, rape or sexually assault a woman. Why should I be discriminated against because of your irrational fears?
/r/MensRights11/07/16 04:29 PM
2

Did you recently get a raise? Typically child support can't be raised unless there is a change in circumstances. Was the child support level you were paying before below the statutory level? Most states, and I assume NC is the same, have a calculator for determining support payments. Put in your information and find out what the rate should be. Your rate may be lower for a variety of reasons (e.g. hardship), and if those reasons change you can be ordered to pay the full amount. We're you paying …
/r/MensRights08/07/16 01:28 PM
18

The 47-year-old, who has been dating in NYC for the past 20 years, decided to put the app to use after being repeatedly disappointed by the city’s dating pool. "I've tried speed dating and all the dating apps, but every time I put my real age, all I get are idiots and losers" Hard to believe someone hasn't married this gem yet.
/r/MensRights07/07/16 11:53 PM
2

Not to mention a Title IX investigator at Berkeley is more likely to find him guilty of rape.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 06:22 PM
1

Pay attention gents, this is it. Dualism. Quantum feminism. Something both is and is not at the same time. That way they can never lose. The word you're looking for is Doublethink.
/r/MensRights01/07/16 10:12 AM
2

Nothing is going to happen. Sexual contact in New Jersey requires touching the "intimate parts" of another person. This means butt, groin, thigh, or breasts. Kissing someone is not any form of sexual assault, even in New Jersey. If your friends bring it up, just say "she wasn't asleep, she kissed me."
/r/MensRights28/06/16 03:33 AM
2

"While we support the goals of (her organization) and sympathize with people that (her organization is dealing with), unfortunately we are prohibited by law from funding (political issue). We suggest (annoying bitch) find someone else to bankroll her European vacation this year."
/r/MensRights24/06/16 12:11 PM
2

As long as they support the progressive power structure the left loves gays, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, etc. But if you do not support the progressive power structure then the left hates you. Conservatives don't hate or love any "oppressed" group based on their political ideology.
/r/MensRights22/06/16 01:22 PM
1

Submit a FOIA request for any information relating to changing the publication.
/r/MensRights21/06/16 09:28 PM
2

He probably waived it. Which is pretty standard because the prosecution & police will collect a lot of evidence before you are charged. If you want a speedy trial then you are at a disadvantage. Your lawyer only gets a narrow window to examine witnesses and develop evidence.
/r/MensRights20/06/16 05:09 PM
1

Why do we need to abolish it? The draft hasn't been used for 40+ years. If there is a national emergency that requires conscription the lack of a registration system will not stop a draft.
/r/MensRights16/06/16 05:42 PM
1

That is the reality of the pro-abortion side of the debate. You have to accept discrimination against men.
/r/MensRights14/06/16 05:47 PM
-2

I heard she's acting like this because she has syphallis.
/r/MensRights04/06/16 12:49 PM
1

FDR was the closest this country has gotten to a dictatorship. He was not a great president.
/r/MensRights30/05/16 04:32 PM
9

All the stickfigures are black.
/r/MensRights27/05/16 09:32 PM
2

She knows. "Weirdo" means "unattractive guy who likes me."
/r/MensRights26/05/16 02:11 PM
2

You make it sound like the French Revolution started the democratic government revolution. The French Revolution was inspired by American independence. And the later French democratic revolution in the mid 19th century was inspired by the success of the American experiment. That's not to discount France at all. The ideas underlying the American democratic system were developed during the French Enlightenment. If you're going to link the French democracy to anything, link it back to the Enlighten…
/r/MensRights23/05/16 11:08 PM
1

the anti-aristrocratic message born in the French Revolution of 1789 What? Ignoring a pretty big "anti-aristocratic" message that happened in the 1770's.
/r/MensRights23/05/16 10:19 PM
5

I find it frightening. Having to sit with your child in the shower for a high fever and constant vomiting and diarrhea. I can't imagine how helpless you'd feel, sitting there hoping your kid was going to be all right and there was nothing you can do for him. Moving and evocative, but I can't see it as beautiful.
/r/MensRights21/05/16 03:41 AM
1

It isn't terribly expensive to hire a lawyer. Call some local firms that have one or two lawyers, not the big ones. For a couple hundred you can find someone to sit in on the meeting with you.
/r/MensRights15/05/16 08:24 PM
4

There are some species whose females can reproduce asexually. That doesn't mean all asexual species are female. Female only makes sense to distinguish from male.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 05:28 PM
3

"Female" only makes sense for species with sexual reproduction. Species with asexual reproduction are neither male nor female, they just are.
/r/MensRights13/05/16 04:53 PM
5

As a dude, selective service is not something I have ever given much thought to.
/r/MensRights12/05/16 04:03 PM
1

"Fear of judgement"? You mean someone might think bad thoughts about a woman if men are allowed? The fear that someone might have inappropriate thoughts about you is no justification for discrimination. Also, what is wrong or inappropriate about me wanting to look at women at the gym?
/r/MensRights15/04/16 01:47 PM
17

Why not exclude the men who make gross comments? Why should I be punished solely because of my sex? It's not my problem that a woman feels "unsafe" around men.
/r/MensRights15/04/16 01:36 AM
12

Women's gyms are designed to exclude men, that's all.
/r/MensRights14/04/16 11:18 PM
1

And this is why anti gun laws are bad. Even when the police are nearby, they will watch you get attacked rather than help.
/r/MensRights13/04/16 09:16 PM
8

Oh, it's founded in Massachusetts! That means it will be easy to get it shut down. Massachusetts has one of the most restrictive non-discrimination laws on the books. Anyone can apply to be a driver or ask for a ride and get a slam dunk case against the company.
/r/MensRights11/04/16 05:16 PM
3

Those are all possible options. He should talk to a lawyer.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 07:49 PM
21

I have to talk to a detective on Monday about it No you don't. The police cannot make you come in to talk to them. They can arrest you, but they cannot make you talk. Have you ever heard the Miranda rights that police give suspects? They don't say "anything you say can clear this up," they say "anything you say can and will be used against you." Call a lawyer.
/r/MensRights10/04/16 02:48 AM
14

You don't get to be a stripper by making good decisions in life.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 07:02 PM
10

I hope you were being sarcastic. In case you weren't, there is, generally, no separate offense of "hate crime." There is no act you can commit on a person that is a crime because of their race/sex/whatever and not a crime if not motivated by animus. Instead, "hate crime" laws are sentence enhancements. They can result in harsher fines or longer incarceration. In California if your actions (such as assault/battery) is motivated by the person's race then the crime is eligible for sentence enhancem…
/r/MensRights30/03/16 05:30 PM
32

This isn't really that surprising. Iowa, like most states, presumes that a woman's husband is the father of the child. This means unless he challenges the presumption, he is the legal father. But Iowa, like most states, has a procedure to challenge this presumption of paternity. Basically you file a motion with the court, testify about the facts, maybe get a paternity test, and then you're released from responsibility. It's an unusual situation because of the length of the separation, but easily…
/r/MensRights26/03/16 06:39 PM
8

Slander is not protected speech. He should win on that alone.
/r/MensRights15/03/16 01:29 PM
-1

Bernie is the least serious candidate in a long history of joke candidates put forward by the DNC.
/r/MensRights28/02/16 02:30 AM
-7

No you can't. Anti-circumcision people know more about your penis than you do. /s
/r/MensRights25/02/16 08:46 PM
-1

No one with any common sense.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 02:47 AM
8

There is also a difference between excluding black people from using a park and leaving your earthly belongings to a neo-nazi group. If you want to give your money to a bunch of neo-nazis, why should the government stop you?
/r/MensRights23/02/16 04:29 AM
-1

Having said that, the American anti-war effort also played a role. The anti-war movement is the reason why Vietnam was lost to the North Vietnamese Communists. The Democrat party was hijacked by the anti-war movement prior to the 1972 election, and has done disastrous things to that party since.
/r/MensRights14/02/16 06:51 PM
4

This article is bullshit. http://www.eclectablog.com/2016/02/no-michigan-republicans-did-not-just-pass-a-law-outlawing-sodomy.html
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:38 AM
5

Since you said this is in California, it is definitely illegal. You could hypothetically sue. Or you could contact an attorney and have them write a nice letter to your HR department. As with all complaints about workplace discrimination, try to stay as anonymous as possible.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 12:36 AM
1

I suspect a lot of the resistance to eliminating selective service is grounded in bureaucratic momentum. According to Wikipedia, the Selective Service System employs: 136 full-time civilians, 57 part-time civilian directors, 200 part-time reserve force officers (in peacetime), up to 10,830 part-time volunteers
/r/MensRights11/02/16 07:41 PM
1

Why, I couldn't say poverty lack of education (high school) drugs single parent households
/r/MensRights11/02/16 11:25 AM
3

How is having sex with someone who is literally unconscious the "batshit crazy radfem definition of rape?"
/r/MensRights09/02/16 05:15 PM
2

female vote Democrats get a lot of support from young, unmarried women without children. Start adding in those factors and the balance starts tipping towards Republicans.
/r/MensRights06/02/16 10:56 PM
45

"You there, other man, protect me."
/r/MensRights03/02/16 09:29 PM
1

Since I'm a nice guy, I'll ignore your irrelevant ramblings and bouts of profanity. I've had my share of dealings with the mentally incompetent, I understand that these things can be beyond your conscious control. How do you determine "substantial impairment" short of unconsciousness? The point of this law is that we're looking at the defendant's knowledge. Did the defendant know that the victim was "substantially impaired" and unable to consent? If the defendant did not know that the victim was…
/r/MensRights03/02/16 05:03 AM
2

The key is "substantially impaired." It means that they are unable to form the mental capacity to consent. Being drunk is not "substantially impaired." And I don't give a fuck about your sexual adventures. They're irrelevant at best.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 04:22 AM
2

So who is substituting the 10%? No one is substituting the 10%. The purpose of the discount is to bring in more clients. The owner has to pay mechanics, his lease, utilities, and everything else whether he has clients or not. Bring in more clients and he makes more money. It is still inappropriate, and possibly illegal, but it is not at the expense of his other clients.
/r/MensRights03/02/16 01:32 AM
8

How about this: the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the victim's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired the offender purposely compels the victim to submit by force or threat of force the offender impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any controlled substance to the victim surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception "I was drunk" is not an excuse. The victim should have to show that the defendant knew the victim was …
/r/MensRights03/02/16 12:36 AM
1

OK, so you can discriminate based on sex (probably), but you aren't required to. Again, unless you've agreed that your roommate has the right to refuse a sublettor, you can sublet to whomever you want, but check your local laws (obviously).
/r/MensRights01/02/16 03:58 AM
2

Some states prohibit sex discrimination in leasing. The exception (usually) arises when there is a shared bedroom, bathroom, or kitchen space. Unless the lease specifically says that your roommate has the right to approve any subletter, then they can piss off.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 03:51 AM
5

File for contempt. Taking your kids away from you is incredibly harmful for them. It is also possible that you could get visitation changed based on her brainwashing them. It's not easy, nor is it cheap, but you get to have your kids back, without them being brainwashed into hating you.
/r/MensRights01/02/16 03:43 AM
2

It won't. Her "community service project" will be "informing disadvantaged students about sexual justice" or some other bullshit.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 07:33 PM
7

Plus pre-nups are special. There's a much higher barrier for enforceability.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 06:59 PM
3

Lady Macbeth was originally played by a male actor By a male actor, but as a female role.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 02:07 PM
1

Probably not for the paternity issue. She may have reasonably believed you were the father. You could sue for the defamation, but like others have said you can't get blood from a stone.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 01:37 PM
8

Last time we were talking about how people that are 17 years and 364 days old are not considered children basically everywere except the USA. Most of the U.S. has age of consent laws under 18 and many have Romeo-and-Juliet laws.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 01:32 PM
11

The article quotes the opinion, making it clear that the patient-counselor privilege doesn't apply: ...the statute does not establish an evidentiary privilege. Even assuming that the court could find that this statute establishes a patient-counselor privilege, it appears that Jackie may have waived such privilege by voluntarily disclosing the contents of her communications with Eramo and UVA to defendants. If there's no evidentiary privilege, the. It's not really a "privilege."
/r/MensRights30/01/16 06:00 PM
8

Do you have a copy of the application form? The law cited says: Each agency shall require the licensee to certify on the application form, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is not more than 30 days delinquent in complying with a child support order.
/r/MensRights30/01/16 03:49 AM
1

Why would you want to move in with these people? She is physically, emotionally, and verbally abusive. Tell your brother that she is bad for him and he needs to dump her.
/r/MensRights27/01/16 12:21 PM
4

The idea is that a college disciplinary hearing is a matter between two parties, and not a party and the government. The university has nearly unlimited authority to decide who can attend, so there is no liberty or property interest at stake for the accused. On the basis that it is a civil proceeding, then there are no due process or constitutional limitations on the university's disciplinary powers. To some extent this makes sense. If someone is accused of cheating there should be no need for a…
/r/MensRights26/01/16 07:49 PM
1

Get a domestic violence protection order. One for yourself and one for your daughter. Make sure you list your apartment as your place of residence.
/r/MensRights26/01/16 12:38 AM
2

what I truly wanted was a better version of myself. I think that's what all parents want when they have a kid. Men want boys because they know what it is to be a boy. They can look to their dad and learn how to be (or not be) a good dad. Men generally don't know how to raise little girls because they don't have the perspective from the other side. This brings to mind two things. First, good on this woman for recognizing her prejudices, but shame on her for thinking that her husband thought the s…
/r/MensRights25/01/16 05:58 PM
1

Canada has long had a problem with free speech.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 03:36 PM
2

For those curious, here is a story on him. On Twitter, [Stephanie] Guthrie plotted to “sic the internet” on [Ben] Spurr, in a way that would “impact his real-life experience.” Online mob justice was “every bit as vicious as the face-punch game,” [Elliot] tweeted. Guthrie accused Elliott of “criminal harassment” on the basis of his tweets.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 03:35 PM
1

What convinced me of his innocence wasn't the fact that he wasn't charged Just because you weren't charged doesn't mean you're not a rapist. What the hell?
/r/MensRights22/01/16 03:28 PM
-8

If the fact that he is trans matters, then don't say it doesn't matter.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 03:04 PM
-10

If we're judging someone by their deeds, why is the fact that this guy is trans in the headline?
/r/MensRights22/01/16 02:56 PM
1

Talk to a lawyer. Even a strongly worded letter would force the company to do something. But if HR has talked to her and the harassment has stopped, then it sounds like they did their job.
/r/MensRights22/01/16 01:28 AM
1

The UK protects an accusers anonymity in rape cases, but that is generally not the law in the U.S. There are Supreme Court cases that suggest naming an accuser is actually protected under the First Amendment, and I would agree.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 07:38 PM
1

You can sue a Jane Doe.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 06:56 PM
5

You should kick people out of your bar for that shit. Filming vertically is no joke.
/r/MensRights21/01/16 06:52 PM
4

Didn't COTWA publish a "do not vote for Rubio" article a week ago?
/r/MensRights20/01/16 12:53 AM
1

I agree with Anita that the sky is blue.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 03:34 AM
3

It's a stupid kids show about a girl pig. There's nothing particularly feminist or anti-feminist about it. Having sat through a number of episodes, I can assure you that there is no deeper meaning in Peppa Pig.
/r/MensRights17/01/16 01:52 AM
4

The female lead in Star Wars VII is a great example of a Mary Sue character.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 01:00 AM
2

The places that are increasing in population don't have feminists.
/r/MensRights16/01/16 12:59 AM
4

Simple solution: buy your girlfriend a handgun, make sure she knows how to use it, and get a ccw permit. God created men, Samuel Colt made them equal.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 08:01 PM
1

...to the extent the U.S. has workplace protections (minimum wage, anti-discrimination, workplace safety, etc.) he has workplace protections.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 07:11 PM
1

Yes, they have to report your earnings so that you are properly taxed. The employer may be liable for the whole amount of taxes that should have been withheld, both income and FICA taxes. The IRS also has a whistleblower program that could entitle you to a reward.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:52 PM
1

Even at a nonprofit employees are subject to federal income tax withholding and Medicare/social security taxes. Not paying them is a serious problem.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:45 PM
2

Assuming he is in the US, he absolutely has workplace protections. And if he were to report her to the IRS, she would be in serious trouble. Unfortunately based on his username, he's probably in Russia. I don't know anything about (current) Russian law.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:19 PM
2

Can confirm, I eat cheesecake and look like I'm in my 30's.
/r/MensRights15/01/16 06:15 PM
9

Why were the kids turned over to the Department of Human Services? Why not give them to their father?
/r/MensRights15/01/16 03:34 AM
2

Making the claim that there is a lack of "empathy" for men is not really a good tactic. What is "empathy?' How do you measure it? How do you improve it? Instead, focus on the fact that there are more male suicides. Focus on the fact that there are no resources for male victims of rape and DV. Focus on things you can show instead of trying to get into a philosophical debate with a feminist.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 07:59 PM
1

Violations of Title IX are not criminal matters
/r/MensRights14/01/16 02:38 PM
1

$400/hour is high for family law, but low for a lot of other specialties.
/r/MensRights14/01/16 12:20 PM
3

$400 an hour is pretty high, honestly. Look for someone at a smaller law firm that specializes in family law. You will probably want to file for divorce, don't wait for her. This gives jurisdiction in Texas which is more convenient for you. Custody jurisdiction might be in Texas, I'm not entirely sure how it works with newborns. I'd try to file for divorce before you graduate. I don't know if Texas has a separation period, but abandonment is usually sufficient grounds for divorce. You will proba…
/r/MensRights14/01/16 01:00 AM
8

Emergency Protective Order.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 07:54 PM
5

"I want your dick" while drunk is not consent, because, by law, being over the legal limit invalidates any form of yes. That is simply incorrect, and you're focusing on the wrong person. Being over the legal limit does not invalidate a person's ability to consent to sex. There is a limit where a person is so drunk that they are legally incapable of consenting, but that is far past the legal limit. You would have to be so drunk that you are incapable of understanding the difference between yes an…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:44 PM
8

The bill is also cosponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:18 PM
50

For any man that is in this situation, three things. First, if the police don't believe you, insist on filing a report. They can mock you. They can disbelieve you. They can arrest you. But they cannot refuse to allow you to file a report. If they continue to stonewall, talk to their supervisor or go to another police station. It might be difficult, but it might save your life. Second, file for a protective order. Do not tell your spouse/partner about it, or she could file before you, and courtro…
/r/MensRights13/01/16 03:01 PM
7

He will cave. It gives him political capital among feminist voters to state an anti-feminist position and switch sides. If he doesn't cave then he loses the feminist vote to Hillary (who will probably get 70% of it anyway because of sexism).
/r/MensRights13/01/16 02:53 PM
3

I recall when the motion to quash the subpoena served on "Jackie" was first filed. It was ridiculous, making some weird privacy argument that really is not based on the law. Whether the communications between "Jackie" (as an aside, why is this hoaxster's identity still being concealed?) and her family will be allowed is up in the air. I see the argument that they are not relevant, since "Jackie" is not a party to the suit.
/r/MensRights13/01/16 02:50 PM
19

Because young, single women are a politically important voting group for the Democrat party. And because young, single women want these services.
/r/MensRights12/01/16 01:11 PM
0

Good luck suing the government.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 06:57 PM
3

Im curious who she supported for president in 2008, the ticket with a woman on it or the ticket with all men on it. Lena isn't (necessarily) sexist, but she is willing to appeal to sexism to gain political power for the right people. Just like she was willing to appeal to racism in 2008.
/r/MensRights11/01/16 06:56 PM
10

because its 2016 CURRENTYEAR
/r/MensRights11/01/16 06:51 PM
2

The land of milkbags and honeypots.
/r/MensRights10/01/16 02:07 AM
2

That is certainly the theory behind child support. The idea is that the custodial parent will spend money out of pocket on supporting the child and the support from the non-custodial parent is meant to reimburse the custodial parent for expenses that are not easily calculated.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 02:35 PM
-5

No, that's not the difference between murder and manslaughter. Typically manslaughter means there is some level of negligence. Really negligent behavior can be second degree murder. Negligence showing complete indifference to human life can be first degree murder. All of these do not require a showing of intent to kill.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 02:30 AM
-30

26 year olds are kids.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 02:25 AM
15

If it was an accident she wouldn't have been convicted of manslaughter. Manslaughter applies when there is gross negligence on the part of the defendant. She was behaving dangerously, which is why the kid got killed.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 01:26 AM
132

She was convicted of manslaughter. No jail time for manslaughter is incredibly lenient.
/r/MensRights09/01/16 12:56 AM
2

I agree that feminism has a lot to do with it, but feminism is a luxury of the wealthy. It's easy to say women shouldn't have to stay home when you have a dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, and washing machine. If you don't have these things, you have to have someone do them by hand, which can take days. Not to mention more mundane tasks like cooking.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 03:04 AM
6

A lot of the article is ridiculous. IMO people in developed countries don't have children for two big reasons: Increased availability of birth control making sex consequence free, to the point that many people disconnect sex from pregnancy. Our high level of wealth, making it extremely expensive to raise children and live the life we want.
/r/MensRights08/01/16 12:43 AM
8

She wants kids, you don't. That's not exactly a recipe for a long term relationship unless one of you changes your mind. You are signaling that you are willing to make a permanent change to your body so that you will never change your mind. Sounds like you need to break up with her, since you don't have the same relationship expectations.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 10:11 PM
1

Yes, it is called imputed income. I don't know exactly what the rules are in California. As an aside, if you are concerned about being refused visitation, you can get a court order (even if it is simply a negotiated agreement between you and your ex) noting your visitation rights. Visitation is typically separate from child support and a refusal to allow you visitation doesn't give you the right to withhold or modify support.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 10:02 PM
2

I somewhat agree with this, simply because BSA is such a superior option to GSA, both in content and organization. I'd love for my daughter to have the same access to the scouting experiences I had when I was growing up. I know about Venture Scouts, but that is only for kids 14+. That said, I also know that boys need their own space to be just boys, probably more than girls do. And I wouldn't want to force my preferences on anyone else.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 08:35 PM
4

Allred isn't her lawyer, she's her publicist.
/r/MensRights07/01/16 08:28 PM
3

So...psi warriors?
/r/MensRights07/01/16 02:17 AM
16

Assuming he was seeking monetary damages, that portion of the suit could still continue. The only part mooted by this decision was his request for an injunction allowing him back to school. I suspect the university will settle for attorney's fees plus some undisclosed amount to the victim. Universities really don't want these cases to be decided by the courts.
/r/MensRights06/01/16 04:03 PM
16

Amy Adelman, General Counsel focusing on employment, including discrimination and handles discrimination complaints. Email: [email protected] Student Ombudsman for reporting instances of bias. Email: [email protected] Bradd Shore - chair of Anthropology Department Email: [email protected]
/r/MensRights06/01/16 04:33 AM
3

That is a pretty big if. There are statutes of limitations because evidence for crimes eventually goes stale. And people should not live in fear that at any point in their life they could be hauled into court for something that occurred a long time ago.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 04:44 AM
1

Like it or not, politicians are generally held to a higher moral standard, and their personal lives are subject to closer scrutiny than normal people. That this is a political issue is not news. That the BBC is actually reporting a negative story about a Labour politician is news.
/r/MensRights01/01/16 04:33 AM
2

Didn't the UK eliminate anonymity for sperm donors a while back? Why would any man be donating sperm in that country?
/r/MensRights30/12/15 01:58 AM
0

That is irrelevant to whether abortion is legal or not.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 04:59 PM
0

Abortion has nothing to do with men's rights.
/r/MensRights29/12/15 02:19 PM
1

Ever see a kid with pierced ears?
/r/MensRights27/12/15 01:00 AM
1

you can't give your newborn baby a tattoo In many places you can.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 03:42 PM
2

Call police, report assault. Get lawyer, sue accuser.
/r/MensRights26/12/15 03:38 PM
12

Sorry to hear about all your problems. But, well, you screwed up when you let her have full custody without at least an order for visitation. Without at least a visitation order, you are (legally) no more than a stranger to your kids. It is possible that you can get a visitation order now based on her refusal to let you see the kids, but that would be a pretty expensive proposition. Best advice is to keep writing your kids letters, tell them how much you love them, miss them, and want nothing mo…
/r/MensRights23/12/15 07:56 PM
2

Since the original order was in Missouri, you need to contact a lawyer in Missouri to file an emergency petition to modify the custody order.
/r/MensRights23/12/15 07:45 PM
6

You've just described the entire Salon website.
/r/MensRights23/12/15 07:39 PM
2

The army has no authority to unilaterally require women to register for the draft. 50 USC App. 453 is clear that selective service requirement only applies to male citizens and residents. Until either Congress changes the law or the Court determines that male-only registration violates the constitution, registration is limited to men and cannot be extended to women.
/r/MensRights22/12/15 09:10 AM
2

Report him to whatever the name is of the UK's ministry of speech. This is unquestionably sex based discrimination, and UK law, ostensibly, prohibits sex discrimination. The BBC is a state-run organization so they probably won't do anything anyway.
/r/MensRights21/12/15 08:20 PM
2

Not sure where you're getting your information, or maybe you're just in a different jurisdiction. the person must know that what they are saying is false In most of the U.S. the standard for defamation is negligence, not knowingly, the only exception would be public figures, and OP is certainly not one. the information must be publicly printed Again, not in the U.S. As long as the statement is heard by at least one other person, the standard for publication is met. the statement is being present…
/r/MensRights21/12/15 03:33 AM
1

You might have a case for defamation. If she actually accused you of harming the children then you would be able to recover money damages, despite suffering any actual damages. Otherwise, avoid this woman and refuse to babysit for the couple until you get a written apology from her. And it needs to be a real apology, no "buts" or attempts to justify her outlandish behavior.
/r/MensRights20/12/15 11:52 PM
1

I recommend ignoring her. If that doesn't work, initiate maximum trolling.
/r/MensRights18/12/15 06:50 PM
1

Heres a similar case I saw recently in the news. I didn't see the word "rape" used anywhere. Although there is a sizable difference in bail.
/r/MensRights17/12/15 03:05 AM
2

I really hate it when people use adjectives as nouns.
/r/MensRights16/12/15 02:57 AM
13

The thing I find most infuriating is that she gets maintenance of 3000 euros a month. They were married for two years and he is the primary caretaker for the children. How on earth did the judge decide that she is entitled to anything of his?
/r/MensRights15/12/15 07:34 PM
-1

From what part of my comment did you infer that I like Milo? And yes, if you mock people who disagree with you as "saying stupid shit" when their opinions don't conform to yours then you are demanding ideological conformity.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 11:26 PM
-1

Demanding ideological conformity is one of the things that pisses me off about MRAs and Feminists. It is OK if people have different thoughts on a subject.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 09:31 PM
2

I don't think whoever wrote this response knows what they were talking about.
/r/MensRights14/12/15 01:53 PM
2

She said, "If you inform my father, or the police, I will commit suicide." I was in a fix as I was in a tricky situation. I was expected to take legal and appropriate action. The guy put his personal beliefs ahead of his professional and (apparently) legal responsibilities. This is the problem. If you cannot separate your personal and professional responsibilities then you need to recuse yourself from dealing with the situation. This man ruined another man's life so a woman didn't lose her boyfr…
/r/MensRights13/12/15 05:05 AM
5

She said she agrees with dress code rules that aren't gender-specific... but not ones that suggest women should always keep their legs and shoulders covered, for example. That would be a non-gender specific dress code. Men can't get away with wearing sleeveless shirts or shorts in a workplace, and neither should women.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 04:49 AM
8

Your lawyer will be able to help you with this. What CPS says and what the law is are not always congruent.
/r/MensRights13/12/15 02:09 AM
35

Obligatory I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice. What /u/UrbanSpartan85 said is important: you need to get a lawyer. You've got a lot of problems right now, and you need to deal with them. First, you're going to be investigated by CPS, they're going to know that you were a drug user and alcoholic. These are bad things. You should not talk to them without your lawyer present. Your lawyer can help you prepare a statement for them. I'd suggest you start going to AA regularly. You might no…
/r/MensRights13/12/15 12:34 AM
4

I suspect "privacy" is a cover. The real reason they don't want men and women in the same changing room is because they don't want you to have sex in there.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 11:39 PM
1

Huh, interesting. TIL.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 11:08 PM
2

Statutory rape is strict liability.
/r/MensRights12/12/15 03:09 PM
3

Are there more women at your gym? Is the gym typically crowded? Are there equal machines in the non-segregated part of the gym? In other words, are you actually hurt by the segregation, or is there some rational reason why the gym might have a "women's only" section? If you are actually hurt, you can sue the gym. If you're just upset over the segregation, complain to your local government office. At least they can do some good.
/r/MensRights09/12/15 03:38 AM
1

The draft will never be used. There are no military threats to the U.S. that would justify drafting civilians into the military. Even to (seriously) suggest implementing the draft would be political suicide. Since the draft might as well not exist, we should either abolish it entirely or make women register.
/r/MensRights08/12/15 05:50 PM
5

Step 1: Call the police and report it. Step 2: Do what they ask.
/r/MensRights06/12/15 02:35 PM
3

Despite the obvious conservative allure of men's rights, this sub is, like most of reddit, incredibly left wing.
/r/MensRights05/12/15 07:02 PM
2

Both sides had an unqualified candidate. Only on the Republican side it was the VP.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 02:03 PM
3

McCain-Palin did significantly better than Mondale-Ferraro, but Feminists hated Palin. Try repeating some of the comments about Palin (by Feminists no less) to Clinton and you will be called a woman-hater and worse. Feminism is not about empowering women. It is about gaining power.
/r/MensRights02/12/15 01:50 PM
2

I understand arguing in the alternative, but the answer is a jumbled mess. It is unclear which paragraphs the defendant is admitting and which paragraphs he is denying. If he really wasn't the proper defendant, he would respond to the allegations that he lacked actual knowledge, not make specific factual allegations of his own. Also, breach of the contract would be an affirmative defense, and should be raised separately. There are also several admissions in the answer that shouldn't have been ma…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 08:15 PM
2

I hope this wasn't written by a real lawyer.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:38 PM
1

He is only calling the lawyer to see if he will oppose the motion. It is professional courtesy in the legal field and required by some local rules. If the motion is unopposed then the judge will grant it, because it means less work for them and another case they can push off their docket for a month.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 07:30 PM
3

I don't know if it works for a settlement conference, but you may be able to file a motion to postpone the settlement conference at least until you can better familiarize yourself with the facts of the case. First, go to the court and ask the clerk if you can file the motion to postpone. They may have a form for you. You might be able to get an answer from your (former) attorney, assuming he isn't a complete jerk. You're just looking for a yes or no answer. Then, call the opposing attorney, expl…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 06:18 PM
-7

I think it is inappropriate for a man to abandon his child. I think it is even worse for a mother to murder her child. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex. You don't get to hurt someone simply because you don't like the consequences of your actions.
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:22 PM
3

Well, you've got full custody. There is no way she can just come and take your daughter, unless she wants to go to jail for a long time. My (not your lawyer) advice: sue for child support. California allows retroactive child support, but I don't know California law well enough to say whether it would be applicable here. The original order not granting support may preempt retroactive support. Others have suggested recording your calls, but California is a two party consent state, which complicate…
/r/MensRights30/11/15 01:17 PM
1

According to Hillary, Bill Clinton is a rapist.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 08:01 PM
9

Having areas with more male-focused equipment (free weights and squat racks) and female-focused equipment (mats for yoga, ellipticals, and other machines) is fine. If a woman wants to use free weights, cool. If a man wants to use an elliptical, no problem. Forced segregation is immoral and, in many laces, illegal.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 05:35 PM
2

I don't think this is correct. If the adoption is successfully contested she will become liable for child support. You cannot voluntarily give up your obligation to support a child when there is no adoption.
/r/MensRights23/11/15 12:17 PM
19

From what I can gather from the article, the plaintiffs sent a subpoena to Jackie to produce the emails, and her attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena. If the motion is granted then she will not have to turn over the emails. If it is not, she will have to turn over the emails. There is no option to "refuse" to turn over the documents. At least, unless she wants to be held in contempt. The idea that you can quash a subpoena on the grounds that the disclosure violates your "privacy and dig…
/r/MensRights21/11/15 08:44 PM
61

They aren't being punished for no reason. They're being punished for being boys. Children recognize and respond to discrimination even if they don't know the word.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 08:55 PM
9

Going to be interesting when Winston sues them for slander.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 06:46 PM
13

File a complaint with the office of diversity. This is discrimination.
/r/MensRights17/11/15 06:44 PM
36

Filing a complaint with the University of York for sex-based discrimination. Filing a complaint with the office of the independent adjudicator for sex-based discrimination. Let's see how seriously the UK takes their own laws.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 04:43 PM
3

Do short people make shorter walls?
/r/MensRights12/11/15 03:44 PM
31

The organization has been met with backlash on campus, and required security presence at a few events last year. ...because of violent Feminists. It is unfortunate that Canada has endorsed the heckler's veto. Or maybe more accurately, the terrorist's veto.
/r/MensRights10/11/15 05:42 PM
2

I'm not sure how you are making the connection between conservatives and feminism. The article is about child support. Children need to be supported. Either the parents pay for that support or taxpayers are fleeced for it. I support making parents pay for their children. The alternative is collectivism, which is morally offensive.
/r/MensRights08/11/15 08:56 PM
9

there are Girl Scouts Please don't put the Girl Scouts in the same category as the Boy Scouts. The Girl Scouts has little to offer young women who want to learn the values that the BSA offers. It is a glorified feminist indoctrination movement. I understand that the BSA wants to remain only for boys, and that is their right. But I would love it if I could find a scouting organization that taught girls the skills, values, and knowledge that the BSA offers. Source: dad of two girls.
/r/MensRights29/10/15 09:22 PM
7

Cis-gendered Herero normative. Or what rational people call "normal."
/r/MensRights26/10/15 02:39 PM
5

I'm kind of surprised by the judge's reasoning. Throwing out the contract for being one sided (lacking consideration) or being illusory (promise to "work on marriage" not an enforceable promise) opens her up to being overturned on appeal. There was an easier resolution: by accepting the $10,000, the children had given up their rights under the contract. If a third party beneficiary surrenders their rights under a contract the contracting parties can no longer enforce the agreement on behalf of t…
/r/MensRights25/10/15 12:00 AM
3

If you really want to be a dick, report her to HR for sexual harassment.
/r/MensRights24/10/15 03:44 PM
2

Federal money or not, places of public accommodation (including privately run schools) are not allowed to discriminate based on gender in New York. A man could, conceivably, apply to join this program and when turned down, sue the school for gender based discrimination. And he would likely win. The problem is: who in their right mind would pay 22% of their first year's salary (or $15,000) to learn JavaScript? Especially since they won't accept beginner programmers? Sounds like a scam.
/r/MensRights20/10/15 05:19 PM
3

Children can certainly have bank accounts and photo IDs. Walk into your local state DMV and they can provide you with an ID. And as long as your kid has an SSN, opening an account at a bank is easy. Most people simply don't bother with an ID for their kid because they don't need it.
/r/MensRights17/10/15 11:51 AM
3

The reason is because of the potential for grooming. If you're allowed to have sex with your kid, there's an increased chance of grooming your children to have sex with you when they reach the age of consent. You could ban grooming behavior, but how do you police it, and how do you define it to avoid normal parent-child interactions? The obvious solution would be social pressure against incest. Teach kids that incest is bad (weird, gross, sinful, not organic, patriarchal, causes climate change) …
/r/MensRights16/10/15 04:26 AM
1

Her advice is mostly right. The only thing he can do is continue to fight in the court system. Attend every hearing. Jump through whatever hoops the court asks of him. And document, document, document. Keep a notebook and a big thick file. Every day that she is supposed to drop off the kid, write down the date and time. Every email you get, print a copy and put it in there. Every court order, keep a copy. If the judge just wants to give an order from the bench, make sure you get a physical copy.…
/r/MensRights16/10/15 04:10 AM
2

she can give the child up for adoption, or she can surrender the child under Safe Haven Laws. That comment is not exactly correct. Yes, there are adoption laws and Safe Haven laws, but a woman cannot "opt-out" of being responsible for her child if the father of the child objects. This is why punitive father registries are such a great idea. If a man believes he has impregnated a woman, he has the right to stop the woman from unilaterally terminating his parental rights. If a legal proceeding aft…
/r/MensRights05/12/14 04:25 PM
84

Her sister was raped by a Democrat.
/r/MensRights04/12/14 03:34 PM
1

You mean like the dust bowl of 1920s America? Grapes of Wrath? No, I mean the Holodomor. The Soviets orchestrated the murder of millions of Ukrainians. And even if the dust bowl of 1920's America was somehow orchestrated by the American Government (it wasn't) or intentional (it wasn't), the scale is different. 6-7 million dead due to the Soviets, maybe 10,000 dead due to the dust bowl. Native Americans locked up and kids snatched from them to be "educated" in death camps? Even if true (which it …
/r/MensRights20/11/14 08:11 PM
2

Assuming you're in the U.S... As a preliminary matter you, OP, have no legal standing for anything. This is directed to your husband, who does have legal standing. First, some background. There are two types of custody: physical custody and legal custody. Physical custody means spending time with mom/dad. Joint (physical) custody is the norm. Legal custody means the right to make decisions on the child's behalf. Absent a court order to the contrary, there is joint legal custody. If the parents t…
/r/MensRights20/11/14 06:38 PM
2

How about when the man is the victim of statutory rape? That means he is legally unable to consent to sexual intercourse. Still liable for child support, because the court said the man was willing. How about when the man is the victim of rape? Beyond not being legally capable of consenting, he actually did not consent. Still liable for child support, because the court said "wrongful conduct on the part of the mother should not alter the father's duty to provide support for the child." How about …
/r/MensRights20/11/14 06:10 PM
1

Orchestrated famine to kill millions of people. Executed, banished, and enslaved political opponents. Nationalized farms, industry, and banking. Advanced the Lamarckism theory of genetics.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 03:13 PM
1

Fair enough. Just raising the point that if you're debating to convince people of your point of view you're doing it wrong.
/r/MensRights20/11/14 12:46 AM
2

Well gee, he literally wrote the book on the topic and then there's you. Who should I go with. Let me think. Maybe you should start here? So you didn't read the book and don't know what the word means. No, I didn't read the book. Argue what you want to argue, don't argue semantics. Well technically it's true that America doesn't invade people in peace time since invasion ipso facto, makes you not in peace time. And now can you answer the question properly? That is a proper answer. America, durin…
/r/MensRights20/11/14 12:45 AM
1

And that's exactly what I said. Please reread (or read for the first time). It's clear that you still don't understand this: if they do not have a valid reason to search someone to begin with then they can't charge them with any form of possession. If there's sufficient cause for a Terry stop, and during the patdown they find marijuana (or other drugs), then they can ticket them for marijuana possession. They may even be able to arrest if there's some evidence that the person has been fined for …
/r/MensRights19/11/14 10:10 PM
2

Any examples from left-wing countries America didn't invade and constantly threaten to bomb/invade? America's invaded or threatened to bomb and/or invade just about everywhere. And what did "Soviet-style Communism" do that America doesn't do in peace time now? Invade Poland. http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ The classification of the Tea Party movement as authoritarian is laughable. Read this.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 09:37 PM
6

The left/right distinction is different than the libertarian/authoritarian distinction. There are left-wing authoritarians. Soviet-style Communism, for example.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 09:19 PM
1

Right, I definitely misspoke about possession versus possession in public view You didn't misspeak. You were wrong. But that's OK, not everyone knows everything about the law. Cops like to tack on the "in public view" charge because it does not require them to have a valid reason to search someone in order to shake down random people and make arrests Go back and read the link you posted last time. Cops didn't search people because marijuana was "in public view," they searched people, found marij…
/r/MensRights19/11/14 09:16 PM
1

Read this: http://www.drugpolicy.org/ny-arrests That doesn't say what you think it says. Possessing marijuana in public view is illegal. It is a separate crime from possession of marijuana. New York Penal Code 221.05 criminalizes possession of marijuana. There's nothing in the statute that requires that possession is "in public view." A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana. A separate statute, New York Penal Code 221.10 provide…
/r/MensRights19/11/14 08:32 PM
2

Do you have an actual link to show that the guy was charged with possession of pot? I was only addressing your statement "it's not illegal to poses [sic] marijuana." That statement is wrong. They don't; they need some other pretext to search you. The man was placed under arrest for assault. They searched him incident to that arrest. A search incident to an arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 08:13 PM
6

Suppression of dissent is a defining characteristic of modern progressive ideology.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 07:30 PM
7

How can I expect to convince pro-lifers unless I can debate them? Would you re-consider your pro-choice position if you were to debate someone that was pro-life?
/r/MensRights19/11/14 07:29 PM
2

Yes. The reason news media use the term "allegedly" is because accusing someone of a crime (or accusing them of committing the acts that constitute a crime) is defamation. Yes, they could plead truth as an affirmative defense (depending on jurisdiction, some require the plaintiff to prove falsity), but why go through the headache of doing a case-by-case analysis of whether the term "allegedly" is warranted?
/r/MensRights19/11/14 03:43 PM
7

Here you go. It's also illegal federally. I can't believe I read that whole interaction between you two asshats.
/r/MensRights19/11/14 03:40 PM
1

I think your question goes to "reliable source." The problem (in the eyes of the Wikipedia censors gatekeepers MinTruth editors an article is only reliable if the information from the story comes from an "unbiased" source. Since all of the information for this story came from her autobiography, merely regurgitating it in a mainstream news article doesn't erase the taint.
/r/MensRights17/11/14 10:40 PM
5

According to the talk page, it's because the information comes directly from her, and therefore doesn't meet the standard for a "reliable source." WP:RS means that only stories that come from "reputable" news sources are allowed to be included in an article. That means if the "reputable" news media refuses to cover a story, as far as Wikipedia is concerned it doesn't count. A while back I tried to add comments from a left-wing persona to a wikipedia article. I included a link to the video showin…
/r/MensRights17/11/14 02:23 PM
1

I brought it up with the HR lead, and she believed that this is legal. Your HR lead is wrong. It is not legal to exclude potential employees from consideration based on sex or race.
/r/MensRights14/11/14 02:04 PM
2

As bell hooks (2000) calls it "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" along with sexuality and ability can all intersect with one another to create complex sites of both privilege and oppression simultaneously. Either this sentence is missing a few punctuation marks, capital letters, and transition words, or feminists speak a completely different language than the rest of us. Maybe grammar is just another word for patriarchy.
/r/MensRights13/11/14 06:25 PM
2

Marie Curie featured prominently in Young Einstein.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 10:10 PM
5

Gomi, Taro. Everyone Poops, Trans. Amanda Mayer Stinchecum. My Body Science. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Kane/Miller, 1993.
/r/MensRights12/11/14 02:02 PM
1

I didn't choose to be circumcised, that was a joke. I was circumcised as an infant, kids start walking around 12 months.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 05:43 PM
-2

There is a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the issue. A lot of people here are strongly anti-circumcision, but personally I don't see how it makes much of a difference in a kid's life. Circumcision is a medical procedure, and like all medical procedures carries some risk. Not a significant amount, but it's possible that your son could get an infection or have his penis damaged. On the other hand, it's also possible for uncircumcised children to develop phimosis later in life. This is also not a…
/r/MensRights11/11/14 02:15 PM
1

No, it's not rape unless he knew that she thought he was her husband; or he had reason to know that she was incapacitated.
/r/MensRights11/11/14 02:07 PM
3

Well, it's basically correct. A man has no interest in a child until he establishes paternity. It's not really that difficult or expensive to establish paternity. Most states allow you to do it by affidavit or by an informal (not involving court) DNA test. And it's also legally allowed for a mother to deny visitation to a father if there is not a custody order in place. But here's the kicker: it's also legally allowed for a father to deny visitation to a mother if there is not a custody order in…
/r/MensRights10/11/14 09:20 PM
1

Comment? You should report this to your administration as a violation of Title IX.
/r/MensRights07/11/14 01:52 PM
1

I was going to sneak up on a woman on campus and rape her, but how can I do that while walking slow and loud? Curses, foiled again!
/r/MensRights06/11/14 02:39 PM
1

A lot of the questions were vague or heavily biased. For example, under the "how do you feel about these issues" section you have the following: Male Genital Mutilation at Birth What is "male genital mutilation"? You also ask about circumcision. Is there a difference? What if I don't agree that circumcision is "male genital mutilation"? I guarantee that people that support circumcision wouldn't call it "male genital mutilation" and wouldn't support "male genital mutilation" Punishing proven rapi…
/r/MensRights03/11/14 03:20 PM
5

Please inform your fellow students in your "sexuality and society" class that they are idiots. First, this article was from 2002. Know what has happened since then? The passage of the Affordable Care Act. This gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the ability to decide which "preventative" prescription drugs were required to be covered. One requirement that DHHS passed was that all insurance plans must cover certain types of prescription birth control ("the pill"). If you're rea…
/r/MensRights29/10/14 08:05 PM
3

Barring something serious (abuse), the judge isn't going to allow a child to be taken out of the country after 9 years in continuous contact with her father. Especially when mom's reason is "I want some foreign guy's dick." Your friend can try posting over at /r/legaladvice. There are some people who specialize in custody issues. But they tend to be dicks about anyone posting from /r/MensRights
/r/MensRights29/10/14 07:34 PM
1

Has the mother filed anything yet?
/r/MensRights29/10/14 07:21 PM
1

Looking at the victim's state of mind is the wrong approach. The issue is whether the defendant knew that the victim did not consent, or was unable to consent. If a girl comes into my room at 3 AM and has sex with me, I have not committed rape even if she was so drunk that she was unable to consent. I am only guilty if I knew (or had reason to know) that the girl was unable to consent.
/r/MensRights29/10/14 05:38 PM
3

I'm pretty sure you don't need to have standing to make a complaint under Title IX. The plaintiff in a Title IX proceeding is the government, not an individual. Even so, if the school is unfairly discriminating between men and women (suspends men when they're assaulted by women; doesn't suspend women when they're assaulted by men) then OP would have standing because the policy affects all men in the school. But Title IX complaints are handled by the DOJ, which has made it clear that they don't c…
/r/MensRights23/10/14 03:58 PM
2

I believe that men and women should have equal standing before the law. Judges and prosecutors should not discriminate against defendants (or potential defendants) based on their sex. I also believe that universities are ill-equipped to deal with serious criminal matters and should refer them to the police for prosecution.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 03:21 PM
4

My neighbor is a cop. She has the privilege of dealing with these sort of allegations when male officers arrest a woman. Allegations of sexual misconduct by officers are routine, and routinely dismissed.
/r/MensRights22/10/14 03:14 PM
3

Read these two paragraphs together: In 2012, Child Protective Services estimated that 686,000 children were victims of maltreatment in the United States — or 9.2 per 1,000 – and over 80% of the perpetrators of these crimes were the children’s parents. And of this number, 88% were biological parents, not step- or adopted as many of us have been taught to believe. In addition, 45% of the total number of perpetrators were men. And 54%? Women. That sounds like 80% of perpetrators were parents, and o…
/r/MensRights21/10/14 04:04 PM
10

You were raped. You are the victim of a crime. How you feel about that is up to you. You can feel beat down and horrible about yourself. If you do feel this way, then you should seek a therapist. Alternatively, you can accept that bad things happen during your life and move on with it. That's not to say that bad things should happen or that it's OK for these things to happen, but sometimes shit happens. Only you can decide how it will affect your life moving forward.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 03:43 PM
1

Queer Portfolio holder and USU Board Director Liam Carrigan Kate Bullen, Women’s Portfolio holder and Board Director How did the Straight Portfolio holder vote? How did the Mens Portfolio holder vote? It seems strange that the "lone dissenter" was Board Director Kate Denton.
/r/MensRights13/10/14 11:57 AM
5

I think I've said this on this subreddit several times. Because you were drunk does not mean you were raped. It's not true when women make the allegation and it's not true when guys make the allegation. There is a sufficiently high level of intoxication where a person is unable to consent, but that's not always, or even usually, what people are talking about when they say "drunk." That's not to say you weren't at that level of intoxication. You very well could have been so drunk that you were un…
/r/MensRights09/10/14 12:33 PM
1

At least since '69: [O]ur [E]nglish law does not entertain quite such sublime ideas of the honor of either sex, as to lay the blame of a mutual fault upon one of the transgressors only: and therefore makes it a necessary ingredient in the crime of rape, that it must be against the woman's will. That is, 1769, when Blackstone published his Commentaries on the Laws of England, which form the basis of U.S. law. There was also the crime of fornication which was often used to punish what would be con…
/r/MensRights02/10/14 09:19 PM
1

Maybe they changed the public perception; but you haven't given any evidence to support your conjecture. Legally, "acquaintance rape" and "date rape" were prosecuted and perpetrators were punished. Feminists also changed the definition of rape to include "spousal rape."
/r/MensRights02/10/14 08:55 PM
1

No, they haven't "got lost of unrecognized rape out of the closet." They (arguably) increased the public visibility of rape (to hysterical levels) and increased the conviction rate of rape (increasing the incidence of false rape allegations). That is totally different from saying that before feminism only violent stranger rape was legally recognized as rape. Let me draw you a chart: pre-feminism Post-feminism non consensual sex with a violent stranger: rape rape non consensual sex with an acquai…
/r/MensRights02/10/14 08:47 PM
1

Yet you say prior sexual history got rapists off. Some did. Certainly not all of them. They were prosecuted for the offense and either found guilty or not guilty. Right, so acquaintance rape wasn't really being punished or recognized. But it was. It's just that different levels of evidence was permitted in the defense. This is the feminist argument. Then either the feminist argument is pants-on-head stupid, or you've failed to articulate the feminist position. I'm giving you the benefit of the d…
/r/MensRights02/10/14 08:07 PM
1

And we don't really need a source for that - because its an uncontroversial claim. It's not uncontroversial. Well, it's only controversial in the sense that it's completely wrong and unsupported by the fact. Because the legal system absolutely punished men for rape outside of "violent stranger" rape. Ok, so according to you - juries for some reason acquitted rapists because of a womans sexual history. Not "for some reason." They acquitted "rapists" (talk about putting the cart before the horse) …
/r/MensRights02/10/14 07:53 PM
1

Yet for one to be true the other has to be too. No it doesn't. I asked for your source that only "violent stranger rape" was considered (or punished as) the crime of rape prior to the feminist movement. what was the reason for rape shield laws? The reason for rape shield laws was to protect rape victims from having their sexual history brought up during a trial for rape. Before rape shield laws a defendant could argue that the defendant's prior sexual history meant that she consented to sex in t…
/r/MensRights02/10/14 07:43 PM
2

Its well known that people traditionally thought of rapists as down dark alleys. "Well known" is different than your claim that "out side of violent stranger rapes, rape wasn't recognized, punished or even called rape." "Date rape" was legally recognized as rape, so was "acquaintance rape," and both were punished as rape. There are a variety of reasons why it was difficult to punish these types of rapists (prompting the push for rape shield laws), but that doesn't mean that such behavior wasn't …
/r/MensRights02/10/14 07:16 PM
1

You don't really need a source. I don't really need a source. Move along. But seriously, source? If it's so well known then it should be easily proven.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 07:07 PM
1

Source? Now, I'll grant that marital rape wasn't recognized as "rape" prior to modern times. That's not to say it wasn't punished, and there are a number of historical reasons why what we didn't designate "marital rape" as "rape."
/r/MensRights02/10/14 07:01 PM
1

My progressivism was 30. I'm ashamed that it was so high. Fortunately, socialism was a comfortable 6.25. I think that this is within acceptable margins. Tenderness came at 65.625. Also acceptable. The site also says I should be a field hockey coach. I'm not sure what that means. Other descriptions: tender-minded conservative; a compassionate and sympathetic attitude towards humanity in general; laissez-faire capitalist; traditionalist; sensible realistic centrist. Sounds about right.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 03:11 PM
8

This law protects men and women both - even if it's only by making people more aware of each other. You're assuming that colleges and prosecutors will seek to equally apply the law. This is a big assumption, and in my opinion not based on facts. It's to protect against people who are perfectly okay with taking advantage of unresponsive partners This behavior is already prohibited in the current statute.
/r/MensRights29/09/14 01:43 PM
1

I'm going to dismiss any of the evidence that doesn't agree with the idea that fathers abuse children. OK.
/r/MensRights27/09/14 02:59 PM
1

You have failed to provide the evidence for your own assertions. Start with that. Assertion: Mothers are nearly 60% more likely to kill a child through abuse or neglect than fathers. Source 27.1% of infant deaths were by mothers acting alone. 17.1% of infant deaths were by fathers acting alone. Mothers acting alone are more likely to kill their children. QED.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 09:20 PM
1

If you have evidence to support your assertions, I'd be happy to see it and we can have a discussion.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 09:08 PM
4

The abscissa is aptitude for some trait. The ordinate is quantity of individuals.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 06:44 PM
2

Would you be terribly put out if I asked you to refrain from using the term "protected class"? It has a specific legal meaning and it rustles my jimmies when people refer to women, minorities, or any specific group as a "protected class." A protected class is a characteristic, not a group exhibiting that characteristic. "Race" is a protected class, "Asian" is not. "Religion" is a protected class, "Mormon" is not. "Sex" is a protected class [well, it's a quasi-suspect class], "female" is not. Rhe…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 03:52 PM
2

The definition of "maltreatment" is vague at best Only if you're using it in a non-specific context. Fortunately, the link I provided didn't use it vaguely: Neglect was the most common form of maltreatment, with 60.9 percent of child victims suffering from neglect in 2003. Neglect was followed by physical abuse (18.9 percent of child victims), sexual abuse (9.9 percent of child victims), and psychological maltreatment (4.9 percent of child victims). That adds up to 94.6%, which is pretty close t…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 03:44 PM
-1

Do you mean "protected class" in a legal sense?
/r/MensRights26/09/14 02:13 PM
1

Statistics. A 1997 Federal study indicated that the overall rate of child maltreatment among single-parent families was almost double that of the rate among two-parent families: 27.4 children per 1,000 were maltreated in single-parent families, compared to 15.5 per 1,000 in two-parent families. One national study found that 7 percent of children who had lived with one parent had ever been sexually abused, compared to 4 percent of children who lived with both biological parents. This doesn't brea…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 02:08 PM
4

No, I'm pretty sure I have a good knowledge of what it means to be a "Private" versus a "Public" company. The NFL is not publicly traded, so it is not a "publicly held company." It's held (as an unincorporated trade association) and managed by the NFL franchisees. "Non-Profit" has nothing to do with whether a company is public or not.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:56 PM
37

/r/TumblrInAction /r/TumblrAtRest /r/TumblrWhenTheWallsFell
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:18 PM
8

Non-profit isn't the same as not public. It is a private institution that privately elects its board and officers.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:16 PM
1

Statistics. In 2012, parents, acting alone or with another parent, were responsible for 80.0 percent of child abuse or neglect fatalities. More than one-quarter (27.1 percent) were perpetrated by the mother acting alone, 17.1 percent were perpetrated by the father acting alone, and 21.2 percent were perpetrated by the mother and father acting together. Nonparents (including kin and child care providers, among others) were responsible for 14.3 percent of child fatalities, and child fatalities wit…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:15 PM
8

I think this adequately explains the differences.
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:11 PM
3

Private companies can do what they want, and if we (the public) are going to hold one standard for NFL players accused of domestic violence, we should apply that standard equally to all professional athletes. That said, I don't think it's the NFL's job to police the private actions of its players. And it's not MLS's jobs to police the private actions of its players. If the player gets convicted, then the NFL/MLS can ban the player. Until then, if the activity doesn't affect their on-field abilit…
/r/MensRights26/09/14 01:00 PM
165

Don't teach fraternities to prevent drunk chicks from dancing out the window, teach drunk chicks not to dance out windows.
/r/MensRights25/09/14 03:53 PM
1

Boy, your friend sounds like a real winner. Why bother surrounding yourself with stupid people?
/r/MensRights24/09/14 02:26 PM
-4

TL;DR: Drunk guy on the street: "Hey, gimme a hug!" Oppressed and enlightened womyn: "Touch me and I'll mace you." Drunk guy's friends: "Gee, what a bitch." Oppressed and enlightened womyn: "To the echo chamber!" Facebook echo chamber: "So oppressive. Much misogyny. Try bear spray." Some dude: "Holy shit y'all are overreacting." Facebook echo chamber: "If you're not a feminist, you're a rapist." See more at /r/tumblrinaction
/r/MensRights23/09/14 08:16 PM
5

I am unaware of any laws in the U.S. that gives a rape victim a "right to anonymity." Such a law would raise some serious First Amendment concerns, because the name of the victim is published in the court documents, which are public records.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 04:17 PM
7

Your link only says that it's illegal to be naked in public. While this is true, the link doesn't say anything about nudity in private. Indecent exposure is definitely illegal in private spaces throughout most of the U.S. Here's some samples: California doesn't require that the nudity take place in public: in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; Here's Arizona's law A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes [him …
/r/MensRights19/09/14 04:15 PM
2

So indecent exposure doesn't apply in private dwellings Indecent exposure does apply in private dwellings. See, for example, this Ohio law.
/r/MensRights19/09/14 03:44 PM
8

What do you mean "rape victims aren't allowed to be named"? Is there a law in California that prohibits naming the victim in a rape allegation? I am not aware of any such laws, but then I don't practice in California. Even if such a law existed in California, I don't see how such a law could survive a First Amendment challenge (assuming someone was willing to challenge the law) . It's also possible that the publication has chosen not to publish the victim's name, which they (obviously) have the …
/r/MensRights19/09/14 03:41 PM
5

Should. But health insurance isn't really insurance. It's a game of chicken where the government, hospitals, patients, and insurance companies race to see who goes bankrupt first.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 08:04 PM
7

Home insurance companies do charge more if you're in a high crime area.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:54 PM
1

You're absolutely correct that there are ways to do it. I'm not arguing the technological feasibility. If I had the choice I wouldn't participate. I wouldn't use Progressive's Snapshot device either. I am happy with the price and level of intrusiveness.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 03:47 PM
7

I'm okay with businesses making business decisions that incidentally discriminate on the basis of race and gender.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:54 PM
6

Then they should be charged a higher rate.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:44 PM
3

What if it was only checked every time you had an accident? How often are you having accidents that this is a workable solution? Anyway, this wouldn't work because people would under-report how much they drive. Only when insurance needs to pay out would there be any realistic payment. At that point it's not insurance, it's subrogation. A per-milage insurance might be more fair, but I wouldn't want to participate in it.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:42 PM
2

I expect the "unsolicited sex" language is used because Illinois does not recognize a private cause of action for rape. It's still wrong for the newspaper to use the term "unsolicited sex" instead of rape, because that's what happened.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:35 PM
2

Currently, I sign up for my insurance and pay them biannually. That's the entire extent of my interaction with them. If I had to check in on a monthly or quarterly basis for them to determine how much I drove, what vehicles I drove, what times I drove the vehicles, how long I drove those vehicles, and everything else to calculate my per-mile insurance rate, I would not purchase insurance from that company.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 02:30 PM
8

I expect: 1) those types of statistics are too intrusive and difficult for insurance companies to reliably measure and account for; 2) most people don't want to pay a per-mile insurance rate; and 3) the insurance company has better resources for tracking the relative differences between male and female drivers. I'm going to follow the economic incentives and assume that the insurance company is not discriminating against men without good cause.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 01:47 PM
17

Disparate results absolutely justifies discrimination. If men are a higher risk, insurance companies should be able to charge them more.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 12:53 PM
3

I generally agree, the reason feminists aren't speaking out about this is because they're leftists (more accurately, progressives). A lot of leftists accept the Marxist oppressors-oppressed distinction. There are the "oppressed" and their "oppressors." If you are oppressed you are good; if you are an oppressor you are bad. The second thing a lot of leftists accept is the idea of identity politics; the idea that your identity determines your beliefs and actions. Combine these two and you get iden…
/r/MensRights11/09/14 02:16 PM
2

Aww, thanks.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 05:20 PM
5

At least here in the U.S., we start from a presumption that the parents (note plural) are the best decision makers when it comes to children. If a couple are married, then we assume that they are able to work out their differences and raise their children together. If you're not able to agree on important decisions regarding your children, why are you still married? So unless a couple splits (either divorce, separation, or they were never married), the court will not get involved in issues of ch…
/r/MensRights09/09/14 02:57 PM
1

If the case was that flimsy, I don't know why the judge didn't dismiss the case early.
/r/MensRights09/09/14 02:25 PM
4

No, that's not how "protected class" works. A "protected class" is not a specific group. A "protected class" is a trait, such as sex, race, national origin, or religion. Since "sex" is a protected class, discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal. You can no more discriminate against men than against women. "Race" is also a protected class. It means you can't discriminate on the basis of race; so no discrimination against blacks and no discrimination against whites. The Civil Rights Act mainl…
/r/MensRights08/09/14 07:42 PM
6

Probably doesn't violate the Federal Civil Rights Act, but it is probably in violation of local nondiscrimination laws. Whether the city would bother to enforce the law is an entirely separate question.
/r/MensRights08/09/14 03:39 PM
2

Smith ends her report with an interesting idea — that different levels of due process be used depending on the potential punishment. The Supreme Court reached this conclusion in 1950. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Glad to see feminists are keeping up with the times. Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause, but there can be no doubt that, at a minimum, they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 07:38 PM
1

That's the part that makes me think this story isn't true. This is a hail mary play.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 05:38 PM
4

There are three reasons why prenups get overturned: Fraud or duress - either forcing someone into singing the prenup or hiding assets. Inability to consult with counsel - It's a contract, so both sides should have the opportunity to consult with an attorney before singing. Shocks the conscience - the agreement is so lopsided or unfair that the court would not enforce it. If she were left with $55 instead of $55 million, then the agreement would probably "shock the conscience." This is really an …
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:51 PM
2

The "disciplinary committees" of colleges take the form of a criminal tribunal, not a civil trial. The "accused" (really "defendant") is tried by an (allegedly) impartial panel who passes sentence on the accused and, if found guilty, sentences him. The sentence takes the form of a criminal, not civil sentence. The accused may be ordered to keep away from the victim, may be suspended or expelled from the university, or may have other types of restrictions placed on his ability to participate on c…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:36 PM
2

The state two years ago served Nick Olivas, who had a passing fling with a 20-year-old woman when he was 14, demanding he pay to support a then-6-year-old daughter. 2 years ago he was 22. Add in a 9 month gestation and you can fiddle with birthdays to get the remaining time.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:17 PM
8

While it's terrible that he is being ordered to provide child support for a child that was the product of rape, the worst thing about this is his rapist will continue to have a strong influence over his ability to see his child. Retroactive child support is also a ridiculous practice that needs to end.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:14 PM
1

Actually, I post when I have something to contribute. It seems to be a rare trait.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 03:10 PM
0

If it was a man attacking a woman there would be a huge public outcry But that's because of the Feminist/SJW bias that any crime against a woman is because Patriarchy<sup>TM</sup>. If that's the standard you want to use for the MRM then you're going to drive out a lot of people who actually care about equality. Again, he isn't being abused because he's a man. When a feminist does something bad it's not an issue for MR. When a feminist does something bad for men it's an issue for MR. yet you don'…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 02:52 PM
0

A SJW saying a bunch of SJW shit is an everyday occurrence. Which, had you bothered to read my posts, you would have understood. If the MRM is going to assume that every time a man suffers any offense against his person it's a MRA issue, then you're taking the same ideological position as a SJW/Feminist. If you want to talk about how this is an abuse of the legal system by the offender's mother, then we can discuss that. If you want to talk about suppression of peaceful protests by SJWs, sure th…
/r/MensRights05/09/14 12:13 PM
-3

She didn't get away with it. She got arrested. Yes, the charges were dropped (which isn't particularly unusual since it was a fairly minor crime) and she had to pay restitution. And yeah, oh shit her mother is defending her. Big surprise there, since you know, it's her mother. Her mother isn't saying she should get off because she is a woman, or because the victims were male. She's making up a medical diagnosis.
/r/MensRights05/09/14 12:23 AM
-1

It isn't a Mens Rights issue every time a man is a victim of a crime. Men are victims of crime every day. It isn't a Mens Rights issue every time a SJW commits a crime. Or every time a feminist commits a crime. Or every time a woman commits a crime. It isn't a Mens Rights issue every time a man is a victim of a SJW/feminist/woman. It's a Mens Rights issue when the crime is ignored by the media, or when the SJW/feminist/woman gets away with committing a crime against a man because of his sex. If …
/r/MensRights04/09/14 08:09 PM
-1

This isn't /r/prolife.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 06:50 PM
-4

"Feminist acts crazy and calls people names" is an everyday occurrence. Reading is fundamental. Yes, the SJW video going viral and her mother suing people for it is extraordinary, but it still has absolutely nothing to do with Mens Rights.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 05:07 PM
0

I did watch the videos. SJWs are idiots. I am not denying that. Hitting people and destroying property are wrong, I'm not denying that either. But in this case when the police arrived they acted appropriately: the cops confronted the woman and (presumably) arrested her. Her actions were not caused by anti-male sentiment. She didn't target the male protestors while ignoring female protestors. She spouted some feminist rhetoric, and called the protestors names. There was nothing anti-male about th…
/r/MensRights04/09/14 03:57 PM
-1

Not sure how this "dog bites man" story relates to mens rights.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 01:30 PM
17

According to the White House: Women's median weekly earnings are 30% higher than men's median weekly earnings. Gender pay gap.
/r/MensRights27/08/14 02:37 PM
3

Wasn't she the "journalist" who attacked people who questioned the rape allegation in the Duke Lacrosse case, then refused to apologize?
/r/MensRights15/08/14 03:23 PM
1

While the prosecutor has an obligation to disclose information that tends to prove the innocence of the accused, the prosecution has no obligation to actively seek out the information. The Stored Communications Act only allows the government to compel data from a provider. It does not allow private parties to compel data from a provider. If the provider doesn't want to comply with a defense attorney's request, the defense attorney has no recourse (under the Stored Communications Act) to compel d…
/r/MensRights15/08/14 03:14 PM
5

The alleged victim (Journalistic ethics precludes naming victims of sexual abuse in stories) asserts that he was falsely accused by Kai Boulware, under pressure from her then-boyfriend Jacob Levy, of sexual misconduct. The perpetrator of this false accusation, Kai Boulware, according to the complaint filed by the victim, refused to cooperate with the subsequent police investigation. The victim was not charged by the police and was found not culpable by the university's star chamber disciplinary …
/r/MensRights12/08/14 03:35 PM
3

Blasphemy. Cheerios should be honey nut like God intended.
/r/MensRights24/07/14 12:57 PM
3

Yes. Because it is the job of the Supreme Court to resolve controversies about whether regulations are applied consistent with the laws passed by Congress. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to pass good laws, or ensure that laws passed are good. It was only their job to decide whether what is being enforced is consistent with the law. In this case, Congress passed a law that said religion shouldn't be burdened unless there is a compelling government interest and enforced in the least restri…
/r/MensRights08/07/14 01:52 PM
1

No. Read the opinion at pages 8-10 to understand the HHS requirement.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 06:24 PM
3

non-profit religious organization that serves a community of believers Non-profit religious organizations are not required to serve a community of believers. It includes religious charities that provide benefits to non-believers. That the government chose to exempt the former does not automatically establish a "least restrictive" precedent that applies to everyone. Actually, it kind of does. The "least restrictive" requirement asks if the government can achieve their compelling interest in a non…
/r/MensRights01/07/14 04:58 PM
1

Spending is at its lowest since WWII. Based on what metric?
/r/MensRights01/07/14 03:08 PM
2

No, health insurers are not required to pay for over-the-counter products.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 03:06 PM
5

The bigger issue here is that companies can now violate any law they want as long as they are closely held (over 50% of stock owned by 5 or fewer people) and they say to follow the law would violate their "religious views" That is not the case. The problem in the Hobby Lobby decision was that HHS provided means for religious non-profits to exempt themselves from providing abortificients while not allowing religious for-profits to similarly exempt themselves.
/r/MensRights01/07/14 03:05 PM
1

I meant it's not a 1st Amendment case. The HHS rule was challenged on the grounds that it did not comply with the RFRA, a statute passed by Congress following Employment Div. v. Smith. The HHS rule was not challenged on 1st Amendment grounds. (at least at the Supreme Court)
/r/MensRights30/06/14 08:08 PM
1

Key words for overbreadth This case wasn't a 1st Amendment case. The case was decided under the RFRA, which says: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless there is a "compelling government interest" and the restriction is the "least restrictive means" for fulfilling that interest.
/r/MensRights30/06/14 06:54 PM
2

This was discussed at length in TwoX, and it was concluded that the whole reason it was struck down was because the buffer zone wasn't all-inclusive. That is, it was only applied to abortion clinics, not all buildings. Then the people at TwoX don't understand the law. To quote the court: "The Act is not content based simply because it establishes buffer zones only at abortion clinics." The reason the bill was struck down is because it "burden[s] substantially more speech than is necessary to fur…
/r/MensRights30/06/14 12:36 PM
1

This law isn't that unusual. Some background: In order to defend a killing as "self defense," you have to satisfy two elements: the assailant's belief in imminent danger must be both honest and reasonable. "Honest" means that you legitimately believed your life was in danger. It is a subjective test that looks at the mind of the assailant. "Reasonable" means that a hypothetical reasonable person would believe their life to be in danger. This is an objective test that considers the facts of the s…
/r/MensRights23/06/14 02:02 PM
-3

This doesn't sound too unreasonable. You take a child away from one of his natural parents. Once every two weeks he goes to see this stranger and spends a few hours with his dad. He spends the night with this "dad" guy, then in the morning gets packed up again and shipped back to mom. Dad tells him he loves him, but if dad loves him so much, why do they only get to see each other for a few hours every other weekend? And why is most of that time spent sleeping, instead of spending time together? …
/r/MensRights16/06/14 05:38 PM
27

how does it benefit themselves by excluding people from the event? They're not. They are excluding people who don't support their beliefs and values from the event. They believe that straight, white males are a societal problem. Therefore, they want to exclude them. But some straight white men might support this idea, so they will pay money to encourage this view. Congratulations, you were a member of a racist, sexist, and bigoted organization.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 02:31 PM
10

That's ridiculous. Women already can use pregnancy to avoid military deployment. I don't think any woman has ever been prosecuted under the UMCJ for getting pregnant.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 04:43 PM
20

The use of "Males" & "Females" makes the whole thing read very clunky. Just say "men" and "women." And the "TM" after "Equality" in the footer is just stupid.
/r/MensRights10/06/14 12:44 PM
62

It's a mechanism whereby women can enjoy the social benefits (particularly in feminist circles) of being a lesbian without actually being a lesbian. Basically gay blackface.
/r/MensRights09/06/14 05:47 PM
4

"Looking for the ideal Mother's Day gift? Make sure your ex sends a child support payment!!!!"
/r/MensRights06/06/14 09:09 PM
1

Women are not overwhelmingly Democrat. Obama won the female vote by 10% in 2012. Men are not overwhelmingly Republican. Romney won the male vote by 8% in 2012. Democrats pander to young, single, urban women.
/r/MensRights06/06/14 02:47 PM
1

In the U.S., I would suggest you and the Ex. make up a formal, written agreement about who has custody, when they get custody, who drops them off, and everything else. You would then get the court to approve this agreement, making it legally enforceable. Then you would adhere to the formal written agreement religiously. Don't know what the rules are for U.K.
/r/MensRights05/06/14 06:19 PM
0

Maybe men should teach their sons not to get prostate cancer. <sup>/s</sup>
/r/MensRights23/05/14 03:34 PM
5

Why don't you explain what it is?
/r/MensRights22/05/14 01:33 PM
1

Why is Bwog still employing people who have been accused of violating Columbia's rules on sexual assault?
/r/MensRights21/05/14 02:33 PM
2

That's not really that many claims. 4 against the University defendant. 3 against all defendants. 1 against Jane Doe defendant. I've seen much, much worse.
/r/MensRights20/05/14 11:31 AM
7

Kidnapping occurred sometime between April 14 and 16. I've read various numbers. Lets say earliest is April 14. This is a Reuters story published on April 16 by NBC News. This is another article NBC News story giving further information about Boko Haram. Published on April 19, it discusses the kidnapping "Monday," which would be April 14. Worst case, the media "ignored" the story for 2 days.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 01:30 PM
2

Absent a court order dictating the terms of custody, your wife is free to take the kids with her for the weekend. What most men forget, or don't realize, is that they are also a parent, and have the same authority. Take a weekend off and go on a vacation with your sons. Your wife might even appreciate a break from the kids.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 11:47 AM
1

What I take from this article is that vox.com is basically just knowyourmeme.com. Good to know.
/r/MensRights19/05/14 11:31 AM
1

Two rational agents cannot disagree if they have access to the same information and the same ethical foundation. Which one of us do you think has a more complete image of the issue? I don't know what information you have access to. I know what information I have access to. Therefore, I can reasonably conclude I have "a more complete image of the issue." A lesser example is how some MRAs refuse to acknowledge that marriage is a harmful institution overall because they are emotionally invested in …
/r/MensRights18/05/14 04:37 PM
3

At least she got a 30 year sentence in the U.S. Which is significantly better than what most female rapists get.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 04:29 PM
0

Whatever hole you crawled out of, please go back there. You don't belong here. People can reasonably disagree about the procedure. It's not nearly as damaging or harmful as FGM. If the Mens Rights movement is going to take the approach of Feminism that you're not welcome unless you agree with every aspect of the movement, then I'll be happy to leave. Maybe /r/MensRights really is as bad as AMR says it is.
/r/MensRights17/05/14 04:21 PM
-4

This is fucking ridiculous. The mother agreed to get the child circumcised as part of the mutually agreed-upon parenting plan. She has delayed the procedure for two years, for which she should be held in contempt. Circumcise the kid. Put mom in jail for a few months to cool off.
/r/MensRights16/05/14 03:07 PM
1

I don't believe their lawyer looked at this and approved it for distribution. If he did, he's an idiot. This is called a "statement against interest," and would be admissible against BWOG if the accused student were to sue BWOG for any of a variety of torts. The smart answer here is "A member of the BWOG staff was asked to voluntarily resign. We wish him the best in his future endeavors."
/r/MensRights15/05/14 05:20 PM
2

Sounded more like an answer to the question "how did she overpower him?" rather than "was there domestic violence?"
/r/MensRights15/05/14 02:19 AM
1

We've been nomadic hunter-gatherers. A valid point. Subsistence farmer was actually a step up from nomadic hunter-gatherer.
/r/MensRights14/05/14 06:33 PM
11

Bullshit. The reason Monica was attacked by feminist groups wasn't because of "slut shaming." It was because she was politically inconvenient. A feminist journalist even offered to give Clinton a hummer "just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." She wasn't "slut shamed." She was applauded by feminists and the American Left alike. This is post hoc rationalization, attempting to cover up the despicable behavior of feminists and the left during the Clinton era. Feminists loved Clinton. They ig…
/r/MensRights09/05/14 02:18 PM
19

The government never gave women a free trip to Europe.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 11:32 AM
1

Fox News doesn't rip off entire videos from the internet and splice in a 1 minute intro from their pet reporter explaining what's going on in the 30-second video you're about to watch then a 1 minute outro reminding you to check Huffingtonpost.com for all of your news and entertainment needs. HuffPo is the worst.
/r/MensRights08/05/14 01:50 PM
6

I don't know if this is entirely a sexism issue. Women do need time to recover after a pregnancy, and a child may need the mother to provide breast milk (although not required). But the law isn't justified on the basis that children need their mother, or that the mother needs the time to recover. The law is that the primary caregiver is allowed a period of time to care for the child. Really, this sounds like a case of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Homosexual men are allowed …
/r/MensRights08/05/14 01:42 PM
6

The girl had also tried to join another non-consenting student in bed but was stopped by students. She attempted to rape someone?
/r/MensRights07/05/14 03:27 PM
1

A threat, by itself, is not assault. If he had raised his hand, or had a weapon in hand, then his words could have placed her in apprehension of an immediate battery. But words alone is never enough to constitute assault, no matter how heartfelt.
/r/MensRights07/05/14 01:19 PM
2

Probably because the handicap ramp is to the left of the picture.
/r/MensRights06/05/14 01:12 PM
4

Crime victims don't press charges, the prosecutor presses charges based on the available evidence.
/r/MensRights02/05/14 03:29 PM
-1

False accusation of rape is the feminist weapon patriarchy. Feminism helps men too. <sup>/s</sup>
/r/MensRights02/05/14 03:28 PM
5

How about "feminist"?
/r/MensRights29/04/14 01:22 PM
6

Pick your favorite 3rd world country with regular human rights abuses. Say Afghanistan where women are shot for going to school. Print out pictures documenting this abuse. Sell lemonade for $1/cup, with proceeds to benefit women who are actually oppressed.
/r/MensRights25/04/14 06:34 PM
25

Yes. You should designate both beneficiaries and executor of your estate.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 05:46 PM
22

Check out the .pdf posted at AVFM, particularly the Certificate of Qualification: "Letters of administration of all [Chris Mackey's property are] granted... unto Dina M. Mackey ... as Administrator"
/r/MensRights24/04/14 04:05 PM
25

You're a douche because the value you place on having sexual intercourse with her x the chance you will have sexual intercourse with her at less than $10. She is a high-class woman who expects at least $20 to spread her legs.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 03:21 PM
55

She isn't the copyright holder, the estate is the copyright holder and she is the administrator of the estate. What I suspect is the court's rationale is that his assets passed to his children in trust. And that she, as the children's sole legal guardian, is best able to handle the assets until they reach the age of majority. But the idea of an ex-spouse acting as the administrator of a decadent's estate is pretty remarkable.
/r/MensRights24/04/14 03:19 PM
1

There is an incentive to overreach because when you compromise then you get more than your fair share. If I demand 50% of the assets and she demands 60% of the assets, a compromise number will be her getting between 50% and 60%.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 03:55 PM
2

Not to mention that spousal abuse is sufficient cause for divorce.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 03:53 PM
7

And you should keep them closed. If you open them then they don't stay flush and you start looking like a community college professor.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 03:34 PM
107

/u/wil is not interested in the truth. /u/wil has had his preexisting biases confirmed by this survey. /u/wil is a bully.
/r/MensRights15/04/14 03:12 PM
3

There is only one fact relevant to whether you are obligated to provide child support: Are you the child's father? Even if you are the child's father, that does not mean that you need to be involved with the mother.
/r/MensRights14/04/14 03:07 PM
4

Contact your hospital's HR department.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 01:10 PM
10

A bit more information: Clark County refused to pay the judgment. They claimed that since the detectives fabricated evidence that they were acting outside the scope of their duties, and the city is not responsible. The city is, of course, footing the legal bill. Simply winning at jury trial isn't enough. Opposing attorneys filed post-trial motions saying that the judgment of the jury should be thrown out. They argue that the detectives did not know, or have reason to know, that Spencer was innoc…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 03:36 PM
16

I didn't see anything in that article suggesting that Detective Sharon Krause is being charged for fabricating evidence and sending an innocent man to prison. I didn't see anything suggesting Sgt. Michael Davidson is being charged for using his position of authority to victimize this man. I didn't see where the former Mrs. Spencer is being tried for conspiracy to deprive her ex-husband of contact with his children. While it's great that the victim here has been compensated for the abuse he suffe…
/r/MensRights04/04/14 03:26 PM
10

This may be down-voted, but... seriously, your buddy is dating a meth addict... in California? Just try finding a nice girl in California who isn't a meth addict./s
/r/MensRights28/03/14 03:46 PM
3

They ask you to fill out the "survey", asking you biased questions about something you agree with, then you send it in with your membership check. I get them all the time from political groups. It's not even really a survey. It's simply advertising to get you to join their group. I'd be surprised if the answers are even counted.
/r/MensRights27/03/14 12:49 PM
5

I babysat for a neighbor once when I was in my early teens. We played GI Joes all night and went through a whole box of Scooby Doo Graham Crackers. Never got asked back.
/r/MensRights19/03/14 03:39 PM
2

I'm not sure if that was mocking MRAs, or mocking women who are opposed to MRAs. Either way, it was tragically unfunny.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 07:24 PM
10

The college is wrong. If a girl feels bad after having sex, it isn't rape. The only time it is rape is if she refuses to consent to the act at the time. Assuming what you say is correct, your friend needs to consider legal action against the University.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:29 PM
5

Based on the linked study (p. 33), men are 60% more likely to tell no one about sexual harassment. (43 to 27%). Copy the language of the flier verbatim, but change the headline to "Men are 60% less likely to report being sexually harassed."
/r/MensRights04/03/14 09:21 PM
3

Just how much money are we talking about here? Is there any penalty for false or defamatory allegations? I ask because it's possible that I was groped by Ms. Alison Saunders when visiting the United Kingdom. They don't want to discourage victims from coming forward, right?
/r/MensRights20/02/14 03:31 PM
1

I suppose my biggest concern now are those 4-5 years in which she doesn't work at all, and I do. Aren't I being robbed of my time with my child? I mean, those are the developmental years of a child's life -- I'm just to have little to no part in that process? The thought freezes my gut like ice. Yes. Your 20s - 30s are when you are forming the basis for your career. The efforts you put in during this time will carry you forward. Your 20s - 30s are also the most important time to spend with child…
/r/MensRights13/02/14 02:51 PM
2

maybe there is an "asklwyers" sub /r/legaladvice /r/legal /r/law
/r/MensRights03/02/14 03:01 PM
10

10-15 years for each manslaughter, 5-10 for felony child endangerment. If the sentences run consecutively, max would be 40 years. They probably wouldn't run consecutively for manslaughter, maybe 15-20 years. That's assuming he can get the charge down to manslaughter. More than likely he would be charged with 1st degree murder. If convicted, he would probably be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, possibly face the death penalty. The prosecution might offer a plea to 2n…
/r/MensRights31/01/14 01:08 PM
7

Who cares? XKCD hasn't been funny for years.
/r/MensRights27/01/14 02:37 PM
-1

No, vestigial tails and cleft lips are physical abnormalities. At least in the case of a vestigial tail, it is usually only corrected for aesthetic reasons. In the U.S., and probably most Jewish communities, the majority of the population is circumcised. So having a foreskin is a physical abnormality.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:53 AM
-1

A cleft lip can cause other problems which is why I think it is worth correcting. A foreskin can cause other problems too. How about causing a cleft lip in a child for religious reasons? I don't think that's medically possible. And like you said, it would cause other (non-aesthetic) problems down the road.
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:51 AM
-2

Interesting. I would have no problem with removal of earlobes, although I doubt it is actually practiced anywhere. How about cleft lip? Mutilation?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 01:12 AM
-3

As long as the parents consented, no. Do you have a problem with parents having a vestigial tail removed?
/r/MensRights25/01/14 12:37 AM
-1

Most male circumcisions in the world are performed on boys 5 to 13 years old. Source? Anyway, age 5-13 is a difficult range because that is when a child starts to develop autonomy and should have some say in their personal health. It is inappropriate for a parent in that age range to ignore the child's opinion. Before 3 (or so) it is easy to say it should be the parent's decision. After 13 (or so) it should be the child's decision.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:07 PM
-1

Ear piercing is illegal until 14, tattos until 18. Not in my country. Seeing toddlers or infants with pierced ears is not a rare sight. You should stay on topic. I thought we were talking about surgically modifying a child's body. Surgery to remove a vestigial tail is "mutilation" as you define it. Should it be illegal?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 09:02 PM
-1

FGM and MGM are both mutilations. By that rationale, so is ear piercing. No one ever bitches about ear piercing. Humans are also sometimes born with a vestigial tail and doctors remove those. Is that mutilation that we should ban? How about cleft lip? Club foot? Leg lengthening? Ambiguous genitalia? How about less invasive procedures that change a child's body? Orthodontics to correct a child's teeth? Scoliosis treatment? Exactly like Murder and Theft. Your analogy fails because both murder and …
/r/MensRights24/01/14 08:27 PM
-4

That's a false analogy. Grand theft is worse than eating coconut. Does that mean we should criminalize eating coconut?
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:41 PM
-4

Well, you've changed my mind. Bans on FGM should be lifted.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:36 PM
-1

Are you backtracking? You should read the entirety of my post if you're going to be pedantic. Much of the push back against FGM was that banning it constituted religious and cultural discrimination. So my statement holds true. Actually it is sometimes. And would you be ok if it were legalized but only for infants? No, because of the other reasons I posted.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:29 PM
-8

FGM has much more significant health and sexual complications. It's also not done at as young an age as circumcision, causing significantly more trauma to the affected child. Male circumcision isn't that bad. Really.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 07:23 PM
-12

When you ban a practice whose sole purpose is religious expression, you're going to get accused of hating those religious groups.
/r/MensRights24/01/14 03:34 PM
2

Relevant statute Seems the 3-year rule is an affirmative defense. Your brother needs to get a lawyer ASAP. That lawyer needs to talk to the D.A. about dropping all charges.
/r/MensRights17/01/14 02:36 PM
5

I agree that he had a choice of accepting or rejecting the plea bargain. But the problem is the system that allows prosecutors to overcharge and grand juries that are willing to indict with the slimmest of evidence. The defendant sees all the charges, all the possible time he can serve, and is then offered a plea bargain for a small portion of that. And on the other side is his public defender. His lawyer who has spent about an hour with him, doesn't know everything that happened, and is just tr…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 12:25 PM
3

By bad behavior, I mean promiscuity.
/r/MensRights13/01/14 02:37 PM
4

Here's one for you: Why do women persist in pushing the stud/slut myth to justify their own bad behavior?
/r/MensRights13/01/14 12:50 PM
1

If this were to take place in the United States, the college would be in violation of the student's religious liberty. A person has the right to reasonable accommodation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. If an individuals religious views prevent him from spending time with a female classmate in public and the school makes alternative arrangements for others to complete the assignment without spending time with female (or any) classmates in public, then the school must accommodate the st…
/r/MensRights09/01/14 10:30 PM
9

Unless the logic results in a perceived negative result for women, then it's patriarchal and wrong.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 12:51 PM
12

I disagree, but only because "Liberals" is now synonymous with "Progressive." The closest thing to real liberals are Libertarians. I would love to call myself a liberal. But then people would think I was a progressive.
/r/MensRights23/12/13 09:49 PM
2

I support Men's Rights. If the MRM wants to support gay marriage, I will no longer consider myself a supporter of the MRM.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 01:46 PM
2

Because women can have sex with many guys and there's no easily discernable way to connect an individual with the child. If a man and woman are married, the state assumes that the woman was faithful and presumes that the husband is the father. If the woman lists a man's name, the state assumes the woman is honest and presumes that the listed person is the father. The presumptive father can contest this, as can an individual claiming to be the actual father.
/r/MensRights19/12/13 04:29 PM
2

The step-father will only have the right to custody if he has parental rights. Those can only be acquired by legally adopting the son. When the step-father legally adopts, the rights of the natural father are (depending on state law) terminated. Since the child's father has not had his rights terminated (he wouldn't have visitation rights or child support obligations), I can assume the step-father has not adopted, and therefore has no parental rights.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:37 PM
1

If your spouse dies, then you will gain full custody rights over your son as the sole surviving parent.
/r/MensRights18/12/13 04:03 PM
0

On that note, she is making the pill sound far more complex that it is. I went to my general doctor, listened to a lecture about the possible side-effects and the benefits for about thirty minutes, and now pick up my prescription once a month. Oh the hardship. You really should carefully listen to what the physician is talking about. Your doctor is not just lecturing you, he is giving you information that you need to be mindful of. You should know what the side effects are, how they affect you, …
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:25 PM
5

HERE IS AN IDEA: (oops caps lock) I find it hard to believe it was easier for you to type "(oops caps lock)" than it was to delete and retype the first line.
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:07 PM
2

Actually you would probably win, assuming the state has some sort of anti-discrimination law for businesses. Most states prevent discrimination based on sex. The problem is: how much are your damages? You paid $120 instead of $60 for entry? Then you are entitled to $60. Maybe another $40 for drinks. These bars get away with their discriminatory practices because: 1) It is not worth suing them, even if you had a class action; and 2) State Attorneys General don't enforce it. If there was an actual…
/r/MensRights16/12/13 02:05 PM
2

dieing Dying. English is weird like that.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 09:50 PM
3

I suspect a 1983 action would be based on a 5th amendment/due process violation. It sounds like he received his required notice and hearing, but the system was biased against him. That would be a pretty tricky case to litigate. In one option, he would argue that the rule, as applied to him, was unconstitutional. He would have to show that the school acted with actual malice towards him. The perpetrator's willful destruction of evidence probably wouldn't be relevant (edit: unless the college actu…
/r/MensRights13/12/13 04:21 PM
8

The name of the falsely accused victim is dragged through the mud and made a matter of public record. The name of the false accuser (alleged) perpetrator is kept secret. FTFY.
/r/MensRights13/12/13 04:07 PM
1

Sadly, yes, it is legal for nightclubs to charge $20 to get inside. Why anyone would pay that is beyond me. Drinks are probably $10 each once you get inside. The discrimination part is illegal, but ultimately unenforceable.
/r/MensRights06/12/13 12:43 PM
37

It's really unfortunate that this case will amount to nothing because the plaintiffs are, and I quote "not a protected class". Except that's not true. "Protected class" doesn't refer to a specific group - Blacks, Women, Veterans. A "protected class" is a characteristic that is protected against discrimination - Race, Gender, Age, etc. To be clear: she's making a stupid argument, and the case won't be thrown out (at least for that reason).
/r/MensRights02/12/13 04:27 PM
15

I see you're making some sort of faux-legal argument. I'm bored this morning, so let's go through it. I didn't see anything about having it notarized Contracts don't have to be notarized in order to be valid. A contract may be either oral or written. They merely require a "meeting of the minds," or mutual agreement as to the individual rights and responsibilities of the parties. In this case the father and mother agreed that the father would waive his paternity rights in exchange for providing a…
/r/MensRights02/12/13 02:33 PM
2

There's a lot of case law on what is required for court to have DJ jurisdiction. Not knowing the content of the letter, I don't think there's much to discuss.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 06:31 PM
2

No, I'm not on /r/LawSchool. But I'll check it out.
/r/MensRights26/11/13 02:58 PM
22

First of all, lets address the "GoldiBlox sues Beastie Boys" part. In the United States if someone threatens to sue you, you don't want that lawsuit hanging over your head. If you think you're in the right you should have some way of bringing the issue to a head. That is the rationale behind the "Declaratory Judgment" action (28 USC § 2201). When a party is threatened with suit (such as by receiving a cease and desist letter), the party may sue the threatening party to force adjudication of the …
/r/MensRights26/11/13 02:23 PM
1

There are two types of contempt: civil and criminal. If the sentence is for a fixed term of more than 6 months then it is criminal contempt. Otherwise, it is civil contempt. If it is criminal contempt then all of your rights (6th Amendment) attach, and you are entitled to inter alia counsel.
/r/MensRights13/11/13 02:45 PM
2

kyriarchy Is that a government run by Mr. Mister?
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:20 PM
0

So because we have a bunch of government programs that encourage people to be lazy and unproductive, we should pass some more government programs that encourage people to be lazy and unproductive. No thanks.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:19 PM
1

You may not need it, but if you do get sick, expect to pay for care our of your own pocket.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:04 PM
1

I don't think you understand what a "risk pool" is.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 06:03 PM
1

Birth control for non-contraceptive purposes was already covered pre-ACA.
/r/MensRights11/11/13 05:59 PM
1

I wasn't talking about the DoD. Conscripting soldiers is no better than slavery.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 02:21 AM
5

*should.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 08:56 PM
-7

I don't think this is particularly archaic. Sure it sucks that the law is not gender neutral, but he slept with her under the assumption that they would get married. Fraudulent inducement can overcome consent. The problem with this case is that he did intend to marry her at the time. But due to social and family pressure was unable to complete the marriage. That's not rape.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 01:40 PM
1

Conscripting soldiers is no more ethical than conscripting workers.
/r/MensRights08/11/13 01:36 PM
4

Dads feel differently about their little girls than they do about their little boys. They don't want to see their girls get hurt. I don't think that sort of language is acceptable, but responding to it in kind, or threatening to call the cops, is not going to make your relationship with your in-laws any better. If my FIL had said that to me, I probably would have left my wife at the altar. If he feels that sort of behavior is acceptable, then who knows what kind of values he instilled in his dau…
/r/MensRights08/11/13 01:34 PM
1

Wouldn't the public also be more likely to oppose wars we have business in?
/r/MensRights08/11/13 01:28 PM
3

It depends on what type of campus it is. If the campus is an "open" campus, then he can appeal the matter, or file a suit to get access to the campus. Basically, unless he has been given due process (usually notice and a hearing), he cannot be deprived of a right (such as entering a public place). The hearing can be post-hoc, but he must be afforded an opportunity to contest the deprivation. If the campus is closed, or it's a private school, then your friend is SOL.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:31 PM
64

A brilliant bit at the end of the article: "All I can think is what would I do if my name was up there on that sign?" he says. "What would I do?" Ms. Lloyd shoots back: "Do you know what you'd do if you were raped?" There is a tense silence as the freshman studies the grass in front of him. Finally, he looks up. "Well, I know one thing," he says, "I wouldn't put up a sign."
/r/MensRights07/11/13 04:19 PM
1

You're assuming the goal was health care for everyone.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 12:28 PM
1

Sometimes they don't even need a warrant. Fingerprints, for example.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:51 PM
1

I'm sure the judge could press his own charges for violating the terms of his warrant Unlikely. The judge has no authority on his own to prosecute a violation of the terms of a warrant.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:48 PM
2

If suit alleges violation of a constitutional right (4th/14th Amendment in this case), and the case is successful (hard to see how it wouldn't be), then a lawyer is entitled to legal fees. In this case, I suspect the government is going to settle with the victim for a pretty significant amount of money.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 07:46 PM
19

District Attorney first, media second. Don't bother with the cops.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 03:38 PM
2

The important thing is that men aren't unified in voting for issues of mens rights. Which I suppose is (or should be) the purpose of Mens Rights.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 01:37 PM
16

MensRights isn't about increasing male privilege at the expense of women. It's about equality between men and women.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 01:24 PM
8

The ACA requires female sterilization to be covered. It does not require male sterilization to be covered.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 01:04 PM
12

Because Feminism has taught a number of young, single women that they deserve something simply based on their sex. And these women vote. Men don't have a similar movement that demands special privileges, they aren't as unified in voting, and they vote less than women. Passing a law to benefit women creates votes. Passing a law to the detriment of men doesn't lose votes.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 12:54 PM
1

Not sure if real...
/r/MensRights31/10/13 03:56 PM
4

What can I expect in the near future You can expect the police to contact you. They'll show up in a squad car, place you under arrest, and take you to the local Police Department. They'll tell you that V. accused you of rape, they found your DNA in her mouth and vagina, and that they found evidence of forced penetration. They will tell you that you have the opportunity to confess and give a statement. They'll offer to put in a good word with the judge. You don't have a criminal history. The judg…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 12:12 PM
7

Have you ever seen the press handle a rape accusation, even a false one, in favor of the accused? Going to the press is the worst idea.
/r/MensRights25/10/13 12:03 PM
5

TIL I'm a jerk. :(
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:59 PM
2

Step 1 is to get a lawyer. Most will offer a free initial consultation. Get an estimate up front. I wouldn't suggest you handle this yourself, but if you're the kind of guy who likes waltzing in a minefield, here's how to get started: There's probably a number on the letter. Call that number, tell them that you received a letter, none of the kids are yours (assuming that is the truth) and you want to challenge paternity. If they ask, give them your name, although they'll probably get it through …
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:50 PM
8

At first I thought the Lewd & Lascivious conduct was simply a plea deal, which might make sense. If the prosecutor, for whatever reason, thought he couldn't get a rape charge to stick, he might agree to a deal with mandatory jail time but a lesser charge. But the source article suggests she has only been charged, and she hasn't pleaded guilty to these charges. What a joke of a prosecutor.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 02:53 AM
1

Under standards advanced by Feminists, Matt was raped. Under current law, it is very likely that Matt was raped. Under standards advanced by MRAs, Matt was not raped as he maintained the capacity to consent. In either case, I don't think he cheated.
/r/MensRights15/10/13 08:08 PM
28

The woman who confessed to rape in the comments is the one that really rustles my jimmies. Now she's friends with the guy.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 12:13 PM
1

Sorta. I see I'm getting downvoted for having a reasonable but different opinion on the matter. sigh.
/r/MensRights10/10/13 11:26 AM
0

I don't know if there's a legal statute of limitations, but the doctrine of laches may apply. Laches is an equitable defense that says a person has rested on his legal right for so long, and the other party has relied on that delay, that circumstances have evolved so it would no longer be just to grant the party's claim. If he had brought his claim earlier, she could have gone after Tony for support, Tony could have nurtured a relationship with the kids, and the kids would have recognized Tony a…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 05:05 PM
-3

The kids were 5 when he separated from the mother (1998), and they were 16 when he challenged paternity (2009). Until 2009, he has acted as their father, accepted that he was their father, and been treated as their father*. He had plenty of time to challenge paternity before this and could have demanded a DNA test when he was originally required to pay support. At the time of separation it would have been a close call. Challenging the paternity of kids during a marriage isn't good for marital ha…
/r/MensRights09/10/13 02:12 PM
8

More influential than the warlizard gaming forums? I doubt it.
/r/MensRights07/10/13 01:39 PM
1

If there were evidence of intentional discriminatory enforcement, then the law would be unconstitutional. If the only evidence is of discriminatory impact unrelated to intentional discrimination, then the law is not unconstitutional.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 03:37 PM
5

A law that is facially neutral may be declared unconstitutional as violating equal protection if there is evidence that the law shows discriminatory intent. That is, the purpose of the law and disparate prosecution is born from an intent to treat men and women differently. If no evidence of discriminatory intent is shown and the only evidence is of disparate impact (men are sentenced harsher than women), then the law does not violate the Federal Constitution.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 03:23 PM
-9

It's not that marriage is very dangerous for men, it's that marriage to the wrong type of woman is very dangerous for men. Don't marry a feminist. Don't marry a woman from a divorced home. Don't marry a woman with a lot of emotional baggage. Find a woman who is interested in a traditional marriage. Get to know her mother before you marry. She is going to turn out like her, both in appearance and behavior. If mom is always putting down dad, she will learn and do the same thing, putting stress on …
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:58 PM
23

That's exactly why I oppose abortion. Afraid of being on the hook for 9 months? Don't let a guy cum in you. There's a simple choice for ya.
/r/MensRights19/09/13 05:38 PM
129

I was offered a full time job but it got pulled 2 days before I was to start because a parent threatened to pull their children out if I was hired. I'm pretty sure that's grounds for a sexual discrimination lawsuit. The law might be different in the U.K., but if you were denied a job because of your gender in the U.S. that would be a slam-dunk case.
/r/MensRights16/09/13 02:19 PM
1

I don't think it is, at least not mainstream western religions. If you're talking about modern Islam as it's practiced in the middle-east, then I would agree.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 02:00 PM
28

Kindergarden.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:57 PM
5

How is MRA inconsistent with religion?
/r/MensRights13/09/13 01:56 PM
7

Zimmerman had to show that he legitimately feared for his life, had to show injuries, and had to prove that he wasn't a dangerous person, or "wanna-be cop." Not to mention undergoing a very expensive trial, time in jail, enduring death threats, and basically having his life ruined. He definitely didn't get off easy.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 04:24 PM
1

Figured I'd rather be irreverent than informative. Fahrenheit is no more ridiculous than Celsius.
/r/MensRights25/08/13 12:02 AM
1

Being facetious.
/r/MensRights24/08/13 09:41 PM
3

Put bacon on a foil-lined sheet pan, place in oven at 400 °F (860 °R). Bake for 15-20 minutes. Return to completely cooked bacon. The best way to make bacon.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 01:10 PM
2

You don't have the right to know who reported your room smelling like pot either. Yes, you actually do have the right to know who reported your room smelling like pot, unless it was an anonymous source. I'll get to that in a minute. If the police show up at your house with a search warrant based on the testimony of a witness, they have the right to search your house and collect evidence. That evidence may include marijuana, text messages relating to buying pot, smoking paraphernalia, etc. At thi…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 12:13 PM
3

Could you please clarify the circumstances under which a private individual whose only action is to intentionally make a false statement to the Police can be sued for defamation? Sure. A private individual (we'll call him Dennis) makes a statement to the police about someone (call him Peter) knowing that the information is false. The police arrest Peter based on Dennis' false statement. Peter has suffered some harm, for example damage to his reputation because the neighbors saw him get arrested.…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:18 PM
16

Depends on the jurisdiction. As long as there is some negative publicity, he will have a case for defamation, especially if the accusations were made with the knowledge of their falsity, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Source: 3 years of law school and 6 years of private practice. Friend should get a lawyer and don't take legal advice from the internet. Let the lawyer figure out what is appropriate.
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:19 PM
8

The word statutory (which almost has the word state in it) Actually, it almost has the word "statute" in it. Because the word statutory indicates that it is a law that is grounded in statute, not the common law. Although both state and statute are based on the common Latin root stare (to stand), so you're not that far off. In law, we would say that rape is malum in se, the act itself is wrong. While statutory rape is malum prohibitum, the act is wrong because we say it's wrong. In the states eye…
/r/MensRights21/08/13 03:12 PM
1

Aside from the fact that the not-a-father isn't "robbed of the chance to ever have a child of his own by his wife's lies" (he can always have another kid), yes.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:27 PM
1

No, completely wrong. When a minor is unable to engage in an action, it is the parents' responsibility to act on their behalf and in their best interests. Because unlike the government, parents actually know their kid personally. They know if the kid is mature and responsible enough to consent to sex. The government cannot make that type of individualized determination, at least not without significant time and energy. And their determination will never be as well informed as the parents'.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 05:34 PM
1

Some more information Seems the defendant was in contact with the victim despite a court order prohibiting contact. She violated the terms of her release and should be sent back to prison.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:48 PM
1

No, paternity tests should not be mandatory. They should be available as an option, especially anonymously to prevent retaliation in the form of domestic violence, but they should not be mandatory. To make them mandatory suggests that the government has an interest in the paternity of the child. As long as I, as a father, do not contest the paternity, the government has no interest in questioning that. However, if any man has even a shadow of a doubt, he should be allowed to contest paternity an…
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:37 PM
2

When the relationship started Hunt was 18, not 17. However, Hunt's age is irrelevant, according to Florida law minors under 16 cannot consent.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:31 PM
2

Hunt was 18 when the relationship started, the other girl was 14. 4 year difference. Hunt's 18th birthday was in August, the relationship started sometime between September and November. The victim's birthday was in March or April, making Hunt roughly 3.5 years older.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:28 PM
67

Ohio Code 2945.17: There is no right to a jury trial for a minor misdemeanor or for a violation that includes no jail term and a financial penalty of less than $1000. The Supreme Court, in the case of Baldwin v. New York, determined that the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to "petty crimes" that have a maximum penalty of less than 6 months. The defendant was charged with misdemeanor sexual imposition and public indecency. In Ohio, sexual imposition (2907.06) is a first degree …
/r/MensRights16/08/13 01:16 PM
26

Try 6 months in jail.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 12:52 PM
4

Salon isn't any better...
/r/MensRights06/08/13 07:03 PM
2

Frontpagemag is a very conservative, right-wing website. It is very pro-Israel and anti-Government.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 06:16 PM
6

No, Michigan age of consent is 16. There is no exception to the age, except in the case where one is an authority figure, at which point the age of consent is raised to 18.
/r/MensRights31/07/13 12:32 PM
3

You mean a straw?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 07:44 PM
5

Actually they ask the appellate court for a stay on the order until the appeal has been finished. Depending on the company (and their ability to pay) the appellate court may stay the order, stay part of the order, or require the company to pay the amount of the judgment into a trust account.
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:51 PM
3

Being assessed child support is a civil, not criminal, penalty. Failing to pay child support may be a criminal penalty or contempt (a judicial remedy), and can result in imprisonment. But in that case the offense is failing to obey the order, not being a father. There's no suggestion there was a lack of "a single evidence." Apparently the man was in a relationship with the woman and may have acknowledged paternity by signing the birth certificate. Absent evidence to the contrary, that's enough t…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 08:01 PM
9

If its in error then defacto its not valid. To the contrary, a judgment is valid unless the judgment itself is attacked. The guy was ordered to pay $X in child support. He (apparently) didn't contest that. Now he's contesting future support on the grounds that he is not the father. Which he won. By winning he doesn't have to pay future support. But there is still an outstanding judgment against him. He can take care of that by challenging the outstanding judgment on the basis of new evidence (th…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:49 PM
15

How'd that ruling go? If a state orders you to pay someone, you do not have the right to refuse to pay on the grounds that the court was wrong. Your remedy is by appeal. If you later win on appeal, then you can recover against the person you paid. If they are insolvent...well, that sucks. The reason we have this rule is because it ensures that judicial orders are followed, rather than refusing to pay while he still has a right to appeal. Until the original order requiring him to pay is lifted he…
/r/MensRights25/07/13 05:22 PM
4

I believe the singing girl is Dottie from Pee Wee's Big Adventure.
/r/MensRights09/07/13 01:27 PM
14

Some people might find sharing abusive. Angry women in San Francisco, for example.
/r/MensRights05/07/13 01:34 PM
4

She didn't sue for support, she filed for government benefits. When a woman gets state benefits the State will go against the father to recover some of those benefits and get her future benefits to reduce the State's share.
/r/MensRights28/06/13 05:15 PM
0

If he had remained married until he was compensated and she divorced him after, there should be no question that she is entitled to a portion of the compensation. That's not a MRA/Feminist issue, that's just how the law works. The law assumes that money earned by one spouse is the property of both. Both spouses have an equal right to the money, and upon dissolution of the marriage the money is split evenly. Most states - and I'll assume Texas is similar - have a fixed formula for how much you ca…
/r/MensRights17/06/13 12:30 PM
-8

Why does she get to recover a share of his expenses? Because as his wife (at the time), she is entitled to a share of any earnings he has during the course of the marriage. The money he got from the state was money he could have been earning while he was incarcerated (+interest). If he had earned that money legitimately during the marriage, she would have been entitled to a cut. Why not go after the state herself? She can (in theory), although it would be on a different cause of action. He sued …
/r/MensRights17/06/13 02:50 AM
1

Fr. Tuck would be a nay sayer.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:09 PM
0

I believe it is called taxes.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 03:06 AM
6

Your complaint is against the mother, not the IRS. The court doesn't have jurisdiction over the IRS. Yes, the IRS should consider a visitation order as evidence that you had your son for more days (and therefore he was your dependent). And yes, if you can document that you've both been following the plan, you should be entitled to relief. But the IRS is a pain in the ass to deal with. You've already got a relationship with the judge. The court knows all the facts about visitation rights, about y…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:36 PM
1

Only if the father consents or waives his rights. And in both cases he is absolved of responsibility. If a mother waives her rights, he has the same options.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 09:17 PM
1

Do you know anyone who was an "unwanted child"? I do. Have you asked them if they feel they would be better off if they have never been born? I have. I'll bet you can guess what their answers have been.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:50 PM
0

change her mind and abort Death is preferable to a difficult life? Either she will try to find means to support it on her own, with someone else, or what have you, or she will give him/her for adoption None of the options you have given would be encouraged by a man having the legal ability to abdicate responsibility. He can already abdicate his responsibility towards the child, and we don't see these things happening very often. A woman who lives off her womb does so because she gets government …
/r/MensRights21/05/13 08:07 PM
0

Having sex is something that is driven by the most basic of instincts and you're not going to stop the vast majority of people from doing it I don't buy it. Are you able to refrain from having sex? Are you able to be selective in who you have sex with? Or when the mood takes you do you just burst out onto the street, grab the nearest female and have your way with her right there on the sidewalk? I suspect you are capable of restraining yourself. In fact, everyone is capable of not having sex. We…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 07:04 PM
0

Every action has an associated risk. Nothing is consequence free. If you want to engage in sex, there's a chance that you could have a kid. If you want to jump out of airplanes, there's a chance that your parachute might not open. If you want to drive a car, there's a chance you get hit by a drunk driver. The only way to eliminate the consequences of an activity is to refrain from that activity. You also lose the benefit of the activity, but that's life.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 06:33 PM
-2

what options do men who don't want children have outside of abstinence? You could take the risk of using a condom. 99% effective. Worth the risk of having a kid? You could take the risk of the woman using birth control. With both of you using birth control, 99.99% effective. Worth the risk of having a kid? You could take the risk of not having vaginal intercourse. Barring shenanigans, practically 100% effective. Get a vasectomy. Couple with a condom and the pill and you're at 99.9999% effectiven…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:37 PM
5

Personally I think sex is consent to parenthood. Feminists be damned, abortion is wrong.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:32 PM
6

OK, these coal mines and wars were also the fault of men, yes? No.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:26 PM
-2

I think "sex is consent to motherhood" therefore illegalise abortion. Is pretty much the only arguement actually needed as to why "sex is consent to fatherhood" is wrong. Why does it follow that "sex is consent to fatherhood is wrong"? Why not "abortion is wrong"?
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:19 PM
3

At what point does that make the jump to rape? Good question. If there's a spectrum between "those pants don't make you look fat" and "it's me, your husband," we need to draw a line somewhere that makes the first class non-criminal and the second criminal. We in the west draw the line so that a lot of lies are not considered rape. India apparantly draws the line in a different place - a false promise of marriage is enough to constitute rape. This is either because they think lying to get laid is…
/r/MensRights21/05/13 05:00 PM
1

I think sex under false pretenses can be rape. If consent is based on the victim's reliance on a fact that the perpetrator knows to be false, then it certainly can be rape. If a woman has sex with a guy believing him to be her husband but it is a stranger in her bed then that would be rape.
/r/MensRights21/05/13 01:26 PM
7

Read that as "fried" and got excited.
/r/MensRights04/05/13 11:06 AM
1

How is this a win for Mens Rights? This creates an opportunity where a lesbian couple can obtain a child by a sperm donor, deny him his paternity rights (he's not listed on the birth certificate) but doesn't do anything about his responsibility to support the child. A birth certificate should list the biological mother and father. If the father wishes to affirmatively waive his parental rights after that, fine. The waiver of paternity rights should also absolve him of a child support obligation.
/r/MensRights03/05/13 08:34 PM
3

Good luck with that. Women's studies is based on victimization; women are subjugated by a male-dominated culture and need specific programs to raise them up to the level of men. That rationale doesn't hold for men's studies, and if we accept equality of the sexes, then the rationale falls apart. There are no victims, so there's no need for gender-based studies. In order to create a gender-neutral curriculum (either a neutral "Gender Studies" or distinct "Mens Studies" and "Womens Studies") you w…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 08:59 PM
7

many schools have a Women's Studies program. Why not have a gender studies program Many schools have a Women's Studies program and a Gender Studies program. Women's Studies focuses on empowering women. Gender Studies focuses on empowering women and disempowering men.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 08:46 PM
1

I definitely wouldn't take the position of criticizing him or attempting to refute what he thinks are facts. Point out the advantages of having a "Men's Officer" to men and how creating this position will not disadvantage women or the existing officer system. Dear Mr. Welfare Officer, Thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my concern about a men's officer at [University]. It is my understanding from your email that it is your position that while women make up a larger proportion o…
/r/MensRights30/04/13 08:44 PM
4

Since she was the one paying the mortgage, she will get the house without an offset.
/r/MensRights30/04/13 05:06 PM
2

Is he the legal father of the child? If so, he should seek custody. Not shared custody, full legal and physical custody. Use the mother's history of domestic violence to convince the court that the mother is dangerous and staying with her is not in the best interest of the child. In fact, staying with the mother is likely to result in serious physical abuse of the child, given her history of domestic violence. Once he wins sole custody, then it's up to him to decide whether the woman can see the…
/r/MensRights25/04/13 08:39 PM
3

Sit your friend down and tell him that you don't find that type of behavior acceptable, and if he ever tries that shit with you, or you hear about him doing it to someone else, you will report him to the cops. Rape isn't fucking funny.
/r/MensRights22/04/13 07:02 PM
-10

How about this: "don't get wasted around a homosexual that likes to rape other guys"
/r/MensRights22/04/13 06:54 PM
3

But how do you feel about Black Knight? I feel it was an underappreciated work.
/r/MensRights18/04/13 07:19 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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