TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

werak Archive

View 0 posts and 24 comments by werak on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Depends on the age, but probably not by much. And of course, that also assumes that the mom is bringing absolutely no money in herself. Why are mothers exempt from paying to support children?
/r/MensRights17/05/12 02:04 AM
1

Let's not pretend this subreddit is above being biased in taking sides. Half the posts here are about something bad happening to a man, from the point of view of the man. You don't think that at least some of the men who lost custody deserved to? I doubt we celebrate torture or murder like in this example, but people here certainly favor the man's opinion over the woman's.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 01:18 PM
1

Just curious. If one member of the marriage doesn't work so they can take care of kids and the home, in the event of a divorce they should have nothing coming to them?
/r/MensRights10/03/12 06:36 PM
1

In Michigan, if the father was listed with the same address as the mother, it would be considered an intact family and no child support services would be rendered. Further, no support order can be established without having a legal verified mailing address for the non-custodial parent. This is specifically to prevent the scenario you describe. Any Income-Withholding order is sent via notice to the legal mailing address of the one whose wages are to be garnished. I don't doubt that there are ways…
/r/MensRights10/01/12 06:38 PM
-1

But why should you be entitled to a refund of money you knowingly paid towards an invalid contract? Don't sign without a paternity test. Obviously married men whose wives get pregnant via affair are still pretty screwed.
/r/MensRights09/01/12 10:48 PM
2

What if judges and juries were not allowed to see defendants, or know their race/gender/etc? Obviously there are situations where the gender would be pertinent to the crime itself, but in situations like this where roles could easily be reversed, I feel more consistent verdicts would be delivered if those judging were unaware of information that could lead to bias.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 07:26 PM
21

Thank you. If this comment didn't exist, I was going to make it. The after-effects of this woman's actions seem like just the right amount. She was in enough trouble to scare her into making a correction, but not enough trouble to ruin her life over a single mistake. If only men were given this same consideration.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 07:22 PM
0

I still don't think I need to address those things because I'm not arguing what the law is, I'm arguing how I think it should be. My entire point is that we shouldn't see women with all these methods available to avoid responsibility and think "we should have those abilities too", but rather "women should have the same restrictions as men". This started with me saying men shouldn't have abortion-decision rights or opt-out rights. I still think that. Women shouldn't have opt-out rights either, ex…
/r/MensRights23/11/11 06:07 PM
-1

Not sure why I need to address this, as I stated it was "my opinion", not my interpretation of current law. That man filed papers on time and got fucked by a shitty judge and poorly worded laws. He should have gotten his child. The nature of women carrying babies gives them an unfair ability to hide from fathers, and that practice should be illegal. Like I said both parties should be financially accountable.
/r/MensRights23/11/11 02:55 AM
0

Fathers with established paternity must give consent for adoption. A father can take the baby if the mother abandons it, and sue her for child support. Next?
/r/MensRights23/11/11 02:41 AM
-1

In my OP I used the phrase "It's about the child". I was referring to the financial obligation of the mother and father. Bifrons apparently thought I was referring to sex. I wasn't. What I said about sex is that it can result in a financial obligation. That's true, and doesn't contradict my earlier statement that financial obligations are intended to help children (though I would fully agree that the system often benefits mothers more than children).
/r/MensRights22/11/11 10:27 PM
0

Aiding in creation of a child = financially responsible for baby, consent required to put child up for adoption Carrying child = inherent right to decide to terminate or not This summarizes my opinion. Both men and women are financially responsible for babies they create. Women have an extra ability to decide to relieve both parties of this responsibility. If you don't want a baby, sex is similar to gambling. You take the risk that birth control will fail, and you take the risk that your partner…
/r/MensRights22/11/11 10:20 PM
-2

I know sex isn't about the child. It's the financial support that is.
/r/MensRights22/11/11 09:38 PM
-8

I think that if you sleep with crazy, you get what's coming to you. Sex should not be something we do just for fun without thinking of consequences. If you don't know your partner isn't crazy and deceptive, don't sleep with them. If they turn out to be crazy and deceptive anyway, I'm sorry for your situation, but it's still your situation. It's your baby, there shouldn't be a legal loophole that erases that. But in the context of the OP, it mentions the woman's 'husband'. If you can't handle a b…
/r/MensRights22/11/11 09:37 PM
-3

Because it's not about the father, who could have used his own birth control, or abstained. And it's not about the mother, who could have used birth control, given the baby for adoption, or had an abortion. It's about the child. The child had absolutely zero choice in whether or not to be born. Whether or not that child receives financial support growing up should not be subject to whether or not some man is a crybaby about not wanting to have the baby in the first place. If you have sex, you ar…
/r/MensRights22/11/11 08:58 PM
1

Good day to you. As you've likely assumed, I am from the USA.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 09:00 PM
2

I'm pretty sure I agree with all of the above, or at least don't have issue with it enough to warrant a defense :) I would just add that regarding PSAs, there are so many concerns and issues that offend people, that I don't see how we can expect every PSA to encompass the views of every other issue. In this example, we have a child abuse PSA that neglected the concerns of those worried about sexism. There are other groups that worry about clothes made with child labor, or eating animal products,…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 08:39 PM
1

I compared lying about deodorant to lying about tobacco, since both are advertisements, and you hinted that advertisements can't lie. One specific PSA using a man as the abuser is not "depicting child abuse as being mainly perpetrated by men". I never once defended misandry; my argument was that this PSA is not necessarily misandry, and that I don't believe the government should intervene in this situation. There is certainly misandry going on regarding male perpetrators of child abuse. I don't …
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:50 PM
-1

Otherwise, prepare to accept tobacco companies advertising the healthy aspects of smoking... :-/ You mean like how Axe can advertise that their product makes women swarm all over men wearing the product? Advertisements have just as much double standard as anything else.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 03:05 PM
2

I mean it would be weird in the way that any movie, show, story, or narrative would be weird if every role was dual-sexed to prevent sexism. For example, if The Matrix also had a female Neo to prevent making it look like men always saved the world. Or if every James Bond movie had a female villain too. Any time you're giving a writer a legal incentive to craft a narrative in a specific way, you've made a mistake. I know that films are very different from commercials, but it's still creative expr…
/r/MensRights27/09/11 12:43 PM
5

I agree, but does that make each specific instance of representing a man as the abuser an example of sexism? They want to show SOMEONE as the abuser, and showing both a man and a woman in the same commercial to appease offended men is stupid imo. It would be great to show a woman once in awhile, but it isn't any one ad-maker's job to solve sexism. Banning this ad is absurd.
/r/MensRights27/09/11 07:30 AM
1

If it is proven that the woman raped the man, then wouldn't the woman likely lose custody of the child anyway in a custody dispute? This seems to be the main issue here. If a male is raped, and a child is produced, couldn't the man sue for custody, and then put the child up for adoption (just like if the genders were reversed)?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 08:04 PM
2

we would justifiably not expect those obligations to fall on the mother if the situation were reversed What do you mean by this? If the situation were reversed, the mother would still probably keep the baby and pay to raise it, or else put it up for adoption, in which case neither parent pays child support, correct? I'm not arguing anything right now, just trying to understand what you meant.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:57 PM
1

Hey...you got married in a country that grants half of assets to each spouse in a divorce. Once you get married, your assets become marital assets. They are no longer just yours, unless you signed something to that affect when you got married. You can argue whether he should have been given custody or not, but otherwise this seems a pretty straightforward division of assets, and the rich one got screwed. Post this to MillionairesRights if you want sympathy. If the guy didn't want to lose his ass…
/r/MensRights01/08/11 02:52 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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