TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

wonkifier Archive

View 2 posts and 298 comments by wonkifier on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Your children still are not at risk, and there isn't an example of a child dying from this. That's not entirely clear https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-newborn-baby-becomes-worlds-youngest-covid-19-victim-11967230 https://time.com/5809385/los-angeles-under-18-died-coronavirus-first-child-united-states/ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/pregnancy-breastfeeding.html children account for a very small number of cases. In Los Angeles County, only 10 of the known 63…
/r/RedPillWomen05/04/20 05:42 PM
9

A friend of mine was in family court, trying to get court orders enforced... the Judge said there was nothing he could do. "If I throw her in jail, she'll be separated from the kids" (he had mutual custody of them, and eventually won full custody) Judge was a dude. Just a very old school sexist Catholic dude.
/r/MensRights08/07/19 01:54 PM
5

So, like a 4/4 Teysa, Envoy of ghosts with a Revenge of the Hunted?
/r/MensRights10/04/19 11:34 PM
2

but even if you restrict to other methods, men still tend to be more successful, so you'll still have an imbalance. How do you define successful? Without picking anything specific that sounds like you think men just happen to be more successful than women, which does seem a bit sexist. I was speaking in the context of suicide. Men tend to successfully kill themselves more often.
/r/MensRights27/01/19 09:26 PM
1

Let's say all those things happened... do you think that will make the men:women homelessness ration even out? Me use guns more, so having fewer of them around will likely help the ratio there, but even if you restrict to other methods, men still tend to be more successful, so you'll still have an imbalance. Similar for incarceration... So its still worth looking into those imbalances, at the same time we're working on the overall issue.
/r/MensRights27/01/19 05:30 PM
26

I think there's a difference between letting go and forgiving. Forgiveness may be good for the soul as a function of letting go though.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 05:47 PM
35

Most of the best divorce lawyers in the county were women, so my friend went with a woman lawyer. It still didn't work out well for him, but she knew her stuff, and knew what was worth fighting given his budget and the likelihood of winning. His ex's lawyers were mostly men (she rotated through them fairly often), so gender didn't seem to indicate much anecdotally. But has no such compunction with fathers. EDIT: The biggest problem was the male judge, who believed that children should never be s…
/r/MensRights14/08/18 08:49 PM
17

Surprising, yes. (which is sad) Scandalous? I can't think of a single time it's been considered a scandal.
/r/RedPillWives02/07/18 02:34 PM
3

I'm pretty sure it did. Family makeup was on my mind when listening to the criteria they were able to control for, and I didn't walk away with the "they missed the obvious one" sense.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 03:49 PM
8

I just heard on NPR (I think), that there's a piece missing from that. Even when you account for family unit, neighborhood, income level, etc... if a white family goes from poor to not-poor the kid is likely to stay not poor. If a black family does the same, the black kid is less likely to do so.
/r/MensRights24/03/18 05:41 AM
3

Your ignorance of the topic is your own issue Scientific America And that doesn't speak at all to whether the assaults are happening at home or in public places (or in cars, for example) Being in an enclosed space makes no difference? you're 100% sure of that? This behavior is consistent across EVERY field. Unless you are saying that women aren't suited to work indoors, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Why do you go to "not suited for" rather than "not comfortable with"? You'…
/r/MensRights07/02/18 03:33 AM
3

Studies indicate it's pretty 50/50. That particular kind of crime? All sex related crimes of all types are committed 50/50? I missed that study This thing we're seeing in every field across the board? Women leaving the work force (when their SO can afford to support them both), and women putting in fewer hours than men. Being in an enclosed space makes no difference? you're 100% sure of that? Unless you have evidence of said influence, then no. There's no evidence that anything else has any infl…
/r/MensRights07/02/18 02:53 AM
3

There was a post referenced on here a few days ago where a woman sexually harassed, and then sexually assaulted an uber driver ( male) until he had sex with her. If you compare male->female against female->mail situations like this how would it pan out do you think? 50/50? I know some crimes are even, some favor women, and some favor men. Which kind would this one be? Being hit on isn't exclusive to women. Never said it was. Never hinted it was. Never came close to implying it was. Stop trying t…
/r/MensRights07/02/18 02:36 AM
2

Can't the answer to that question be multifaceted? Women should drive more, stick around longer, and maybe drive faster? sure But also, there may be factors that affect some of that, right? IF women are hit on or harassed more often, they'd be less likely to stick around, so while it wouldn't be Uber specific or work specific. (note: I said "if"... I'm not saying that actually is the case) IF there are still societal expectations that women shouldn't do this sort of work, that also can play into…
/r/MensRights07/02/18 02:06 AM
8

"Intelligent" is the scary word here... you don't go against them in any legal system unless you not only have all you ducks in a row (ALL of them), but you've also made sure that she can't pick off any of your ducks. And there are a near infinite number of ways an intelligent opponent can pick your ducks off. Bottom line: Make sure its worth it.
/r/MensRights26/11/17 04:31 AM
2

Right, because a woman has never used her sexuality to get a man to do a job she was already perfectly capable of.... Do you get the sense the writer would be OK with that behavior either? (Whether they'd consider is internalized misogyny or some other thing doesn't matter, just would she approve of it?) And I don't mean feminists, women writers, or some other group, I mean this one particular writer.
/r/MensRights21/11/17 02:59 AM
2

First, nah, it does SAY it: "the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth" "Measured by" is not the same thing "Determined by". If I'm running a casino, I'm keeping track of people's winnings. I'm not going to go make sure that certain gamblers are given wins because they're not keeping up, and I'm not going to make sure that good gambler are made to lose to match numbers... but when I see results that are outside of what's expected, I'd go investigate. Results being measured... n…
/r/MensRights01/11/17 01:28 PM
3

None of that says equality of outcomes though is the goal, just that outcomes inform your decisions. There's a TON of room in there for values to be factored in. (read the rest of the wiki article to see the vast differences in approaches to those values, and how those might apply to looking at outcomes) I just want the laws to be gender neutral in letter and enforcement. Is that all? You don't care for any other sense of fairness? If a rule said that only people who are taller than 5'5" can be …
/r/MensRights31/10/17 09:37 PM
3

That may be how you view some social justice movements, and that may be the actuality of some social justice movements, but this is the first I've heard of that being the actual definition of "social justice"
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:55 PM
22

Make the ground rules equal and fair and let the chips fall where they may. Sounds like a form of social justice to me.
/r/MensRights31/10/17 08:32 PM
1

I think you're over-reading things a bit. If you need women in team to successfully cooperate with another team just because it has women in it....you really really REALLY dont see a problem here?! Need? no. Nice to have? sure. People often like to have people like them around, so having a variety of folks is nice. Do we need to offer free lunches? No. Does it make the place more pleasant for some folks, yeah. I know I kinda like knowing that my wife/daughter has a reasonable chance getting hire…
/r/MensRights23/10/17 03:40 PM
1

Not necessarily, no. Being open to being successfully sued for gender discrimination is kinda problematic, for one. And inviting that lawsuit to begin with is not great either. Also, my company has diversity high on its list of important goals (whether you personally agree with that concept or not), so letting that bias take hold would actively work against what our leadership has said is directly one of our interests. And given the number of women in the company, it helps with relations with ot…
/r/MensRights23/10/17 02:32 PM
3

That's not what I said Sorry if I took that more directly than you intended. But you said "The glaringly obvious explanation is…" not "an obvious explanation", "the". You basically declared that you'd solved it. I mean, anyone who doesn't understand this probably hasn't spent much time around women with newborns. And not only did you solve it, but that's how you capped it off... I hope you see why I didn't think spending a bunch of time on a more fully thought out response was going to be worth …
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:56 PM
3

Yep, it's just that simple, there are no other factors. No need for any further research here. Pack it up folks, we're going home.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:20 PM
2

People don't tend to make choices in a vacuum though. We need to understand why they make the choices they do. Is there something that puts an unfair amount of pressure on them to do it (or their husbands not to do it)? If so, that's something that should be addressed. If not, that's something that needs to be understood, so we can go look for the next potential explanation.
/r/MensRights22/10/17 02:09 PM
4

Yes, men take less time off when the kids come, and women take more, but is that because their husbands are MAKING them, or because they CHOOSE to? We might be work towards figuring that out and fixing it if we didn't have so much focus on incorrect information.
/r/MensRights21/10/17 11:56 PM
224

permavirgins I like how it's ok to judge someone based on their sexual activity.
/r/MensRights13/08/17 07:49 AM
13

she's a mother, you can't send her to jail! /s A friend of mine was told almost exactly that in family court by the judge. "I can't throw her in jail, she's be away from the kids"... yet he was always on the brink of going to jail for one thing or another by the judge setting impossible standards. (Can you come up with $50k in 2 weeks from scratch after having fought an expensive divorce for 2 years)
/r/MensRights12/08/17 10:43 PM
5

I find the stairs the easier path traveled for reasons I listed above. I don't believe you. It hinges on you thinking the stairs is the more difficult path traveled. You yourself as much as said it's more difficult to take the stairs when you called it exercise. If it didn't involve more effort, you wouldn't consider it exercise. I get the feeling that whoever made this image is lazy, the type who never takes the stairs. If exercise were the generally easier path, people exercising would be cons…
/r/MensRights04/07/17 12:20 AM
11

16 year old boys want to have sex all the time Not actually true.
/r/MensRights26/06/17 01:47 AM
5

No they're not. Some of our lives may have been nearly completely destroyed by some who were. And they may be supported by other women who don't recognize the pure evil of those they're lending their support to for various reasons. But however much that makes it feed like it's true, that doesn't make it actually true.
/r/MensRights25/06/17 02:55 PM
-3

Or more shockingly that different contexts call for different things, and what works in one isn't necessarily the same as the other?
/r/MensRights13/06/17 11:52 PM
4

I wish they'd share some examples of what that bullying looks like. I have a hard time believing any stats of this nature (in any direction) without knowing how the classification works
/r/MensRights22/05/17 01:24 AM
21

Stop being delusional. Wow, all that because someone asked for a link? There were more opinions written about during those times as well, perhaps the person you responded to wanted to see which posts you considered garbage out of the plethora of things out there, and not a denial of anything.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 10:21 PM
0

What's that art in the background? (And are there more pieces to it?)
/r/MensRights08/05/17 12:08 PM
1

After you show me that we can talk about how there aren't enough encouragements for girls You're coming at this WAY to black-and-white. There's something to be said for timing of encouragement as well. The total amount doesn't matter if it's not at the right times, and not reaching the people it needs to reach. What you mention is going towards girls and women who have made it through the educational system. It doesn't reach my aunt, who like clearly defined gender roles, and doesn't let her dau…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 06:58 AM
0

access to technological curriculum? Access to random classes given at a freakin community center. These are the same places where random Bob applies to teach flower arranging or whatever other random thing he feels like Show me anywhere in the developed world where there aren't more PSAs encouraging girls to get into STEM If the underlying problem was really solved, then why do I STILL hear boys at the local game shop go "you got beat by a girl"? Because there's still a stigma for certain things…
/r/MensRights30/04/17 05:31 AM
0

Take, I don't know, education for example. People are starting to notice and it's starting to be talked about. Neither direction is going to be fixed with the snap of a finger. This is a community center type thing we're talking about here, not a college curriculum. This is the same kind of place where random-bob can apply to teach flower arrangement if they're in the mood. We're not talking about public resources being spent, or taken away from other programs.
/r/MensRights30/04/17 03:37 AM
-3

They why do I still see "You got beat by a girl" called out at game shops? If it wasn't a thing, why would being beaten by a girl be something to say?
/r/MensRights30/04/17 03:33 AM
-1

You've never heard of peer pressure? You've never noticed that people in general, especially young people, are very sensitive to what their peers expect of them? You really think there is no difference at all in expectation in what a boy or girl is normally expected to be interested in? You think there's no pressure to not be normal? I think your ideology is blinding you. edit: and by that I mean in the sense that one could argue that communism might be a reasonable thing... except when practice…
/r/MensRights29/04/17 11:04 PM
-2

What about the existing social pressures against girls to to techie stuff? That's still a thing. When it stops being a thing to the degree it is, I expect to see this sort of thing less.
/r/MensRights29/04/17 10:53 PM
1

Another angle for the hobbies is there was a time where many people thought women got into those things to get guys, and that helped make the environment hostile for women for obvious reasons. So education and backlash kick in, and the "I'm just here to play" thing kicks in. That space is in quite a bit of flux right now.
/r/RedPillWomen08/03/17 07:26 PM
0

I know people that have been in prison, and I didn't see any of them change at all after it If we're going off anecdotal data, my brother was in and out of prison several times. He did finally turn it around though, just took a couple times through.
/r/MensRights02/03/17 05:34 PM
25

I got the opposite... "I just did it to see if I could make you jealous, to see if you really cared" "Well, sorry for trusting you." It messed me up for awhile as I had no idea how I was supposed to act, until I realized that even if I weren't being demonstrative enough, that was not a healthy way of initiating that discussion.
/r/MensRights22/01/17 04:29 PM
7

I think in this case it was more an old fashioned Catholic "kids need need their mothers" judge.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 04:26 PM
46

No, I think they really believe what they say. And my friend was constantly threatened with jail time for not meeting surprise or made up demands, yet when he had continuous documentation of his ex's violations of court orders (including not making his daughters available for court ordered visitation), the judge actually said he couldn't do anything because if he sent her to jail her kids wouldn't be with her.
/r/MensRights17/01/17 01:44 PM
1

A woman friend of mine sent this to me as well, I explained two things 1- I don't imagine the problem with Brock Turner was that his did never talked to him about consent. Mr "15 minutes of action" all star dad should probably never talk to any children about consent. I suspect many of the people who really need that talking to would be better of not getting it from their dads. 2- Daughters should be talked to about consent as well. There's enough playing hard to get out there, there's enough "h…
/r/MensRights29/11/16 01:20 PM
5

When I told some rabid feminists that, they said, "Well, it's not the woman's fault that she has to take time off to care for her family. She shouldn't be punished because she has to take care of sick kids..." Um, in the work force. Yes. Yes she should. So should a man who takes time off regularly to attend to family matters. Been there several times myself, so I take them to "so now that we have recognized an actual disparity, let's get into that, eh? How about instead of forcing companies to p…
/r/MensRights18/11/16 04:52 AM
1

Was primarily speaking from the experience I had helping a friend with his divorce. No attorney we talked to was willing to do anything for him without a significant retainer. And they each explained that because his wife had no income, there would be no point in asking for fees afterwards. (I think they tried asking to offset some of the support payments with it since she could work, she just didn't want to... but that was refused as well)
/r/MensRights26/10/16 04:56 PM
0

Doesn't matter. Your attorney will still want to be paid up front, so you can't get started. And you're likely not going to get reimbursed, so the danger of completely hosing yourself even if you could get going is extremely high.
/r/MensRights26/10/16 04:43 PM
1

A privilege isn't some tangible thing that I can "dismantle." WTF does that even mean? One commonly agreed upon US white privilege is with interactions with the police. Helping to dismantle that privilege might look like supporting things that would make that not a problem. (support cameras, stop police from being able to easily quit in one jurisdiction to avoid trouble and get hired in another, etc.) Folks like this lady don't understand privilege or dismantling of it and just make the whole co…
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:16 AM
0

so you're a white disabled guy. are you privileged? Sure. For the most part, if you need to interact with the police, is your honest first concern "I hope they don't think I have a weapon in my wheelchair". As a white guy we may feel some stress about imbalance of authority or even a crazy cop now and then, but it's not that pervasive underlying thing. Not having to carry that around is privilege. (keep in mind, privilege isn't binary... it's not "I have privilege, so life is easy for me", it's …
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:12 AM
1

Heh, I had similar. "There's no gendered insult for men, it's all against women!" "Don't be a dick' <silence>
/r/MensRights14/10/16 01:05 AM
8

It's almost like people are using two different definitions of words from two different contexts interchangeably and confusion ensues. Go figure
/r/MensRights08/10/16 08:35 PM
4

I just hired several people at a tech company... many many many resumes read. Based on the names, none were women. I don't even get the chance to do anything about the sexism I supposedly take part in.
/r/MensRights07/10/16 07:44 PM
43

She makes fun of him for calling the cops, when she said she'd call the cops?
/r/MensRights24/09/16 09:41 PM
36

No. My friend was told by the judge when he asked about similar in his divorce case that he (the judge) would not do that, because it would mean separating the daughters from their mother for too long, and that's just not right. Though after awhile more he did finally win full custody because it just got to be too much to ignore. But she still never faced a fine or had to pay any court or attorney's fees. (She did at least stop getting child support)
/r/MensRights22/09/16 10:32 AM
1

That's WTF on several levels
/r/MensRights12/08/16 02:47 PM
-1

I don't know how many votes comments normally get there, but I do notice that all of those are negative enough to fall below the default thresholds. Are you arguing to have this sub judged by comments that are downvoted out of visibility?
/r/MensRights11/08/16 08:52 PM
26

I think we need immunity in place, otherwise the system gets even more bogged down with everyone going personally after actual mistakes. However, I also think it should be possible to pierce that immunity in cases like this where it was clearly not a mistake, a reasonable person would easily find that he acted with intent not compatible with his office.
/r/MensRights08/07/16 03:34 AM
3

I had gotten into a rather heated argument about the wage gap with someone, and we finally settled on this being the major factor left. But she said it didn't really matter, because we had to do something. I dunno... how about figure out what the problem was, and do something to address THE PROBLEM. In this case, instead of trying to warp the environment more, how about focus on trying to share the load? We're using BS statistics to force society in a certain direction... why not use real ones? …
/r/MensRights28/06/16 02:40 AM
-11

Chubby guy isn't likely to get hit on or leered at by half the room though I'm guessing. (I'm not arguing it's a good idea or not, just sayin swapping the genders doesn't yield quite the same scenario) EDIT: I can imagine a couple reasons for the downvotes, and I'm curious which they are... but I suspect people didn't understand my message. Normal looking guys in normal day to day interactions in life don't TEND to get hit on nearly as much as normal looking gals in normal day to day interaction…
/r/MensRights07/06/16 01:57 PM
24

A friend of mine had similar in his past, though he finished the divorce (and it almost finished him). Somehow he managed to not only find and destroy every picture of the bruises and physical damage (like hair being pulled out), but also managed to destroy all hospital and doctors records and police records for 25 years. And he managed to convince multiple police departments (one of them military police) to not record anything. All this while she was working as a paralegal, part of the time bei…
/r/MensRights31/05/16 12:16 PM
10

It's been awhile since I saw the #s, but I remember my friend losing something like 60-70% of the after tax, on the presumption that he'd get a tax refund. (but he had to give her a chunk of that too for some reason)
/r/MensRights28/05/16 10:06 PM
1

Good stuff, and fits with what I've heard as well. Considering what I've seen posted in other subs though, I'm hearing "why not just teach men not to rape?" "Stop blaming the victim" go through my head throughout though.
/r/MensRights22/05/16 02:46 PM
10

So... we can't solve everything at the same time, so don't bother trying to solve this issue? I'm confused
/r/MensRights17/02/16 04:52 PM
1

Yeah, it didn't matter. I was friends with her ex, so unless she directly and credibly threatened me with something specific they weren't going to do anything.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 03:11 AM
5

I had a woman threaten revenge on me, who had a history of violence, and a previous police report of looking to hire someone for assault. And I was able to get a restraining order. The Sherriff wasn't willing to come out when she would come to my property. And when she left a recorded threat on my voicemail, they did nothing because it wasn't articulated specifically enough as a believable threat. I don't see where feeling threatened is supposed to fit into any of this anymore.
/r/MensRights04/02/16 12:03 PM
9

How is this in anyway a useful comment?
/r/MensRights08/10/15 03:41 PM
1

They very much do still.
/r/MensRights23/09/15 12:38 PM
1

Doesn't bother me so much, since I've seem quite a few of the "Single Dads" postings on mother's day recently.
/r/MensRights06/09/15 05:28 PM
7

but neither is a dude dressing like Batman. But can you imagine... oh man
/r/MensRights24/07/15 04:12 PM
1

No I didn't. (go re-read my post, I said that his argument didn't address her argument)
/r/MensRights29/06/15 12:54 AM
0

You're responding as if was arguing the intelligences. I was not I was saying that if you are arguing against aggregates, giving a specific example doesn't do anything
/r/MensRights28/06/15 03:31 PM
0

How do you mean? You don't refute "men are stronger than women" by saying "that woman is really strong".
/r/MensRights28/06/15 12:44 PM
0

To be fair, listing off individual men who are smart doesn't refute the argument that women as a group are smarter (since you're talking aggregates there). But that didn't seem to be her argument against you =)
/r/MensRights28/06/15 02:36 AM
19

there's literally no legal state shy of her being a criminal or drug addict where a man can truly guarantee fatherhood Those aren't guarantees, BTW
/r/MensRights10/05/15 06:30 PM
23

"Yes, but to try to be like Heman is empowering. To try to be like Barbie is to belittle yourself." That's the gist of the last time I discussed it with someone. I kinda get it, but that seems to suffer from its own cultural assumptions. So, meh.
/r/MensRights10/01/15 02:18 AM
1

Even if she wanted to, she probably couldn't afford the legal fees to actually sue you. They can be filed in forma pauperis... many courts will wave legal fees for folks who can't afford them.
/r/PussyPassDenied01/01/15 12:58 AM
2

One bit that jumped out at me from the original article: For men, skepticism is a form of self-protection too. For EVERYONE it's a form of protection, but not in the way she's implying. Part of being skeptical is to protect yourself from believing things actually aren't true. For much of their lives, they've looked forward to the hedonistic fun of college, bearing every expectation of booze and no-strings sex What the fuck? That's not what I looked forward to.
/r/MensRights07/12/14 02:45 AM
0

Nope. She's not under oath. She could just say she was having some, making a social commentary protesting how easy it would have been, or something else.
/r/MensRights30/11/14 11:20 PM
7

ok, then you're not referring to what I was responding to and are having a completely different conversation. One I'm not interested in having at the moment, sorry.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:41 PM
3

Agree, you definitely can read it that way. However, what Desque complained about was that it only applied to women, and that's not the case.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:41 PM
5

That's en ENTIRELY different issue from the one Desque presented. (Desque complained that it said it only applied to men raping women like that, and that's not the case)
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:27 PM
7

OK, then I agree. Other people say that. This thing, in itself, doesn't.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 04:17 PM
11

It also goes against some other social norms... that was kinda the point I think. So it doesn't say that. You inferred it.
/r/MensRights23/10/14 03:42 PM
16

Where does it say that?
/r/MensRights23/10/14 03:34 PM
15

I don't follow. Both men and women were more likely to penalize and men were always less willing to work with So, If a man penalizes a woman for negotiating, and is always less willing to with one who negotiated, that seems perfectly consistent. If a women is likely to penalize for negotiate, but isn't always less willing to work with them, that could just mean some women will penalize but not enough to not work with them. I don't see a problem?
/r/MensRights21/03/14 05:22 PM
24

And there's the problem that just because white guys are in charge of most things, that doesn't mean that most white guys are in charge of anything.
/r/MensRights20/12/13 04:34 PM
1

This argument makes more sense, it doesn't connect things that aren't necessarily connected. There is no link between clothing and rape Have a reference for that? I've heard that tossed around before, but I'm not finding a study that backs that up. In my head, it makes sense that the opportunity is there regardless, but it seems in the deranged mind of the rapist "she dressed that way because she wanted it" increases the presence of that opportunity. Most arguments I see to the contrary conflate…
/r/MensRights07/12/13 08:45 PM
4

The majority of rapes happen at the hands of someone who knows the victim, and what he or she is wearing has nothing to do with it. Is your point that taking precautions is pointless unless they're being taken against the majority cause? Because that seems like a bad point. One can reduce risks while out at night, without hindering efforts at reducing the cause for the majority.
/r/MensRights07/12/13 07:59 PM
7

But what about the parenting side of the equation?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 09:40 PM
10

but the premise of the scene is that if the victim refuses to resist the harm done to them, then they are complicit in what ever happens to them next. Isn't saying "please don't hurt me" a form of resistance? I don't think anyone is claiming that if you don't physically fight off the person that it won't count as rape. Sure it didn't meet the bar that Sciorra set, but I'd argue it meets the bar of what is reasonable.
/r/MensRights24/05/13 08:46 PM
3

That she uses the word "hysterical" amuses me given it's derivation and this context.
/r/MensRights23/05/13 11:44 PM
5

There was an article a bit ago about fingers being used for rape, so clearly you're being overly broad. It isn't that the penis must be used, it's that the rapist must have a penis it seems.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 06:05 PM
0

However your weed argument is flawed since weed is illegal Federally and some States allow it. Yeah, and the Fed will still prosecute, as sometimes will the state or local municipalities continue to prosecute. You can find many examples of this in California over the last couple years. The question of what exactly is taking away and adding to is confusing... it seems to make more sense to actual attorneys who have studied the frameworks behind these things, and even then there are still argument…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 11:58 PM
2

Pretty sure 76% of States having one-party consent laws doesn't make the Federal law moot You're really going out of your way to misconstrue. I'm saying "moot in the states where the states have higher restrictions" ie, if "Federal law says one party" and "California says all parties" and "You're in California", you better not get caught recordin without all parties' consent. Federal law ain't gonna protect you. Also, I've always been under the impression that Federal law trumps State law if pre…
/r/MensRights22/12/12 11:31 PM
0

The phrase was "not from many", with many meaning more than just a couple above a few. Which I think fits 12 quite nicely. I didn't say "most states", which would imply more than half. But to be fair, I wasn't being technical. I could have said "exactly 12 states in the United States of America currently have all-party consent laws which put additional requirements, making the Federal law basically moot. Check your state's laws to be sure. And if you have a lawyer, check with them as well, even …
/r/MensRights22/12/12 11:19 PM
-2

Yes, let's quibble over whether 12 is too few to call out for attention or many. Either way, check your local laws to be safe. What you think is covering oyu rass may in fact be burying it.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 11:04 PM
-1

For those questioning the legality aspect, this states that if you are part of the conversation, then you can legally record everything from a Federal viewpoint. But not from many states. My friend got in serious trouble just for having a recorder around, not even recording.
/r/MensRights22/12/12 10:51 PM
1

The opposite of "always more" is "not always more", which includes "is the same as" and "is sometimes less than" (in addition to what you guys are taking it as "is always less than").
/r/MensRights18/12/12 04:09 PM
2

Other laws might... it depends on your state.
/r/MensRights31/10/12 04:25 PM
1

Undermining parenting is a tactic used in abusive relationships OK, different context then, and different duration. (Just having it happen once isn't good, but the word abuse doesn't apply right away) Undermining is a common component of a form of abuse. yes. No question. But flatly calling her actions abuse elevates more than it should be. Not everything that can cause harm is abuse. Warning sign to be on the look out for abuse? sure. Shit happens. Repeated or severe exposure to shit shouldn't,…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:25 PM
1

Just trying to understand where you're drawing the line. I've got no problem with someone stepping in if something looks dangerous. But the woman here stepped way over that line. But even then, I don't think the word "abuse" applies in anyway.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:03 PM
1

So a cop issuing a ticket to someone when their kid is around is state sanctioned abuse?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 06:54 PM
9

Yes, because creating a possibly escalating high stress situation is known to be so beneficial for early childhood development. It's a good thing someone that young couldn't associate that nice area with bad feelings and really warp his outlook. The world ain't perfect. Some situations are just bad and you have to choose between bad and worse and just be happy all you got was bad.
/r/MensRights07/09/12 03:48 PM
5

but we can tell women that haven't been assaulted to be more careful, can't we? From my experience in some of the other subreddits here, no. Because when you give one person advice on how to stay safe, you're automatically blaming everyone else who ever fell prey that it was their fault.
/r/MensRights24/08/12 06:05 PM
3

she still withheld access to the kids. And probably got to use the "lack of an established relationship" as evidence that the father didn't need access in later parts of the case?
/r/MensRights13/06/12 04:13 PM
5

everyone rapes Now there's a terrifying children's book concept
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:15 PM
52

It also implies that no women ever rape... or our penises have power over women who rape.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:00 AM
8

I find it really difficult to understand how someone can think it's worth risking hurting someone who has just lost a brother to suicide, just on the offchance that they might be lying. In this particular case it may not make much of difference to be wrong, but for the field in general... it can get property destroyed, people people fired or even killed. Internet lynchmobs are a force to be wary of in general. And it's not hard to imagine someone thinking "if we let some of these go through with…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:09 PM
1

What does justice actually mean in this case though? How does anyone know what's on the other side other conversation. Maybe they figured he was just kidding around, making the brash assumption that something on the internet wasn't actually true. It could cost these guys life-crushing family-destroying amounts of money just to avoid a judgement against them. Don't get me wrong, I don't think suicide is something to play around with like that. Even if you think the other person is not truthful, I…
/r/MensRights12/04/12 07:06 PM
0

I didn't think I had to clearly spell out that I was referring explicitly to the "taking of the child" bit. Silly me, I thought it would be obvious that I was comparing a crime to a crime, and not just idle gossip.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 03:57 AM
-2

Equivocating false rape accusations to mere embarrassment is disrespectful to the victims of false rape accusations That's not what I was doing. I thought he was equivocating "the taking of children from their father" with mere embarrassment, and was trying to draw the ridiculousness of it out. If I did any equivocation it would be between kid-taking and rape-accusation.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 02:38 AM
2

td9red asked "Didn't he suggest that she was keeping his child from him? " You responded with "embarrassing someone is not a crime". So whether it happened or not is irrelevant. td9red thought a crime happened, and your response indicated that you believed that saying someone did something is just a matter of embarrassment. Do you know whether she did keep is child from him, or not? Doesn't matter for how your response applies to td9red's question. He was making a political statement about the w…
/r/MensRights19/03/12 10:10 PM
0

Are you taking the position then, that airing of false rape accusations is OK, since embarrassing someone is not a crime? Or is withholding someone's child not a crime too? I'm confused
/r/MensRights19/03/12 06:54 PM
3

He had custody of the kids, and it was clear the only reason she was not working was so she could continue to get support from him. EDIT: I guess not only reason... she also wanted to not have to pay support, or any attorney's fees, court costs or anything else even though she was caught saying she would keep bringing him to court in order to bankrupt him since it costs her nothing, so she gets the kids back.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 07:15 PM
1

It is sometimes. It needs to happen more often though.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 06:20 PM
6

It took while for my friend to get that in his divorce, but his wife basically refused to get any kind of job she was qualified for. (She was a paralegal by trade, and had a college degree... but she decided that she needed to take classes for her art, and that she'd be unable to work as a paralegal because it had been a few years since she had done so) So he was able to get the judge to impute income on her. Guess what? She then got a job as a paralegal. Odd that. I agree the mechanism seems to…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 06:19 PM
6

I forgot I made the above comment, so when I saw yours under my orange-red I was really confused. I think I trolled myself.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 03:24 AM
46

wear condoms 100% of the time Well, at least during sex. It may not be so important to wear them while grocery shopping.
/r/MensRights23/12/11 01:52 AM
5

A cow is a mammal. A giraffe is a mammal. Therefore cows are giraffes. I don't think logic works that way.
/r/MensRights11/12/11 07:11 PM
0

Sounds a lot like how lawyers make offers and counteroffers in order to settle an issue outside of court. Even how a DA will bargain with a defense attorney... (fine, he'll pay restitution and 2 years probation, but no jail time, etc)
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:10 PM
1

Oddly enough when it's done in court it's perfectly OK. "Either pay me $XX,000 or I will file sole custody"... Attorney said that's just how settlements work.
/r/MensRights04/09/11 08:08 PM
6

Yeah. So?
/r/MensRights02/09/11 09:46 PM
6

Not to put too fine a point on it, but having kids wouldn't exempt you. If I'm in jail, my kid is now at risk. I'm also the main thing keeping my nephew "out of the system"... a system which is not actually equipped to handle his special needs, so me being in jail could very well mean he dies. Or dies significantly sooner. Or suffers significantly in the mean time. I can't shirk those responsibilities easily. Having said that though, I would be hesitant, but I'd want to do as little as possible …
/r/MensRights01/09/11 08:29 PM
5

I haven't run into that one yet... that would piss me off. I wonder how many times their kids have been kidnapped or raped, and how that affects their ability to speak on the topic. Or "you haven't been in an car accident so you can't talk about seat belts" or something
/r/MensRights01/09/11 06:24 PM
11

And more than that... If I'm in jail, MY KIDS are fucked. If I'm defending myself and lose my job, my nephew is royally fucked (special needs), possibly dead. I hate to have to put it this way, but my family is more important to me than yours is to me. If yours isn't important to you, then sorry.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 06:13 PM
2

Doubtful. It was the law at the time.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 06:20 AM
6

Cross posted to 3 other subs a day ago... That's what the "Other discussions" tab is for.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 06:20 AM
5

For kicks, I went to google and searched for "+Wonkifier +Rape" to see if this message would show up yet I see the following quoted for the context of the link – [–]wonkifier 1 point2 points3 points 4 months ago .... EDIT: the newer ideas about rape are also excellent and require less context. ... When I followed the link, I remembered the conversation about what a new billboard should say... but holy crap does the lack of context in that snipped come off wrong =)
/r/MensRights21/07/11 08:29 PM
14

Add to that that one of the reasons many go to a major university is for the connections it brings... which are forged over your time there... which is now broken.
/r/MensRights21/07/11 04:54 PM
1

I guess it depends on whether you read the line as Children were more than twice as likely to be abused if primary custody is awarded to the mother or Children are more than twice as likely to be abused if primary custody is awarded to the mother The first being a statement about the cases included in the study. The second being a projection forward, in which case that likelyhood becomes relevant.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 08:25 PM
2

As clarified in another part of the thread, the context of this is about situations where custody is assigned. This doesn't take into account households where the parents are still together, or single parent situations where the other spouse was never involved. There may be other studies covering those, but they're not included here.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 04:27 PM
1

Fair enough... I didn't take into account the difference in context between the article's (custody hearings), and the complete field of custody.
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:49 PM
0

now states that 11 homicides involved a mother and 11 homicides involved a male family member and only 5 perpetrators were fathers, while another 5 were de-facto partners of the mother who lived with the child so, keeping score: Mother: 11 Father: 5 Mother's new partner: 5 That puts Mother in the majority, and mothers are women... And since the article is in the context of custody arrangements, you can easily read it also as "Children more than twice as likely to be abused if primary custody is …
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:43 PM
4

Actually, kinda is from my quick read. They're basically dividing abuse into 4 potential fields of abusers... Mother, Father, Mother's new partner, and Father's new partner. They didn't include numbers for "Father's new partner" (dunno if that means it was actually zero, or they just didn't bother checking), but of the 3 remaining, the majority was "Mother". The only way it's really wrong is if you assume the title means "Majority of child abuse not by men", as opposed to "not by fathers". (Thou…
/r/MensRights16/06/11 03:40 PM
4

That perception would go away alot faster if the response was "actually studies show clothing doesn't correlate". Since the message I've always received in response to the slightest hint that someone could control anything about their situation is "you're an asshole, don't blame the victim", everything else is lost.
/r/MensRights10/06/11 02:46 PM
12

I wouldn't worry about a single downvote. It might be part of reddit's fuzzing (where it fakes the numbers a little for some reason to help prevent some kind of abuse I don't understand) Or maybe the guy made a comment somewhere else and someone went and downvoted him in other comments. Or he might just have a stalker... =)
/r/MensRights03/06/11 10:06 PM
4

From the headline, I figured it was a psycho-ultra-feminist screed and was planning to simply skip it. I figured I'd hit the comments to see how wacky she actually was to see if it was at least crazy enough to be entertaining.
/r/MensRights03/06/11 09:40 PM
3

As such, is the problem the school rules banning shorts or is society's obsession about who may or may not wear certain types of clothes? Could be both. But humane application would seem to dictate either removing skirts as an option for fairness, or addition of shorts. Note also that rule changes can happen very quickly compared to wholesale social changes. So while the problem may be with both, is it really fair to penalize a specific half of the population in the mean time, when the mechanism…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:46 PM
11

On the face of it, yes. But not really. Girls have 2 socially acceptable options. Boys have 1 socially acceptable one, and 1 unacceptable one. They have to choose discomfort (which the girls don't), choose to buck the school rules (which the girls don't), or choose to buck major social mores (which the girls don't).
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:27 PM
6

Scott Adams, is that you trying to be ironic?
/r/MensRights15/04/11 10:34 PM
6

What's the problem? I see in the "Related links" tab there are 5 other instances of this link... but they're in different subreddits. That's a behavior that is generally encouraged... as each sub may have a very different discussion on the matter.
/r/MensRights13/04/11 03:12 AM
1

In case your post isn't meant in humor, please understand I was addressing the single issue of escalation of force, I was not addressing castle doctrine, liabilities of action, etc.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 05:21 AM
2

That guy really hates cardboard!
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:44 AM
2

Glad my memory isn't completely fritzed =-) Under the stress of something like that (not a condition I'm directly trained to cope with), and living in an area where there are other living humans around, I'd be reticent to shoot at someone over 20 feet away even if I decided it was a good idea. I'm a good shot and can pull off very tight groupings with my pistol, but paper targets and broken computers aren't invading my home and threatening me, so the simulation can only be taken so far =)
/r/MensRights21/02/11 04:17 AM
4

This means that if someone comes at you with a knife in your home if you stab them you'll be fine, but you won't be if you shoot them A long time ago, I sat in on a class which talked about escalation of force, and I'm pretty sure knives and guns were in the same band of danger depending on distance. ie, if you were 20 feet away with a knife and are being threatening (which I would assume includes having broken into someone house), that is threat of deadly force, and warrants deadly force in res…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 03:29 AM
1

precisely because Erin Andrews didn’t know she was being filmed. And that reveals something really fucked up about the way American culture views women Really? It doesn't show something messed up about the way we see other people in general?
/r/MensRights23/01/11 11:16 PM
2

Yep, having an influential guy who wants to take that right completely away, to the extent of repeatedly violating the law, is meeting with top Republican leaders, who run heavily on removing any ability for us to have a decision to even have a say on can't possibly coincide with /r/mensrights in the slightest way. Gotcha
/r/MensRights29/12/10 09:47 PM
-2

Abortion isn't a women only issue, although it's often framed exactly that way.
/r/MensRights29/12/10 09:03 PM
-2

Did you even glance at the article?
/r/MensRights29/12/10 08:41 PM
5

Even your gmail account, used from a web browser? I believe so. We're scanning web traffic for people who leak credit card numbers, customer info, etc. And our lawyers have cleared everything we're doing. They could be wrong, but we get sued alot... so they've got some practice in this matter
/r/MensRights26/12/10 11:00 PM
10

uneducated masses You just described most collages I see
/r/MensRights15/12/10 09:36 PM
4

Judges don't typically write this stuff up. One of the attorneys does, and everyone signs.
/r/MensRights07/08/10 11:22 PM
-2

I can think of about a dozen things I'd rather spend my sunday afternoon doing. Does that make me surly and antisocial too? Do you get as angry as Hiro does if someone has the gall to suspect you may have done something that millions of other people did? It's not the "not following" that was surly, it's getting pissed off that people are trying to connect with you in a way they understand. Basically, it's "Hey, nice day isn't it". "Why does everyone keep saying the weather is nice, don't they kn…
/r/MensRights04/08/10 06:57 PM
1

There is this rude assumption that everything with a penis watches "the game" It's rude to guess that something seen as a normal thing guys do may have been done by a guy? That's how generalizations work, and humans are generalization machines. People working together tend to want to connect from time to time, and sports is a time honored default connection among men in American culture... that's just how it's been. It's lightening up, but it's still there, especially among the older folks. Noti…
/r/MensRights04/08/10 04:42 PM
2

I use "Nah, I was born without sports gene", and have never had it followed up with anything sports-ish. I do work around a bunch of nerds though, so maybe they just "get it".
/r/MensRights04/08/10 04:30 PM
1

you can guess the rest The child turned out to be Trogdor the Burninator in disguise, and was escorted off the plane mid-flight for safety reasons?
/r/MensRights25/06/10 08:33 PM
5

Definitely. My friend's divorce case came to similar but opposite results. The judge actually said the only reason he didn't throw mom in jail was because it would separate her from the kids. (he had no problem with issuing a warrant for dad though for something else mom set him up for)
/r/MensRights10/06/10 10:50 PM
3

B) That is totally illegal for your company to do I don't think it's illegal if your company is small enough, depending on jurisdiction.
/r/MensRights27/05/10 12:00 AM
12

It's a good thing nobody even came close to claiming that.
/r/MensRights19/05/10 04:23 PM
6

Yes, and when it comes to psychological abuse the perpetrator is usually shown as female I think kanuk's view is way to conspiratorial and contrived... I don't think you need committee meetings to arrive where we are, the machinations of society are good enough to do it. However, and I could be wrong not having a list of studies to refer to, but isn't psychological control one of the "primarily female" mechanisms? You know, how girls in high school handle each other, etc. So it would make sense …
/r/MensRights08/05/10 06:03 PM
13

While correlation is not causality He recognizes the difference. , the above data convinces me that any supposed "rape culture" is merely one part of a much larger system of issues. And it's that larger system we need to study if we genuinely want to end rape. He doesn't imply causality here. He implies exactly the opposite... that there is a larger system in which these two things are components, and that further research is needed to understand whether a link or common factor exists or not.
/r/MensRights02/05/10 01:09 AM
6

Unless you're a man with a TRO... my friend couldn't get it enforced... the ex-wife would constantly show up and harass him and his friends and neighbors, in a gated private community. But the sheriff wouldn't show up unless there was a direct complete physical threat. She, however, had police intervening constantly even when hers wasn't violated. She just had to turn the tears on, and voila.
/r/MensRights26/04/10 05:30 PM
3

then probably in the type it takes you to type in your favorite porn site's url Sure... so you have a thing for public exposure... most sites you run into will probably be tricky ad laden ones... so clicking on something promising will just take you to another site, or be a 30 second clip of something longer, or take you to a subscription page. Now you're having to read the details to get what you want. Or even if not... if you go with a free aggregator type site, you've got to filter through al…
/r/MensRights20/04/10 12:27 AM
14

Why the fuck would he pay for porn ??? Why not? If you find a site that caters to your particular interest, and you've got the spare cash... that's much less searching and wading through of crap you have to deal with. Or to paraphrase... porn is free only if your time is worth nothing. =-)
/r/MensRights19/04/10 10:41 PM
1

They especially do not want their girlfriend to talk to other guys, even if it is just friendly. How do you actually tell it's just friendly? eh? My first long term girlfriend broke up with me because I wasn't getting upset when she was talking to other men. She told me later she was deliberately trying to provoke a response out of me because if I wouldn't get upset, then I didn't care about her. I responded that if I can't trust her when she says she's just meeting a friend, and if I have to de…
/r/MensRights27/03/10 09:28 PM
2

I haven't read this story, but I know some of these folks do quit and hide on purpose. They should be able to earn more, but choose not to. My friend actually fell on the wrong side of this (falsely accused), and once he eventually proved himself right, the ex-wife was imputed a certain amount of income, and as a result things balanced out for awhile so he didn't have to pay. [in this case, she was basically hiding out in a "I'm just too poor and can't do anything" role in order to make him pay …
/r/MensRights19/03/10 10:34 PM
4

If the order is active, you can be prosecuted. The questions are really "will you" and "how much"? That will all depend on the mood of your judge, ex-wife, and any DAs that perk their ears up, and the history of the particular area.
/r/MensRights27/02/10 06:08 PM
2

Bingo If she has nothing to lose she can fight all day long without worrying about consequences. If she has nothing to lose, you have nothing to gain... you only have everything to lose.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 11:19 PM
5

A friend of mine had similar but with DeadbeatDad forums... lots of threats and violent posts. And it wasn't until it was pointed out to the court that his kids would be at that address during visitations that he ordered her to have the info taken down.
/r/MensRights19/02/10 11:17 PM
5

And in many cases of inequality much of the difference can be explained by differing expectations. [at least anecdotally] I don't tend to vacuum very often... it just doesn't occur to me unless I sense something specifically dirty about the floor. Every single time it occurs to me that vacuuming needs done, I do it. [or call in a cleaning person... if my floor is dirty enough to need a vacuum, other stuff probably is too] My previous girlfriend vacuumed every day. There's no way I'd be OK with "…
/r/MensRights08/02/10 03:21 AM
7

But that's just blaming the victim! [Or so I'm told too often]
/r/MensRights13/01/10 06:27 PM
2

What are they defining as violence? My roommate was involved in a divorce and was repeatedly accused of domestic violence... like ripping hair out of a bloody head type violence. (which he never did) Later his daughter (15 at the time) was just being 15 and not listening, so I raised my voice. She complained that that was violence against her. The range of definitions can get quite wide.
/r/MensRights26/11/09 08:00 PM
1

I'd still support the general idea of bring suit against the (potentially lying) witness. If you find the she was lying, then her lying was the proximate cause of you being dragged through the muck. It'd be like saying "You can't blame her, she only hired the killer". No, both can get charged with something. That being said, I don't know enough about this case to say whether it should be allowed or not. The article was just too poorly written
/r/MensRights28/10/09 07:31 PM
3

Exactly. I'd never use ellipses to denote a pause in a formal paper, letter, resume, application, essay, etc. But in a forum like this where writing is effectively speech, I love ellipses.
/r/MensRights24/10/09 01:10 AM
6

Because they have at least a shred of empathy?
/r/MensRights16/10/09 07:43 PM
15

What part of "maternity" don't they understand? And I better not hear anyone who answered that way on the survey say a damn word about equality (since it doesn't mention men).
/r/MensRights16/10/09 04:18 PM
7

its not womens FAULT getting old I thought his point was more, "you should have thought of this when you were young and actually developed some skills or something". Granted, that's still not that useful of an answer since you can't go back in time, but I don't think he was harping on age itself.
/r/MensRights16/10/09 04:05 AM
1

Homeostasis is a longer word than equilibrium? 5 syllables, 11 letters...
/r/MensRights16/10/09 01:11 AM
2

And ends up including stupid other things. It's taken alot of work to convince my friend's daughter that raising my voice at her is not abuse. (Not even yelling at her, but raising my voice in that "Look, I'm the adult you're the kid, this is my house, your dad put you under my authority for now, you will not interrupt me, and you will not just grab food out of my cupboards without asking. No buts, do you understand me?" kind of way)
/r/MensRights08/10/09 02:54 PM
2

How can you retrain kids who accuse adults of abuse to get revenge? I have no idea how to do it, but the people I've had knowledge of just weren't "connected" to society all that well. Somehow they need to learn empathy... I just don't know if it's learnable that late, or how to reliably teach it.
/r/MensRights01/10/09 05:45 AM
8

it's only the worst case scenarios we read about in the gutter press such as the Daily Mail No. I knew one of those teachers I mentioned. It's not just a story. choose not to be a strong male role model, especially to boys with single mothers There are ways to be a strong role model to boys without being a school teacher. Ways that involve less of a risk of false accusations. Looking at statistics you'd be okay That's the funny thing about statistics. The lottery is completely sunk money, except…
/r/MensRights01/10/09 04:39 AM
7

The Daily Mail is shit I don't care. I didn't consult it when I made my decision. I didn't reference it when I explained my position to the teacher's union rep I talked to, or the pollster calling me. There was one male teacher at my primary school Yes, your single anecdote can render both the story and my personal experiences completely false. Primary schools are actively recruiting male teachers Yep, and when I talked to my local schools I know they definitely wanted me. When I explained to th…
/r/MensRights01/10/09 02:08 AM
14

It's one of the main reasons I'm not a teacher right now. I just can't invest myself that long in what it takes to be a teacher and do it relatively comfortably, to be worth the risk of having is all destroyed. I won't put myself in that position, and I won't put my family at that risk. Society is just too paranoid about it right now.
/r/MensRights30/09/09 06:18 PM
4

? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=magic+carpet+ride A sexual act in which two individuals who both have a heinous bush use the sixty-nine position.
/r/MensRights26/09/09 07:08 PM
2

I think that is part of the problem that he is not involved enough in his daughters life to have spies good point. I didn't read the article... (I didn't notice there was one, I thought it was a self post for some reason) Dragging other people into this is called creating drama. Depends on how you do it. Though as you point out, if you are actually interested and involved, the "spies" come for free. He should do everything in his power Yep. I don't necessarily know about "first" or not, but ther…
/r/MensRights24/09/09 09:55 PM
6

From my experience, you don't really. All you can really do is be there to show that the propaganda is false. Whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of talking bad about mom in retaliation. "That's something between your mother and I. What's important here is right now, between you and me" or variations thereof. It's not always satisfying, and it won't always keep things smooth in the short or mid term. But you don't want to put your kid in the "I have to choose who to believe" scenario. They…
/r/MensRights24/09/09 04:03 PM
1

As I noted above, this isn't the "I can prove via formal debate"-class event, but a "I want to change your mind"-class event. And in that case, yes... the more people believe a particular prejudice, the harder it is to convince a believer that they are wrong. Especially when those others have more credibility than you do for whatever reason.
/r/MensRights24/09/09 01:13 PM
3

It's different though when a large number of people share the belief.
/r/MensRights23/09/09 08:04 PM
3

Sure, and she'll just ask it right back at ya. Unless you're able to actually refute her specific sources, or use a source she respects to refute the position, there's not much chance of success.
/r/MensRights23/09/09 07:01 PM
19

In a debate scenario, you're correct. In a "person on the street whose mind I want to change" scenario, you do.
/r/MensRights23/09/09 04:30 PM
4

Do step 11 before steps 3 or 4.
/r/MensRights22/09/09 06:57 PM
0

It is tough. I tend to lump the prosecution pains in with he pain caused by the rapist, if convicted. But life doens't always fall so logically.
/r/MensRights18/09/09 11:31 PM
2

In god's name: http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html Not in god's name: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=carpet+muncher
/r/MensRights18/09/09 11:23 PM
1

I think its a stretch Oh yeah, me too. My point was to try to find a way to shoehorn it into this reddit as an example... not a necessity
/r/MensRights18/09/09 12:35 AM
1

The "pimp" is "a man", not "men". The ACORN women are not men. I could have been clearer, sorry. How about this way: If there were no women there to "soften" the appearances...
/r/MensRights18/09/09 12:23 AM
1

none of the childs rights being violated Not a financial victim. An emotional one. That child is getting messed up many ways from Sunday throughout the whole thing, through no fault of her own, and you're adding to it. You're taking away one pillar of support by not being around whenever possible. You're also validating what vile things mom may be saying about you by completely abandoning her. You're also allowing mom to have complete control over the shaping of your kid's emotional and psycholo…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 05:00 PM
1

The child has been a victim the entire time. Largely of the mother and the courts, but you were choosing to also add to the victimization. So, mapping that way, you wouldn't be forced to watch, you'd be handing the boyfriend a whip.
/r/MensRights17/09/09 04:50 PM
1

maybe you'll be forced to watch in horror while your child is tortured and killed by the stepfather. Then I'd be chained up and unable to move, because I'd die trying to stop that. How is this relevant?
/r/MensRights17/09/09 04:44 PM
1

It's because I don't think it's justifiable to allow my child to be victimized when I can do something to stop it.
/r/MensRights17/09/09 04:28 PM
1

because seeking political asylum in a foreign country is not an extreme action I would and have argue otherwise. You are removing yourself entirely from your kids' iives. Even if you have no visitation, you can still be seen at school events. You can still go to teacher conferences, etc. You are choosing to completely abandon your kid, because you've decided life is just too expensive here, and your kid isn't worth it. You've decided that taking a stand against the government is worth completely…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 04:03 PM
0

Why would i defend my escape plan? Because you were responding to me saying that you fleeing was a bad thing. Did slaves apologize when they were forced to leave friends and family to seek asylum in Canada? Defend is different from apologize. If Anne Frank was asked "Why did you hide?", she could easily have explained it in a way that anyone would understand. In fact, I don't think anyone would need to ask the question. The fact that I started off saying you were doing something wrong means ther…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 03:46 PM
1

You were talking about why it's OK for you to skip the country and not pay child support for your kid... because the courts allow/condone it. If that's not what you were saying, please clarify. From that point, I don't see why that reasoning doesn't apply to the tosser in this article as well. I don' see why you aren't also explaining why it's OK for this guy to kill his child.
/r/MensRights17/09/09 02:53 PM
1

How do they do that in a way that doesn't also apply to child-tossing? The courts don't say "Please leave the country, we think the child will be better off without your support" (otherwise you'd just be in jail and there'd be no support order). If you can get from "the courts are unfair to guys" leading "they support, endorse, promote, and facilitate fleeing the country", I don't see how it doesn't also lead you to "they support, endorse, promote, and facilitate throwing your kid off a cliff" T…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 02:36 PM
-1

What strawman? I was using your argument directly. You were excusing your position by saying "the courts allowed it". If that excuse works for you, why can't it work for him? Throwing the child over the cliff is illegal (and disallowed by the courts) as is fleeing the country and not paying your child support. Maybe you could re-explain you statement in a way that it clearly applies to your position, but not to the subject of the article?
/r/MensRights17/09/09 01:38 PM
-1

You're not responsible for your actions and choices? The courts must stop you in order to take an option off your plate? Then I guess the subject of the article tossing his kid off a cliff is justified too then, eh? Obviously the court allowed him to do it since he was able to do it. He was as much a victim as the child, right?
/r/MensRights17/09/09 01:16 PM
3

I was kept from visitation for a long time, but my kids do remember me dragging their mom to court. Now that we can safely discuss the case, they understand what I did. (They didn't then, but they do now). We have a great relationship now They remember me attending every single one of their school functions (even though they were a 2 hour drive away for several of those years), they remember the brief visits I was able to wrangle afterwards. [sleeping in my car because I was too tired to drive b…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 03:25 AM
0

The need for a child to be supported by two incomes does not exist You'e really going to emotionally and psychologically screw your kid because of money problems you have with someone else?! I could see messing with the ex, or the ex's new boyfriend maybe... but the kid didn't ask for that. Given that single men and women can adopt children (UK) it should be pretty clear that two incomes are not a necessity for child rearing Correct. Provided the income of one person is enough. The article didn'…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 03:08 AM
1

You can fight that legal battle for free you know?(except for parking fees if you're too far away from court to ride your bike) It just takes time and determination (and intelligence) on your part. [and the ability to adjust your work schedule to hit court dates] Even the filing fees can be waived for someone filing pro per and in pauperis. It's a LOT of work, but it's your kid.
/r/MensRights17/09/09 02:21 AM
2

http://www.avjobs.com/careers/detail.asp?RecID=69 Average full time pay for one is $13.03/hr. That's about $2084/month. So, yeah, that seems like a big chunk. Now, he can recover most of what he pays in taxes the following year, which should make it easier (as to how the formulas see it), but nobody in that circumstance is doing well enough to give effectively give themselves a 12 month loan until Uncle SAM decides to reimburse, so the tax refund largely goes to things like getting your car runn…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 02:18 AM
0

This attitude is detrimental to the role of men in society Your still playing by the old rules Nope. The lesson is more tuned these days. My girls know what it is to be a real person. That a person stands up for what is right, that it's not a "man's role", but a "human's role". There will always be people out there playing the system to their benefit. You don't fix it and teach good lessons by doing the same. Its okay for the mother and the government to use the baby against you Nobody here said…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 02:07 AM
1

this is an excellent example of the mentality that disallows any progress in terms of child support and the greater family court system Odd, considering I was involved in the a case that generated progress in my county. (no daughters had ever been taken away from their mother and awarded to the father in a contested divorce prior to this) It only took several years of persistent fighting and obscene amounts of money to do, but there's now a precedent and example... this particular case being ref…
/r/MensRights17/09/09 12:26 AM
1

You know they are using your daughter to hurt you, and you keep allowing it to happen month after month And him doing other wise would just be using his daughter in the same way in the other direction. they also weren't concerned about the childs welfare when they awarded custody to a parent who can't actually afford to care for the child Regardless, the child comes first. That's your kid. It's about her at this point, not you. You can fight in court (in theory). You can set positive examples so…
/r/MensRights16/09/09 11:39 PM
1

The video shows the pair approaching two women working at the ACORN Baltimore office and asking them for advice on how to set up a prostitution ring involving more than a dozen underage girls from El Salvador. One could argue that once you look at what happened to them... If they were men there would probably have been more immediate and more severe consequences, and they story would probably focus more on the child-sex part than the IRS part. That's one guess anyway. But the OP says it's a sham…
/r/MensRights16/09/09 01:56 PM
13

I don't see the necessary connection to any of the reddits you listed. I mean, we can make any story fit if we want, but I don't see why it's a shame that there isn't discussion on this. What angle am I missing?
/r/MensRights15/09/09 11:50 PM
3

administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants. You mean in regards to the emergency rooms? Which is already the case, and which won't be expanded by this. Or do you mean for private market plans? Which is already the case, and which won't be expanded by this. The illegal aliens thing is thrown out there as if this is going to add extra burdens, which the points you pulled out don't support. So it's effectively saying (a…
/r/MensRights12/09/09 11:41 PM
1

"feminazi" or "mangina" needs to be weeded out to encourage intelligent discourse I'm all for having some WBB stories, it's useful to have lots of these on hand for discussions. [while the plural of anecdote isn't data, it is still helpful] But yeah... the language used makes a difference to discourse
/r/MensRights12/09/09 09:46 PM
3

46M - 30M = 16M undocumented aliens. Of course! That's the only thing a difference of 16M could possibly be. The fact that there is text in the current bill that says it's only for legal folks doesn't matter. It's only what would be law if passed, so of course it will be entirely ignored while there rest of it will be strictly forced. A-1 Logic there. cashed for president
/r/MensRights12/09/09 09:44 PM
1

Just be careful about injecting modern sensibilities to the past This is a key point, and part of why I tried to completely leave out any concept of sensibilities and stick with neutral language. Unfortunately that's difficult to do with english without turning a single sentence into a 40 page block of legalese =-)
/r/MensRights11/09/09 12:09 AM
2

Heh =-) Not far off the truth today. I'm mostly babysitting scripts and making sure nothing explodes
/r/MensRights10/09/09 09:18 PM
1

Why would "begs the question" not be acceptable in that context? "Begs the question" mean that you're asking about something already assumed in the question. like "When did you stop beating your wife?" depends on the assumption that you beat your wife already. http://begthequestion.info/ I'm not sure what a "john", is it a male prostitute? The prostitute's client. Why is the female participant normally considered "dirtier" than the male one, even if the mail frequents multiple prostitutes. since…
/r/MensRights10/09/09 09:17 PM
3

This obviously begs the question of how it got to be so offencive in the first place Nitpick: "raises the question", not "begs the question" =-) and misguided feminist propaganda may well have something to do with that I'm not convinced it had to be feminist related. I mean, why has being a prostitute generally been less acceptable than being a "john"? I don't imagine that's feminism at play there.
/r/MensRights10/09/09 08:47 PM
1

By "advantaged positions," do you mean I addressed that already. when I said "(Sure men went to war, but they also ruled and owned stuff)" I said I wasn't talking about the bottom, I was talking about the heights they could reach. I'm not saying it doesn't seriously suck to be a guy in some seriously bad ways, and that it hasn't been that way since the dawn of time, and that it doesn't look to change anytime soon, and that it's not a horrible thing. All those things are true. I'm also certainly …
/r/MensRights10/09/09 08:43 PM
4

I couldn't care less what your intentions were. When you said "revisionist history to give credence to a victim fetish" you put an intent on it... I didn't. Why are you even on this board? Same reason you are, ostensibly. And part of that is clearly understanding the real drivers behind our current social subjugation. Ignoring historical social positions, and not factoring them into our arguments doesn't help that. (And you don't have to pass judgements on historical positions in order to unders…
/r/MensRights10/09/09 06:59 PM
5

The "explanation" is absurd, revisionist history to give credence to a victim fetish Bull. I came up with that explanation myself, so I know where it came from and what the intention was behind it. And it was in no way meant to give credence to a "victim fetish". In fact, the way I tried to phrase it, would argue against that. ie, "historical position" meaning "It used to be that way, but it isn't now... that's why the word is treated differently, and why it shouldn't be any different". I notice…
/r/MensRights10/09/09 05:17 PM
5

What history did I revise? And no, it doesn't justify any damn thing. It explains it. Saying "I can see why you think that" doesn't mean I also say "I agree with your reasoning" and doesn't mean I also can't say "If you want to be treated as a full person, start acting like one and not publicly taking offense at every perceived slight."
/r/MensRights10/09/09 04:45 PM
7

If the theory holds, the power of the word would still come from its being part of a woman's anatomy, and draws from their historical position as victims. So even if you're not calling a woman that, you're still using the experience. Maybe like white guys calling each other nigga? Neither were ever slaves or subject to that kind of racism, but it's still not OK.
/r/MensRights10/09/09 03:29 PM
7

I think the historical position of women has something to do with it. It's one thing to call Einstein an idiot. It's quite another to call a mentally challenged child an idiot. Even if the word is the same. [and to anyone who might try, please don't think I'm equating women with mental deficiency, it's just a quick example of how a word's impact changes based on target.]
/r/MensRights10/09/09 03:16 PM
3

neutral territory No such thing. "Natural disadvantages" etc...
/r/MensRights09/09/09 09:33 PM
10

Especially when the design of the site actually encourages it. That's part of why it's allowed on subreddits... to get different takes on an article. The disruption comes when someone... actually gets disruptive.
/r/MensRights09/09/09 09:30 PM
3

Even if the records were sealed, the info would still leak one way or another. Investigation is going to reveal alot to his friends (who will be interviewed, investigated, etc) But at least there could be the official assumption of innocence, and the leak would hopefully eventually end up being treated as a distasteful miscarriage of justice. maybe... hopefully... someday
/r/MensRights09/09/09 04:19 PM
2

You do take responsibility for yourself Some people don't... I think you meant "should" =)
/r/MensRights03/09/09 08:05 PM
3

are women powerless to resist marketers and politicians in general? That would also make their parents powerless too, since parental training has no effect.
/r/MensRights03/09/09 06:56 PM
13

May I also recommend that you start recording everything Don't do this, or at least don't get caught or don't tell anyone about it. California is an all-party state, you can't record her without her permission. The most useful stuff we ever had recordings wise was messages... so until you get better advice from an attorney, I'd refuse to answer the phone. Whatever she leaves as a message is a voluntary recording. EDIT: As a side thing, I made sure the land line in the house was used for kid/moth…
/r/MensRights18/08/09 03:36 AM
8

Just to add another female tidbit- we objectify men just as much And I think that's a key thing right there. We all do it. And guess what? It's not all we do. It is one of many levels on which we operate with things and people. I can listen to the radio while driving my car... For things that are practiced into natural action, we can do multiple things at once. Which is more natural? driving a car, or looking at other potential mates or threats?
/r/MensRights17/08/09 07:53 PM
3

Being a man -- a real man -- means having honour and dignity Hell, add a couple "hu-" in from of the "man"s and you're just as valid.
/r/MensRights16/08/09 04:46 AM
3

Fair enough. At the very least you provide a clear trail for aggregation later. "Look at how many of these there are... there's got to be better way" (though I doubt that will happen because the number of kids in the middle these messes is far higher =-/)
/r/MensRights11/08/09 08:50 PM
16

That may not matter... if you're the nearest thing to a dad at the time, the you're stuck... whether it's your DNA or not.
/r/MensRights11/08/09 08:41 PM
4

Depending on where you are, they have to be careful about it. If they fire you for a specific cause, and they can't substantiate that cause, they could be in hot water.
/r/MensRights04/08/09 10:26 PM
8

My roommate moved in with me when he got divorced years ago, and there this definitely sounds familiar. [Though the younger daughter was 7 when it started... she's 18 now] It's going to suck, but there's not too much to do about it. Set clear expectations when she's with you, and don't argue about calling the other guy dad. Don't fall into the "I only get to see her every other weekend so it has to be fun all the time" trap either... when she's old enough, get some chores assigned. Make sure you…
/r/MensRights20/07/09 04:06 AM
1

Someone has to though... if we're not going to rabidly pin it on people, we need the state to pick up the slack.
/r/MensRights16/07/09 02:49 PM
3

But... "won't someone think of the children"... or something
/r/MensRights16/07/09 04:08 AM
7

My friend was in a similar boat. His mother, a lawyer friend, his lawyer, and most of his ex-wife's attorneys all told him he would have been way better off putting a contract out on her.
/r/MensRights02/07/09 01:15 PM
1

I am just a big wallet to the courts and most women To be fair, you're probably just invisible to most women =-)
/r/MensRights29/06/09 10:32 PM
13

I've already read it's cleaner to do it the other way around?
/r/MensRights29/06/09 04:18 AM
10

Why aren't there more stories of "the guy who got me home when I was seriously drunk and my boyfriend wasn't looking out for me"? Because it happens so often it's part of the background, so people in general don't notice?
/r/MensRights14/06/09 05:19 PM
5

Also accept that while you want to protect your kids from everything, by blowing these very rare risks out of proportion you're creating an even worse world that you would want to protect your kid from... you are creating the thing that will eat your kid later on. It's a balancing act. You have to accept some risk... that's just part of being alive.
/r/MensRights31/05/09 07:00 AM
3

Judges are supposed to view things in the context of the law, not based on emotion. The law isn't always clear, and you need something to make a determination. ie, if the law is clearly trying to setup a fair framework for redress and is vague about how it is to be applied, personal judgement must fill in the gaps. If none of the people making the judgement have had personal experience in that area, they may not recognize system unfairness. [something where a poor person is punished to a much gr…
/r/MensRights28/05/09 05:28 AM
6

Hey anonymous_troll. Here's an interesting idea. Instead of just whining to redditors, why don't you see what you can do to help?
/r/MensRights20/05/09 07:18 PM
3

habit of not giving rape victims the sympathy they deserve I don't recall seeing anything like that. "Alleged rape victims" maybe, but if it's not clear that there actually was a rape, the true victim may be the alleged rapists. They just happen to point out more of those kinds of stories given the reddit...
/r/MensRights08/05/09 10:15 PM
1

In what way?
/r/MensRights23/04/09 09:25 PM
-1

Not alot of meat to this story... could the DA be operating under the idea that the reason the girl admitted lying was that she was pressured to do so? Kinda like why the police in many jurisdictions will press charges in a case of spousal abuse, even once the accuser drops the charges. Not that it makes this OK... it just makes it a little less nakedly wrong.
/r/MensRights22/04/09 11:03 PM
1

I think that a parent who will send their kids for a brainwashing session to get them back on their side instead of talking to them needs psychiatric help It would depend on what' meant specifically by brain washing. In the case I was involved in, the older child was "enmeshed" with the mother, as the psychologists put it. She literally had no will of her own, it was substituted with her mother's will... to the point that when she was presented with a tape of a recent event that she, her father …
/r/MensRights11/04/09 05:59 AM
5

I don't get it, why can't they just ask the kids who they want to live with and be done with it? Since kids are never under pressure from the opposing parent... and never have any concerns about how selecting one parent means rejecting the other... I don't know which side to believe, but from my experiences in the system, I'm a bit disgusted with the judges comment. The judge in the case I was involved with said something similar, except that everything court related was mom's fault. She extende…
/r/MensRights10/04/09 04:45 PM
4

I'm not actually sure that would have worked in my friend's case. His ex violated court orders, restraining orders, refused the psych programs she was required to take, open perjury the judge himself caught her in, etc... and the judge said that the only option he had left to punish her would stop her from being around her kids, so there was nothing he could do. I'd say congrats for the easy setup in your case, but there are really no congrats to go around in a divorce, especially when mom is a …
/r/MensRights31/03/09 10:26 PM
6

I know of only one instance of a guy getting custody of his daughters in our County in a contested divorce, even though they were initially under the mother's custody. [He's heard lawyers talk about his case in general, and confirmed afterwards they were actually referring to him... weird] So, as far as I can tell, this is a disturbingly accurate portrayal.
/r/MensRights31/03/09 05:19 PM
3

My friend fought something like that for many years... fortunately (after several hundred thousand dollars) the judge finally realized the the exwife actually had some potential (since she was a paralegal, had graduated college, and had been attending additional college at my friend's expense throughout the proceedings)... he finally got that she was jerking him around, and imputed earnings. She still screwed the system around continually after that and the judge admitted there was nothing he co…
/r/MensRights07/03/09 11:24 PM
3

I may not ask it alot myself, but the question is asked alot... and it's nice to have a quick reference to answers with examples. If I had to rely entirely on my own memory... hoo boy =-)
/r/MensRights21/02/09 08:01 AM
4

I don't like the default when thinking about it that way. I wish we could remove the reasonable person wherever possible, because reason isn't reliably measurable. I like to think of it as requiring real or reasonably implied force. If you drug someone and have sex with them... rape. You forced the situation. If you blackmail into having sex... rape. [and blackmail... of course] If you grab someone for classical rape... rape. Clear force. If you're a teacher and you have sex with your underage s…
/r/MensRights20/02/09 10:53 PM
5

Or flip the doubt around... The idea is that if she's a little drunk, she can't consent... that her mental faculties aren't working. If she stumbles out of the bathroom saying she was assaulted, but is a little drunk, can we discount her story? She's drunk, so she's obviously not in control of her faculties. Or more neutrally... if a woman drinks and drives and kills someone, should she get off from the manslaughter charge because she wasn't in control of her faculties at the time? I mean, she c…
/r/MensRights20/02/09 06:13 PM
-1

You're not recognizing the difference between "difference" and "difference is bad". To say women are the only ones who can have babies is not sexist, even though it makes a statement about women specifically. To say that women are more seen as sex objects in movies and there should be some work trying to calm that down is not sexist, even though it is focused on women specifically. Sexism implies something bad about the identification. Feminism in general doesn't bring anything bad with it... ju…
/r/MensRights18/02/09 01:20 AM
1

only one gender And what does that have to do with sexism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism It cannot be the case that "Gender Studies" is a less egalitarian term than "Feminism" I would argue that sentence doesn't actually make any sense. I wouldn't say "animal husbandry" is any less tasty than "chicken". The terms don't go together, though they are in a generally related area. To the point though... you made different assertions in the post I was referring to "feminism" is just as loaded an…
/r/MensRights17/02/09 11:38 PM
4

Except that chairman is referring to a job position, and feminism is referring to something that actually is gender related by its nature.
/r/MensRights17/02/09 11:15 PM
1

I couldn't find exactly what you were referring to... but I think I got close. Any reason you couldn't just link to it directly?
/r/MensRights12/02/09 09:06 PM
3

I disagree with the title.. implying intent where none was even theorized. But having helped a father through a similar case, I just can't bring myself to downvote the article itself.
/r/MensRights12/02/09 06:36 PM
1

I actually want to get on a jury, but I've been rejected both times I've actually made it to the questioning part... I'm curious to see the process, and I like to think I can actually help keep some sanity in the deliberation room
/r/MensRights25/01/09 09:08 PM
2

And that's part of the local situation... Maybe you could pull off a "A person I know is being threatened, what should I suggest...", or call the police or sheriff in another area from a phone that isn't yours. I'd be curious about the girl's family and friends as well. Do they know she's crazy? Is this out of character for her? I broke up with a girl who said she was going to commit suicide if I did it, but I made sure the family was aware of what was going on. She still ended up trying (as I u…
/r/MensRights25/01/09 06:08 PM
1

Not knowing the local situation... might it be worth asking the police, or a rape center what their advice is?
/r/MensRights25/01/09 03:44 AM
3

I've been on the wrong end of that in an all-party state. Don't do it. If you do it, don't try to use it. (If you're a single-party state, go for it)
/r/MensRights25/01/09 03:42 AM
3

There is a little bit of schadenfreude involved in it for me, but I am mostly just glad to see some more sense creeping into family court. Now if we just had some in my area back when my friend was getting a divorce. (It's bad when a judge admits in open court that there's nothing he can do to control the ex-wife's behavior since he won't do anything to block her from access to the kids)
/r/MensRights25/01/09 12:35 AM
1

Hey, he's got a legitimate beef. These are Australians, if we know anything about Australia it's that it's a country peopled entirely by criminals. And they're going to be at a higher risk of harm children. There should clearly be no children allowed in Australia. /Yes, that was sarcasm, for those whose sarcasm detector is broken
/r/MensRights17/01/09 01:25 AM
1

The vp is mentioned there and it is obvious that he has some role in the legislative branch What‽ Where does that show up?
/r/MensRights09/12/08 05:55 AM
1

investigations in Santa Clara County could effect the outcome of a number of criminal Affect not effect... affect not effect. rgh
/r/MensRights09/12/08 05:21 AM
2

I agree with that, as long as you take the thinking the rest of the way. "Fighting words" doctrines, and the idea that you can say anything to me* that excuses me assaulting you shouldn't exist either. Adults should be responsible for their actions. Excluding things like credible physical threats
/r/MensRights02/12/08 11:46 PM
12

Exactly. He actually had one of the best lawyers in the county, which was why he was able to get custody of his daughters eventually. It was the system and more precisely the biases that were allowed to fester in it that caused the problems.
/r/MensRights02/12/08 04:12 AM
19

don't hesitate to call your Child Support Office Yeah, like that's going to do any good at all. My roommate tried working with folks like that, but they ALWAYS sided with the mother. Every time. When mom was found to have fraudulently taken welfare and dad had to repay anyway, they sided with mom. When there was confusion one weekend about visitation, dad (who was primary custodian at that point) confronted by the police and nearly arrested. When mom regularly refused visitations, police and cou…
/r/MensRights02/12/08 01:49 AM
1

How come eloquent replies like yours preaching moderation, gentle understanding, and patience never occur in cases where women are victims? I don't know about the general answer, but I just haven't run across a thread that calls for it yet. Where is the measured understanding for the rapist? Tricky word there "rape". Assuming you mean what is normally meant by rape, the measure isn't deserved. The rapist doesn't believe they are doing a greater good by committing the rape. The female-genital mut…
/r/MensRights19/11/08 07:17 PM
3

If you're that concerned that you can't trust her later, don't marry her. period. If you're prepping these games and you come up with the perfect one, who's to say she's not anyway?
/r/MensRights18/11/08 08:10 PM
1

To be fair... is forcibly restraining someone against their will wrong, or only in some circumstances?
/r/MensRights17/11/08 05:08 AM
1

And yes, I believe when you start stacking up denial, you also start eroding love No. You might make the efforts of your love less effective or even harmful, but you don't dampen the emotion. It may screw up the way the practice their love, but it doesn't screw up the fact of their love. And yes, I believe when you start stacking up denial, you also start eroding love. You cannot push one emotion away while pulling another close. It doesn't work that way. Denial is not an emotion, it is a coping…
/r/MensRights16/11/08 06:11 AM
1

In all this you have yet to address the balance a single time. If a person believes the pain will not be remembered, and will cause their eternal soul to be savable, doesn't that mitigate things at all? [Note: I'm not saying the pain is not remembered, I'm addressing what other people believe, as you are addressing other people's capability for love.] Does the above text illustrate the difference for you? I already know there's a huge difference. You've not laid out where the cutoff in love is t…
/r/MensRights15/11/08 11:22 PM
1

Evidence of this subconscious knowledge is found in the plethora of jokes about circumcision and pain. I never said there is no pain, or that people don't have serious issues or knowledge of pain later in life, but many folks believe (or rationalize) that a baby's brain just isn't developed enough to retain memory of the pain. If you can't remember it at all, then it's almost as if it doesn't happen... as long as the kid doesn't come out with ill effects. For folks who believe this way, their lo…
/r/MensRights15/11/08 07:21 PM
1

Getting a shot is not equivalent to having your genital tissue mutilated I didn't say it was the same, but you didn't indicate any degree of pain at which things like that get "interesting". Please clear up for me exactly at what pain is the cutoff between "a good parent would stop it" and "a good parent might allow it for future protection". It seems an important point, since your definition of love seems to revolve around it. Most parents who do this to their kids don't believe they have the c…
/r/MensRights15/11/08 07:22 AM
1

I believe most people in North America are ignorant of what love really is. I find it amusing you say but don't say what is actually is yourself. A parent who loves their child would feel the pain of their infant's circumcision Not to defend the practice, but who says the parents don't feel the pain? Why would a parent ever take their kid in for a shot? That causes pain too, but that small amount of pain then protects against much worse future pain. When I was learning to ride my bike, I'd fall …
/r/MensRights14/11/08 09:18 PM
4

When I was in Washington at a supermarket they were taking donations for colon cancer research. The checker asked me "Do you want to donate $5.00 for colon cancer." not "to fight colon cancer", not "for colon cancer research"... She got really confused when I said "no thanks, I'm actually against it"
/r/MensRights23/10/08 04:31 AM
7

"hate crimes" are thought crimes... so, no. They should be punished as severely (or close to) as what the punishment for the crime they would have pushed for.
/r/MensRights16/10/08 02:11 AM
8

I hope they think "Hey, 13 year old boy likes naked girls... how healthy. Let's make sure he understands the dangers involved in early sex, holding pictures that shouldn't be released, and similar for the girl." If a 40 year old guy is thinking about naked 15 year old girls all day long, something's wrong. If a 13 year old boy is not thinking about naked 15 year old girls all day long, something's wrong (or he's gay).
/r/MensRights09/10/08 10:21 PM
3

The fact that the text message was unsolicited will nullify the charges. I dunno. The fact that he didn't immediately delete the pix might keep the "possession" charges... shows intent
/r/MensRights09/10/08 09:05 PM
9

Happened to my roommate too. He had to pay the city back even though they admit it was not his fraud. Hey paid them, but the account won't zero out. So, he's got a massive ding on his credit report for collections from LA County, and they won't take it off. Nor will they figure out how to close the account. He's been denied several jobs over this... disgusting
/r/MensRights08/10/08 07:28 PM
2

This is probably the most reasonable request he could possibly have given. I can't understand what rationale the governor would have for ignoring him. He does the investigation, spending taxpayer money on something everyone knows is obviously a waste of time just to find out men are discriminated against more often in family court right now. So, naturally that proves the study is flawed, which means the Governor was bribed and he gets booted out. And loses his kids. Not hard to imagine.
/r/MensRights02/10/08 11:55 PM
2

Closest thing I could come up with was from Star Trek...
/r/MensRights30/09/08 06:57 PM
3

So, the proper response for a boy with problems with the teacher would of course be going behind the teachers back, spreading vengeful rumors and destroying her career? /half kidding
/r/MensRights18/09/08 07:32 PM
1

I've been in divorce court in 3 counties, speaking with over a dozen attorneys (complicated divorce), as well as criminal court in 2 counties, and civil court in 2 counties. (yeah... all the same divorce) A couple of those attorneys work with national level attorney's organizations, so they get around outside our state. Each of those attorneys said it the bias is in that direction in all courts they've been in or heard of, except for a few good judges. edit: I just reread your original comment..…
/r/MensRights09/09/08 10:51 PM
2

It didn't say universally accepted... just widely. And that is the case.
/r/MensRights09/09/08 02:15 PM
1

I remembered: Income and Expense Statement... I&E
/r/MensRights05/09/08 08:41 PM
1

In my state, there is a procedure you go through (can't recall the name), but basically you submit your expenses and income, she does hers, the court plugs it into a computer, and new numbers come out. Was that part of your custody battle? Also curious, what percentage of physical custody do you have? (weekends and half holidays might be 20% for her, etc...) So if you make some money and she makes none, that would factor in.
/r/MensRights05/09/08 07:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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