TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Men 'bullied' out of generous divorce settlements by breadwinning wives

Holytrojan

March 5, 2017
1468 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/04/men-bullied-generous-divorce-settlements-breadwinning-wives/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Men 'bullied' out of generous divorce settlements by breadwinning wives
Author

Holytrojan

Upvotes 1468
Comments 79
Date March 5, 2017 7:00 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5xodxk/men_bullied_out_of_generous_divorce_settlements/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/men-bullied-out-of-generous-divorce-settlements-by.930266
https://theredarchive.com/post/930266
Top posts by Holytrojan

University Equality Lectures Ban Straight White Men

232 upvotes
June 9, 2016
/r/MensRights

How this feminist found herself sympathising with the men's rights movement

58 upvotes
January 31, 2017
/r/MensRights

Doctor's call to 'equally protect' boys with HPV vaccine - BBC News

41 upvotes
June 7, 2017
/r/MensRights

Mum Danielle Morris who faked DNA paternity test jailed - BBC News

32 upvotes
June 12, 2017
/r/MensRights

Women-Only WONDER WOMAN Screening Sells Out Immediately

28 upvotes
May 25, 2017
/r/MensRights

This Plymouth University student is fighting for 'men's rights'

18 upvotes
March 30, 2017
/r/MensRights

After being acquitted of rape charges man ordered to inform police 24 hours before he has sex.

5 upvotes
June 8, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–][deleted] 159 points160 points161 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

"A lot of wives in the same position, though, consider the very notion of paying maintenance to their ex-husband unfair.

“Furthermore, some have tried to pressure men into not claiming support by arguing that ‘real men’ wouldn’t do such a thing."

Alpha Women, Beta Men - Wives are increasingly outearning their husbands, but their new financial muscle is causing havoc in the home.

Once Anna sought a divorce—“You know what my lawyer called him? A parasite”—she, like many other women in her position, was in for a shock. Divorce lawyer Harriet Newman Cohen explains, “The law is supposed to be gender-blind. Therefore, when a marriage is breaking up at the insistence of either the breadwinning wife or the supported husband, the lawyer has to apprise the client that when a big-earner wife comes in, the court bends over backward to be gender-neutral, and it is possible the bum is going to be rewarded for sitting on his hands. You do a flip-flop and make believe she is a guy.”

More often than not, this doesn’t involve alimony. “A lot of men, I’ve noticed, feel embarrassed to ask for alimony,” says Ken Neumann, since they already know their partner’s reaction. “The wife’s idea is, ‘You’re not going to ask for alimony, are you? It’s bad enough I was making more than you.’ ”

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points49 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You’re not going to ask for alimony, are you? It’s bad enough I was making more than you.

Meanwhile, females getting divorced behave as though they won the lottery.

[–]Code347 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not only does my ex live a really good upper middleclass lifestyle with her new husband, I get to give her $2200 a month , pay for all of my kids insurance, and eat canned foods while staring out at the shitty neighborhood I could afford with what amounts to less than minimum wage after the state of California rapes my check. There needs to be parity.

[–]8958 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And I bet your kids treat the mom and step dad way better and don't realize how much you contribute and support them.

[–]Code347 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You would be right.

[–]8958 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And mom probably paints you in this bad light when in reality you sacrifice everything for the kids. SOrry, man.

[–]Pz5 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell your pig exwife to start caring for her kids. Start paying for some of their insurance.

[–][deleted] 218 points219 points220 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

"It is not likely that men will reach the levels of spousal support that women have previously had as maintenance awards are diminishing in terms of length and amount," she said.

I don't see the problem with this. I would much rather see true equality, rather than the idea that because group A had it so much better than group B in the past, we now have to make up for it by treating group A like shit, and give group B handouts like it's going out of fashion. You see this argument made by feminists all the time. If we talk about hardships men face they almost automatically bring up how they weren't allowed to vote, or whatever other historic examples they have.

All that will accomplish is a constant oscillation of privilege and oppression, never to become truly equal. The world will be a much better place if we can shut down the oppression Olympics, leave the past in the past, and move towards true legal and social equality. The world needs to stop pretending that everyone alive today is personally responsible for the actions of ancestors who lived so long ago we never even met them.

[–]dontpet 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I really doubt it's a worry the men will in some way get more generous payouts because of their gender. More likely the opposite would continue and the payouts decline overall.

[–]ZenPyx 55 points56 points57 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah I totally agree. I don't want to pay reparations for something someone did 200 years ago, and I certainly can't see how it promotes equality

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not 200 years ago though, it's now. Maintenance awards are diminishing simply because there's more equality in earnings than 50 years again, not because judges are being less generous to stay at home spouses. In cases where men are the main breadwinner, they are still getting shafted.

[–]PM_ME_UR_ZITS_GURL 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Maybe I'm a cynic, but you would never see a comment like this in any feminist subreddit.

[–]x0y0z0 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They can't see posts like this. It has no effect on them. Check out the circlejerking in r/againstmensrights. They will pick the least agreeable 5% of comments here and pretend that it represents the whole group. You won't ever find anything in there that disagrees with their hive mind because that's a banneble offence.

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that subreddit. You may use a screenshot instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]x0y0z0 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What subreddit was posted?

[–]AppaBearSoup 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This feels like saying the rules should be heads they win tails we lose. Taking the high road is how we are now. They want us to keep doing it.

[–]Razorbladekandyfan 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

MGTOW

[–]Wraeclast_Exile 45 points46 points47 points 9 years ago (140 children) | Copy Link

Man fuck all those cunts.

I'm sorry, but when you leave a relationship, YOU'RE GONE! You shouldn't be entitled to any money at all. Go make your own!

This makes me SO SICK to read!

I'm never, EVER EVER getting married.

[–]Klmba 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (133 children) | Copy Link

In some cases it makes a lot of sense to be awarded money. Let's say your girlfriend drops out of her school, education or job or whatever to stay at home and raise your first child. Then you decide to have another child and she becomes a fulltime stay at home mom, while you have taken a long education and worked your way up in the company.

Without your money your girlfriend couldn't raise the kids, but without her, you wouldn't be able to take a long education and work full time if you had to raise 2 kids aswell.

In this case, the stay at home person, should be awarded money for years a numbers of years until the person can have the same education and work opportunities as the working person.

[–]AFuddyDuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Half the length of the marriage, or 5 years, whichever is lesser.

[+]Wraeclast_Exile -20 points-19 points-18 points 9 years ago (129 children) | Copy Link

Let's say your girlfriend drops out of her school, education or job or whatever to stay at home and raise your first child.

That's her making a decision. That doesn't mean you should pay her for years to come for it. In any case, that's not followed for many cases.

In this case, the stay at home person, should be awarded money for years a numbers of years until the person can have the same education and work opportunities as the working person.

But it's always the woman who gets awarded the money, regardless.

A person should have an education to support themselves. If they decide to stay home and take care of kids, that's their decision, and not something the courts should award money for.

[+]zephyrIT points 9 years ago [recovered] (128 children) | Copy Link

As a divorced man.... Just shut up

[+]Wraeclast_Exile -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (127 children) | Copy Link

As a divorced man.... Just shut up

WTF is that supposed to mean?

You don't like to be reminded of the pain?

[–]Reddit1990 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (126 children) | Copy Link

No, he's saying you don't know what you're talking about.

[+]Wraeclast_Exile -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago (125 children) | Copy Link

Why wouldn't I know what I'm talking about? What, in what I've said, suggests that?

[–]Reddit1990 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link

Probably because you haven't raised a family before. Or at least, its incredibly unlikely you have.

[–]Wraeclast_Exile 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (90 children) | Copy Link

Probably because you haven't raised a family before.

I don't need to "raise a family" to know what's entailed with it. Derp.

[–]Lawnmover_Man 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Very true. But that doesn't mean that your argument has automatically more weight and truth to it.

[–]Reddit1990 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (87 children) | Copy Link

I don't need to "raise a family" to know what's entailed with it.

Says everyone who hasn't raised a family... until they raise a family.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

because even though it was her decision to not go to school or whatever sacrifices you made.... it's not right to just leave her on the streets with no education and a child and whatever else.

The courts should award LESS money for sure, (and make sure child support is paid to the child) but there defiantly needs to be some settlement for the person who doesn't go to a job as the primary caregiver.

[–]Wraeclast_Exile 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

because even though it was her decision to not go to school or whatever sacrifices you made.... it's not right to just leave her on the streets with no education and a child and whatever else.

So even though she made the decision, we should ignore the fact that she should be held responsible for her decisions? Am I hearing you right?

Shouldn't the people who should worry about her life without someone paying for her bills be her to begin with?

We are all responsible for our own choices. To shoulder financial burden on the man for something that was completely unavoidable, and her responsibility to begin with, is disgusting.

The courts should award LESS money for sure

It should award no alimony in any way, whatsoever.

but there defiantly needs to be some settlement for the person who doesn't go to a job as the primary caregiver.

I think you meant "definitely".

And no, the person who decided not to get an education now should go get herself an education - or should have thought about that before. It shouldn't be his responsibility to pay her bills due to her chosen predicament.

[–]GreenAdept 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I think what is missing here is that in an adult relationship, big decisions like this are ideally, and hopefully, made together as a couple. If as a couple you decide one person is going to be the stay-at-homemaker, the "breadwinner" understands the other partner is giving up a career. If things go unfortunately south in the future, it seems reasonable the breadwinner should help support the stay at home spouse until they are able to support themselves.

[+]GypsyPunk points 9 years ago [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

Have you even been in a relationship before?

[–]contractor808 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In this case, the stay at home person, should be awarded money for years a numbers of years until the person can have the same education and work opportunities as the working person.

Where does that end? A Master's degree? A Doctorate? Decades of work experience in a particular field? How about an NFL contract? Do you really expect one person to finance years and years of another person's life with no guarantee they will even make proper use of that time?

A year to find a job and a place to live is one thing, but to try and mandate parity is absurd.

[–]8958 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly it just isn't possible. There just needs to be a hard line / rule set.

[–]Rolten 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but when you leave a relationship, YOU'RE GONE! You shouldn't be entitled to any money at all. Go make your own!

I think you should.

My mom and dad both had decent jobs. My dad studied business economics, my mom law. However, my dad had a chance to get a better paying job in Germany. They both wanted to live abroad, but they knew my mom couldn't easily find a job there with a law degree based on Dutch law. However, they were a team, they were to be married forever, so they made the decision together. My mom moved with him, hurting her career. They moved back rather quickly, but my dad ended up earning a lot more thanks to that. My mom got a job again. Soon, there was another chance for my dad to work abroad in Asia. At this point, the first child had been born, so my parents made the decision that my dad would be the breadwinner (by this time his salary was higher) and my mother would manage the household. This would allow them to pursue their dreams of living abroad, raising a family, and doing so comfortably. They needed each other for this though. One to make the money, the other to manage the household.

They have been doing this for the past 20 years. If they split up, my dad would have a good job and children that were raised well (mostly thanks to my mom). My mom would only have the children, and would have to look for a starters position somewhere as a woman that's ~ 55. Her investments allowed my dad to have a career that at times required him to work 60-70 hours a week for long durations.

Doesn't seem fair right? In my opinion, marriage is a team job. You both try to maximize your happiness or how good you have it. One might invest in their career, the other in the children. If people divorce would it be fair to leave one back at 0, even though they put all that time into other things that benefited both?

It's fine if you don't like this system. Don't get married. However, for others this system needs to be in place to function as a team/family in life, instead of two individuals looking out for themselves.

[–]contractor808 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This would allow them to pursue their dreams of living abroad, raising a family, and doing so comfortably. They needed each other for this though. One to make the money, the other to manage the household.

Why does a joint decision made for the benefit of both require compensation from one to another? Why doesn't your mom have to give something to compensate the hours of work your dad did instead? Your dad, I assume, didn't get to hang out with his family at work. What about his time lost being with his family? Is that worth nothing?

Her investments allowed my dad to have a career that at times required him to work 60-70 hours a week for long durations.

Your dad was allowed to work 60-70 hours a week? That's not a luxury. That's almost double full-time hours in the US. Why, after working his ass of to support you and your family's "comfortable" lifestyle should he be made to pay more after the fact? He did his part.

[–]Wraeclast_Exile -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

However, they were a team, they were to be married forever,

Sorry, but we all know marriage isn't always forever. In fact, most of the time it isn't. You're still responsible for your own choices you make in life.

Doesn't seem fair right? In my opinion, marriage is a team job.

Marriage is an unnecessary contract - a governmental contract. It's NOT always going to be "forever". It's unreasonable to assert you'll be with someone "for the rest of your life", when it won't be that way if things go sour, which they usually do (especially if people don't know who to look for).

You are still expected to make the appropriate choices for yourself in any situation.

[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But per logic we will always have two full-time working parents trying to make a career. Children will always be at daycare from 9 to 6. And he: if you really want to advance in your career then you'll be working more than five days 9 to 6.

My sister and her husband are both working full-time now. They'll be having children soon and my sister will be working part-time. Not good for her personally if she wasn't married, but thanks to her marriage she's able to make that decision and provide those children with a better home and probably make herself and her husband happier.

[–]Wraeclast_Exile 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, good... that's good that she has someone there to help her. That's actually very important.

But she shouldn't be leeching off the man if the marriage goes sour. These are decisions she's making now.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Their lack of agency is no one's fault but their own.

You don't get to agree to something, then whine about how unfair it is.

[–]dejour 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you talking about the men who declined to ask for maintenance/alimony?

Based on the article, it attributes that idea to lawyers. There's nothing wrong with a third party speaking up if they think they see an injustice. And that doesn't make anyone a whiner.

[–]Alkomb 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Alimony" is just a way to legally rob a man.

[–]AFuddyDuddy 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No. This is more equivalent to, "Making less in the same job because he negotiates, she didn't"

Very few women who were the supporters will deny anlimony.

Very few men would even consider taking it.

This isn't judges saying fuck you. This is the man saying, "No, I don't want alimony" and the judge agreeing.

Now, the conditions and reasons behind it, may be sexist as fuck.

[–]thrway_1000 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[Archive of Article Here.]

 


Please think of archiving links to sites that are known to have biased and/or negative representations of men, masculinity, and men's rights -- i.e. The Guardian, Slate, Cracked, BuzzFeed, Vox, Vice, Bustle, Medium, Mic, Huffington Post, Salon, Think Progress, Raw Story, and so on. Or to articles and/or sources that may be controversial, which may be altered and/or removed because of our current culture of censorship. https://archive.is/

[–]cyber_rigger 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Marriage ought to be an opt-in contract.

If an agreement isn't put in then it doesn't happen.

[–]thehenkan 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is optional though.

[–]Jex117 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not where I live. If you live in the same residence, you become 'Common Law', which is, for all intents and purposes, marriage.

[–]sadwer 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Did you get that from the statute or just word of mouth? Because there's a lot of misconceptions about common law marriage, even among people who should know better like police.

[–]NyranK 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In most of Australia, de facto couples are pretty much on par with married since 2009.

If you've been together for 2 years, have kids, or have financial inter/dependence you're going to be treated as 'married' come 'spousal support' time.

[–]Jex117 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I haven't personally gone over the statute, but I've had friends go had to go through all the hassle of a divorce without ever getting married, and I've read lawyers explain it on my local provincial subreddit

[–]user1492 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some provinces in Canada impose a common law marriage on two people if they have cohabitation in a conjugal relationship for several years.

At least in the US you have to actually hold yourself out as married.

[–]Adrewmc -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I doubt it. Most common law marriages aren't civil but criminal statements. This opens up domestic crimes to the partners.

It usually doesn't mean you have the same liabilities if you break up.

While a true common law marriage is possible it requires you to do certain things namely say that you are married (like on an IRS form).

[–]ThatDamnedRedneck 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Read up about something called Common Law marriages.

[–]sadwer 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There are a lot of misconceptions about common law marriage. I suspect there isn't anywhere in the US that you'd enter into one involuntarily, though if you have a case I'm all ears of course. Usually it involves an affirmative act, like presenting yourself to others as married.

[–]ThatDamnedRedneck 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Most people aren't in the US. In Ontario it's automatic after a year of cohabitation.

[–]timdesuyo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Wow. Does this mean conceivably that a landowner could sublet a room in their house to a woman - lets say they sublet several rooms as a normal practice - and then after a year, that woman could pursue a monetary reward via claims of being common-law married?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What kind of landowner would do such a thing without a contract?

[–]timdesuyo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just because you have a rental contract wouldn't head off the problem at the pass in all cases. If it did, you can bet a lot more people would be making their girlfriends sign some sort of rental contract...

[–]FurRealDeal -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think you missed the parts about cohabitation in a conjugal relationship for a year/years; depending on location. Renting a room is not a proven conjugal relationship.

[–]timdesuyo -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There was nothing about "conjugal relationship" in the comment I replied to which stated, "In Ontario it's automatic after a year of cohabitation."

[–]FurRealDeal 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Then they omitted the detail and I am now filling you in on it. To awnser your question, no a renter cannot claim common law with a tenant.

[–]cyber_rigger 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You can get some tax, insurance, etc. advantages.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Doesn't make it any less optional.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I see no reason why the government should regulate private romantic relationships. Heck, even BDSM works fine without it. The reasons for marriage as an institution are archaic and have certainly nothing to do with children's best interest.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

More and more, everyday I'm becoming asexual.

[–]WillMeatLover 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Men are so pathetically easy to manipulate.

ex-wife: "Ugh you're not really a man if you ask for alimony!"

pathetic loser husband: breaks down into tears "IIM SORRY I WON'T ASK FOR MY LEGAL RIGHTS TO APPEASE YOU"

vs. me in this hypothetical situation

loser ex-wife: "Ugh you're not really a man if you ask for alimony!"

WillMeatLover: "Damn straight I'm asking for alimony, bitch. I'll do you a favor though and let you pay 5% of it in your tears."

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Man as so pathetically easy to manipulate.

That's because they face a large amount of misandry from society for not fulfilling the 'real man' gender stereotype.

pathetic loser husband

Shit like this is basically internalised sexism. You are enforcing a dated stereotype.

[–]WillMeatLover -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"internalised sexism"? What are you? A meninist?

No, they are pathetic losers if they fall for that shit. I don't waste my sympathy for men who hang themselves with their own rope.

[–]morerokk 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is basically the "abused men should just leave, they're pussies if they don't" argument.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Right, and men that end up having to pay alimony are likewise pathetic losers for not winning in court. And men that lose their children - pathetic losers. Men that get harsh prison sentences - fucking losers. On and on until you realise you stand against everything the MRA movement is for, because any time a man loses out, he is a pathetic loser. Gotcha.

[+]WillMeatLover -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, because I said men that don't fight at all are the same as men who fight and lose. Cry me a river, you lying pussy.

[–]contractor808 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Abrasive language, but not a false statement. If someone can be cowed with shaming language then they aren't a resilient person.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are so pathetically easy to manipulate.

Women have evolved over millions of years to extract resources, just like children have evolved to manipulate their parents. And in both cases, not giving in meant your genes had less of a chance to survive.

[–]WillMeatLover 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, so science agrees with my statement.

[–]SCROTAL-SACK 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are fucking dumbasses. Won't accept money out of pride? then go fuck yourself, you're the reason we're walked all over constantly.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women are children lol

[–]QuasiQwazi -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage without a prenup is suicide. Females will never change.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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