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

How divorce backfired on women - thanks to feminists

furchfur

March 4, 2017
838 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4280582/How-divorce-backfired-women-thanks-feminists.html
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 How divorce backfired on women - thanks to feminists
Author

furchfur

Upvotes 838
Comments 93
Date March 4, 2017 10:38 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5xgd8y/how_divorce_backfired_on_women_thanks_to_feminists/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-divorce-backfired-on-women-thanks-to-feminists.930427
https://theredarchive.com/post/930427
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by furchfur

UK: Innocent student wrongly accused of rape calls for anonymity for sex assault defendants until they are found guilty.

17408 upvotes
December 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

Thousands of dads are left in shock as DIY paternity tests soar. Up to 30,000 tests are being performed every year, says Alphabiolabs. In the UK about 750,000 babies are born every year. Feminists want the test to be illegal without the written consent of the mother.

4746 upvotes
January 13, 2019
/r/MensRights

Male rape survivors tell of their battle to have their voices heard after being told ‘men are the attackers, women are the victims’

4394 upvotes
April 14, 2017
/r/MensRights

16yo female 'prodigy' developer's app was actually written by a male programmer.

4210 upvotes
February 6, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Mother-of-two, 40, falsely branded a neighbour a sex offender because he 'made too much noise building a guinea pig hutch in his garden'. It seems for many women if they do not get their way they make a false sex allegation knowing a man is not protected by the law.

3937 upvotes
March 4, 2019
/r/MensRights

Female British YouTube vlogger accuses Dublin hotel of bullying her after it refused her request to stay there for free and posted their scathing response saying she 'lacked dignity' online

3871 upvotes
January 18, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Nearly 500 men and boys are freed from 'house of torture' Islamic boarding school where they were chained up, raped by staff and starved 'in the name of teaching them the Koran' in Nigeria. OP: We will see how much media coverage this gets.

3825 upvotes
September 27, 2019
/r/MensRights

Teenager, 18, who lied that ex-boyfriend drugged and raped her after he refused to rekindle their romance is convicted of wasting police time

3747 upvotes
May 29, 2018
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]DevilishRogue 182 points183 points184 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice to see the issue getting recognition, even if it is only as a result of women finally facing what men have for decades.

[–]eletheros 111 points112 points113 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

One thing I'd note is that a 40ish IT worker who hasn't worked for 5 years is probably not "clearly capable of a highly paid job".

They're going to need to train back to a useful level of knowledge at a minimum, and then they have to deal with the rapant age discrimination in the field.

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

I meam, is IT a high paying field anyway? Like, comparable at all to lawyers or doctors?

[–]myevillaugh 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Depending on your skill set, yes. Keep in mind that there are far more lawyers than needed, so it's feast or famine. Doctors fair better, but new graduates have a lot of student debt.

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

The article says he was making £90k before he left his job.

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

I make more than several lawyers I've met so yes

[–]Proteus_Marius 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That, and Julie's husband needs to work on life strategies used to keep one's knickers up.

[–]Andrew_Squared 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Depends on what they did. IT has project managers, business consultants, solutions architects, enterprise architects, and more that don't need the latest and greatest technical knowledge to do their job.

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

Or any at all..

disgruntled coder

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

Learning patterns is more important than syntax.

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

Nonetheless, that was his choice and he should have considered the consequences. It's not like he was sacrificing his career for their children or for her career. He sacrificed nothing, made a dumb choice, got caught cheating and he should get nothing but what he put in, just as women in comparable situations should get nothing but the dissolution of their legal partnership.

[–]eletheros 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The consequence according to the law is to receive alimony

Welcome to equality

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

I am aware. I am suggesting that it shouldn't be that way for the benefit of everyone.

[–]mikesteane 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She probably didn't give him enough attention.

[–]feedmecarrots 79 points80 points81 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

London does have a reputation for being generous. Now, the saw cuts both ways.

[–]xNOM 50 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Well kinda. As long as women rely on male taxpayers and husbands to reduce the stress in their lives, nothing much will change. This woman was just stupid enough to man up.

[–]feedmecarrots 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

She got caught being divorced while being the breadwinner. It is all about transferring wealth from the one that produces income to the one that doesn't.

[–]xNOM 89 points90 points91 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It is all about transferring wealth from the one that produces income to the one that doesn't.

The instant that a significant number of women go through this, it will all be magically fixed.

[–]feedmecarrots 58 points59 points60 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I would bet money that they are trying to figure out a way to exempt women from this.

[+]drewtam points 9 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

They already have. Women keep the children, and therefore keep the money. Its all neat and tidy. She is just the unusual case of not having children.

[–]feedmecarrots 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The whole system is designed to benefit stay at home moms at the expense of their breadwinning husbands. I don't think the system deals all that well with exceptions to that.

[–]azazelcrowley 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Notice it also relieves them of their obligations. A rational alimony set up based on their own stated principles that she helped him get the career by doing all that stuff would be a system that made it mandatory to hire an ex-spouse as a babysitter/maid/cook if they demand it in order to keep receiving half. That way, their business arrangement continues, and that's the crux of their argument, that it was a business arrangement.

Instead, the mindset was entirely based around what women "should" get and literally no thought was given to anything beyond that, because that's just how our culture is, and the man is then suddenly expected to do both things for half pay, suddenly removed from the "totes vital and necessary to his success" help of the woman.

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

That is a good summation. I can't add anything.

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

Husbands in most cases agree with having the wife and mother at home, without much thought regarding how fucked they will be in case of divorce. I've noticed that, surprisingly, most guys just don't think marriage through. They just think "oh no problem she can stay at home if she wants, I can take care of everything". They don't realise that, once she is at home, she can choose not to come back to work and there's nothing you can do.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 85 points86 points87 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

File this under "it's only an injustice when women are negatively affected"

[–]McFeely_Smackup 44 points45 points46 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

How divorce backfired on women

How Divorce Backfired on Very Very Few Women

[–]azazelcrowley 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And suddenly it's an issue, like alimony or child support. Gets a bit tiring sometimes.

A few rich womens problems are more important than every single mans.

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

A few years ago I remember reading a US Senator explaining to someone complaining about the alimony laws and he said "Sir, if you want the alimony laws changed to ensure that getting a divorce doesn't leave you broke, you have to start to make women pay it, after that it will change soon enough". Notice how a fair number of states are starting to 'look' at their alimony laws, WHY????, because men are tired of paying NOPE, imho, it is because people can see the writing on the wall, that in about 10 or 20 years, it will be near equal with women having to pay it.

[–]IronJohnMRA 198 points199 points200 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Women everywhere are rightly appalled...

I stopped reading right there. They have no right to be. Instead, they should be gratified. Gratified that the system applies equally to all, and operates without any discrimination based on gender. That is if they were true to their very own principles, rather than being nearsighted moral hypocrites.

[–]NikoMyshkin 97 points98 points99 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No mate keep reading. It's worth understanding exactly how entitled women have become. How are we ever going to raise their awareness of their disproportionate power if we can't show them cases of abuse?

[–]Nater5000 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You shouldn't have stopped reading right there, cause the next line in the article explains what you just said.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Women face equality, find it oppressive".

[–]Dazz316 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not that's not the point. The point is that we've been appealed at this for years and how unfair it is and now woman are too and both men and woman are right to be appaled at disproportionate payouts.

They have the right to think it's appalling because this behaviour is appalling.

Read the whole article, you have no right to judge an article if you didn't read it.

[–]raven982 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Keep reading, they were simply setting the table to call out the hypocrisy.

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

I stopped reading right there. They have no right to be.

And I can assure you they aren't. Once you get past the large number who haven't heard of it the number who care about what happens to rich city traders is limited.

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

rightly appalled

rightly

[–]Meyright 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The moment these type of cases come up more often, the more you will see feminists opposing the current divorce laws.

This is not thanks to feminists, this is despite feminists.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And then they're pretend alimony and related reforms were feminist policies all along.

[–]The-Prim-Reaper 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How many examples of feminists bitching at examples of equality between men and women do we need before we can all officially agree to drop the stupid pretense that "FEMINISM IS JUST ABOUT EQUALITY YOU GUYS!!1"?

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

Getting a lot of money from your ex just because you divorced is something that i have always considered wrong and stupid, if you are a perfectly capable person. It doesn't matter if you are man or woman, it is a low and abusive act. I'm not going to fall in judging this on a sexist basis, it's just plaingly wrong.

[–]kjvlv 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

I have told my son to avoid marriage at all cost. It is a horrible deal for the man.

[+]ambulancePilot -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

What other option do you have if you want to spend your life with another human being, like is normal and natural? Common law turns into marriage anyway after a certain amount of time, in most cases common-law means marriage.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why the fuck is common law marriage even a thing??

[–]the_ancient1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is not... Only 8 States in the US have the legal concept of Common law Marriage, and in those states one must to more than cohabitat to from a common law marriage.

Common Law Marriage was the primary form of marriage prior to government creating the Concept of "Licenced Marriage". Rarely known fact in the US, the government started to require formal processes and marriage licences to prevent interracial marriage as there was no method to prevent it in Common law Marriage Statutes

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

I suppose it's to protect and both parties from each other. In theory anyway. This stuff doesn't necessarily bother me because my philosophy with getting married is that you should only do it if you're prepared to lose it all to that person. Same logic applies to lending money to friends.

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

What other option do you have if you want to spend your life with another human being, like is normal and natural?

Umm, you could simply do exactly that. Just be together. Commitment to another person doesn't rely on signing some papers (obviously), and it's not dependant on giving one of them a ring.

[–]Null_zero 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Common law only exists in a few states and even the ones that have it require both parties to agree on being married. You can't be stealth married this way.

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

Even when that's not the case, and common-law is assumed (as it is in much of Canada and the U.K) when the relationship is dissolved one must actively pursue a settlement in civil court, but it's not required like with legal marriage. This changes things quite a bit in that you never have to actually get a lawyer or break a contract or anything so there is nothing to get the ball rolling and most people just take what's theirs and walk away. Beyond that, the courts generally don't view common law marriages in the same way as a formal marriage if and when someone does pursue a settlement.

[–]ambulancePilot -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Okay, let's say you're common-law, and then you decide to end it and separate. What if the other party isn't happy with the arrangement? Let's say they take it to court. How does the court view it? My bet is they consider it as if you were married.

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

It depends on the jurisdiction but if you were taken to court in theory it would be the same as a formal marriage. But from what I can tell reading discussions on cases in Canada, the court generally doesn't view the two as equal in practice and is less willing to enforce the same rules. It's also a lot less common to end up in court in the first place as you don't have a legally binding contract or legal guidelines for separation that require lawyers to get involved. This makes a big difference in practice since it's often the lawyers that drag these things out and discourage being decent human beings.

[–]Null_zero 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If you agree to be married then you're married, but that's the same as getting married. So yeah you fucked up by getting married

[–]speedisavirus 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You absolutely do not have to "agree" in all states.

[–]deathdragon5858 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here, all you have to do is live together a year...... Yeah I will never let a woman move into my house until that is struck from the books with prejudice lol.

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

I've looked through the requirements for the 9 states why don't you tell me where I'm wrong.

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

Common law marriage requires the couple to present themselves as "married", not simple living together or being a couple. Basically, if you live in one of the 10(ish) states that recognize common law marriage and your girlfriend starts using your last name, you've got trouble.

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

You're being very general. Common law marriage varies quite dramatically from state to state and country to country.

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

yes, that's true. I have no idea how common law marriage works outside of the USA, but in all US states that currently validate common law marriages the intent to be a married couple is a requirement.

Simply being a couple and living together is not what makes a common law marriage.

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

Name use? I find this not to be true in my observations

[–]ambulancePilot -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What if your girlfriend wants your shit after you separate? And you've been common law for the last 20 years? You're telling me a courts not going to hear her side out?

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

One of the most famous cases of exactly that was when actor William Hurt was sued by his long time girlfriend who he even had a child with, and the judge ruled that they were not "common law" married because they had never presented themselves as a married couple.

Common law does not mean "dating for a long time". It means presenting yourself as married without the formality of a marriage.

[–]ambulancePilot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Rules are different for famous people. How do two people on equal footing fair in the same situation?

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

are you saying rich and famous men are usually treated with preference in family courts?

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

Not necessarily, but if the other party was seen as gold digging and it was painfully obvious, or there was a massive disparity in income, it's easy to see how it would be different for two people who are not famous on equal financial footing.

Anyway, I asked these questions because in Canada it's quite different. In the most populous province, Ontario, a common law partner can seek spousal support from the other party if the they were financially supporting the other party for a large portion of the relationship, or if there's a child involved, or any other factors. Which effectively means whether you are married or common-law, it doesn't make a difference in terms of what you can be responsible for in the case of a breakup. If they're contribution to your mortgage for a long enough period of time and you're common law, there goes half your house.

This makes sense to me, every situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis, and whether you are married or common-law shouldn't make any difference. The fact is you have been cohabitating with another person. The experience of life is the same whether you are common law or married.

I assume this level of common-sense would be seen across the US, but it seems as though from what you're saying, being common-law removes all responsibility from you towards the other party. I don't agree with that.

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

Then she has to actively pursue a settlement in civil court in most jurisdictions. She wouldn't file for divorce, she would have to bring a claim against you just like you would your neighbour.

[–]the_ancient1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What other option do you have if you want to spend your life with another human being, like is normal and natural?

You spend your life with them if you choose, I do take issue with you stating it is "normal" or "natural" it is more religious than it is natural, and no religion is not natural

Common law turns into marriage anyway after a certain amount of time, in most cases common-law means marriage.

Only 8 states in the US have anything like a common law marriage, so it is not "common" as you seem to think it is. And in most of those cases it has to more than simple cohabitation for couple to be have a "common law" marriage. Every common law statutue I am aware of in the US requires all parties to the marriage hold themselves to be married, have declared they intent to marry, and other conditions

So 2 people that cohabitate for years but declare they are not married, could not be a said to have a "common law" marriage

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

I don't need a contract with the government to spend my life with someone. And very few states have common law marriage

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Equal rights equal rights!!!

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

it never has. It means "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine"

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

Aww come on guys. Dont make me agree with the daily mail.

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

True equality

[–]thrway_1000 10 points11 points12 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/

[–]factspissyouoff 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her squealing warms my cold, black, dead heart. >:D

Maybe now that women are starting to AHEM! bleed over these laws they'll finally get changed, because nothing changes so long as it doesn't affect the cough! holy vagina.

[–]kjvlv 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

increasingly to women like Mrs Sharp, too.

Being a man sucks. Nonstop kicks to the groin interrupted by an occasional good meal.

Welcome to equality. surprise!

[–]HanJunHo -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Being a man sucks.

It does? I kind of like it. I'm way stronger than almost every woman even if I didn't work out; I do not bleed out of my dick for a week each month; I can't get pregnant; I don't get hit on by ugly or clueless girls; if I ever had a kid, I could get away with doing hardly any of the stuff like changing diapers; never had to be in the kitchen on Thanksgiving while all the women cooked and cleaned up; never once in my life have I felt vulnerable on a date and thought the chick might hurt me or rape me; as long as I stay in shape, I'll still be good looking in my 50s and not "hit the wall" at 30...

It's overall quite nice being a guy. People leave me alone, and I'm given a default of respect in most interactions. What's the problem? Men get shafted in divorces? True, but the situation before those laws was women would be left stranded with very limited options financially. Both of my grandmothers had that happen, and as a result they were dirt poor because in the 50s, women couldn't easily land good work. The laws need updating. Doesn't mean we need to throw a pity party for men.

[–]typhonblue 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Personally I kind of like being a woman. If I'm abusive I can still get my husband arrested and freeze our joint accounts so he's out on the street if he doesn't have family. Then I can abuse him some more by taking away his kids and making him pay for the privilege of being an absentee father.

Or maybe I'll just charge some guy I don't like with rape, feminists have incentivized every accusation going to court while reducing the burden of proof I need for a conviction. That means I can make his life a living hell even if he isn't convicted.

Come to think of it, if I punched you in the face not only would you have no recourse, every guy near by would probably assume you're the aggressor and help me.

How about I rape you? Legally this is an option for me and even if I do something like shoving a tire iron up your ass, it's unlikely the police will do anything but giggle if you try to press charges. Also weapons and drugs easily negate your size advantage.

And if you don't get erect, I can always do what another female rapist did, shove something reasonably ridged up your Urethra. It'll tear your penis apart from the inside out, but hey, you're a man. No problem.

I'll stop there. This list makes me sick to my stomach. Your list of how it's better to be a man is trivial shit.

"True, but the situation before those laws was women would be left stranded with very limited options financially" Alimony laws have existed since before Christ, is there some reason why your grandmas couldn't avail themselves of them?

[–]HanJunHo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Ohhh shit, just realized you aren't actually a woman but are another pathetic loser pretending to be a woman to make stupid arguments about why your life sucks. Haaa dude, that is so sad. Lol

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

What? LOL!

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

Much kek. I would have thought "being a woman makes your argument unassailable so I'll pretend your a man" is another good argument that being a woman is pretty good, but I wouldn't want to be seen as a whiner by Han3unHo. I might never recover from the judgement of someone I don't have to listen to because penis.

[–]HanJunHo -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Where is the part where it sucks to be a guy?

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

I like that I got downvoted for saying why I like being a man in an MRA forum. Haha you guys are so fucked.

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

The real backfire is not being able to find a husband at all.

[–]itsjosh18 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow something from the daily mail that doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out

[–]tio1w 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The usual.

If a problem doesn't affect a woman, does it even exist at all?

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

The only true backfire is less & less men opting for marriage seeing all the pitfalls, this is simply a case of equality being applied correctly.

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

Is no one else bugged that they use per cent instead of percent in the article?

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

Nh7T2X$Xw5wrrqxpveGDgXBSEMogC>]<TG9E;4(CQe0sU(x3NFye(TU<@![a@-1Wq!7ovw5aC:T+;~uxR6moGsatq

Vv9-@DfH$V&pg$1oTymrrDkegUgN]>4.ifWH8AD

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

I don't agree with the sentiment of this article.

The typical case with sexes reversed is that he is the breadwinner and the cheater. I think fault should be considered here; in this case, the stay-at-home spouse was the cheater, and shouldn't unduly benefit from it. Whether the settlement proposed is fair or not, I don't know, but the situation is not the same as is typical for stay-at-home wives.

Also, I don't have as much problem with giving a portion of accumulated wealth, including future earnings of the higher-paying spouse, to the other spouse. It IS what women have been fighting for, and I think with reason. Both made a commitment to marry til death, now it's going to be broken up, unless their current earning potential is the same, then it is right that some of the used-to-be-family income be distributed.

It used to be that the higher-earning (almost exclusively male) spouse could just walk away and leave the other (almost certainly female) partner in much reduced financial circumstances, with any children to boot. Decades and decades of this went on, and yes it needed to be fought and yes it got better.

I don't have any problem with this man getting alimony from his former spouse, I would favor it being reduced since he can't seem to honor his commitments. But drawing on it as an example of how women got treated unfairly is just wrong. We'd have to compare it to stay-at-home women who cheated, and although I'm sure that happened sometimes, it wasn't typical, at least in the US.

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

I would kill the cheating son of a bitch.

[–]McFeely_Smackup 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you're advocating simply murdering a cheating spouse?

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How do we know he was cheating? Women ... ahem ... have a bit of an issue when it comes to rationality. She might have sent him out for a gallon of milk and accused him of cheating while he was gone when he got back 5 minutes later with the milk. The article just seems to take her at her word. Moreover, how do we know she wasn't cheating? Women also have a habit of seeking the highest quality man possible, if a high-status man on her financial level with decent looks made the moves on her, would she stay loyal to her stay-at-home husbamd?

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

Very good point. Need more information _^

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Troll harder. I'm not even going to downvote you, because that's what you want. :)

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

I mean. She has the money. Would have been easier to hire a hit.

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