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

Sexism from the Illinois Dept. of Public Health

Protttt

January 29, 2016
144 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://imgur.com/gallery/gtuUW
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 Sexism from the Illinois Dept. of Public Health
Author

Protttt

Upvotes 144
Comments 32
Date January 29, 2016 8:33 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/43apmw/sexism_from_the_illinois_dept_of_public_health/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/sexism-from-the-illinois-dept-of-public-health.957408
https://theredarchive.com/post/957408
Top posts by Protttt

Woman hits man and man hits back "You can't hit a woman"

119 upvotes
January 25, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]victorymonk 46 points47 points48 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So how does it work: A man falls behind on child support, let's make sure he never gets a job?!

Some logic.

[–]SonOfHelios 16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's not forget they can:

  • Pull your drivers licence.

  • Put your face on a deadbeat (Dad) parent website.

  • Put you in jail.

All of which are immensely helpful in helping the non-custodial parent get a job and back on track getting caught up on back support payments.

Cruel and unusual punishment? Debtors prison? Not in the good ol' US of A!

[–]DillipFayKick 29 points30 points31 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is genuine institutional sexism. See this feminists? This is what that looks like.

[–]user1492 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a copy of the application form? The law cited says:

Each agency shall require the licensee to certify on the application form, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is not more than 30 days delinquent in complying with a child support order.

[–]ProgrammerPro 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Agreed. I'm all for fighting this sort of sexism, but it's more likely that the boyfriend forgot to check a box on the application. Here is a copy of the application.

http://www.dph.illinois.gov/sites/default/files/forms/fssmcprogramrequestform.pdf

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hm interesting

[–]orangorilla 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do we know what causes this? I'm far from an Illinois lawyer, are there laws to check men, or does the department just put it in their guidelines themselves?

[–]AlwaysABride 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Ima need a lil help on this one

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Woman (who may or may not have children) gets certification. Man (who does not have children) takes same test but has to show he has no child support payments outstanding before he gets same certification.

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

Didn't realize there was a 2nd image. I spent 2 minutes reading the certificate trying to find the sexism.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ya i missed it the first look too

[–]RobDog101 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Wait what's the rationale here? As far as I can tell this just makes it potentially harder for men to pay child support if they are behind on paying child support.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, there's no good rationale. It seems to be just fucking men over by trying to deny them jobs if they owe child support.

[–]FruitierGnome 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's how it is with most of these things, you can't get any state licenses even hunting if your too far behind on child support. It's a vicious cycle for some. The rationale is to convince actual "deadbeats" to stop dodging payments but I bet a lot of the time it does more to hinder men who are genuinely trying.

So even if your dirt poor and all you can afford is a $1 bullet to feed yourself with for a month since you have to pay your wife and kids and somehow take care of yourself too. They still find a way to prevent you from getting ahead.

I don't think it's purposely designed to be cruel but it winds up being completely unfair for many men.

[–]RobDog101 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's fucking stupid. I find it hard to believe that nobody considered the horrible ramifications for men and children.

[–]Il128 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If you fall behind on your child support for a single month in most states you lose your drivers licence. Try getting to work without a car. Oh and they report this to the insurance companies so you can't insure anything and when you do get your licence back your insurance is astronomically higher due to the suspended licence.

Basically unless you are breaking the law, you can't avoid going to jail for failure to pay child support. Once you go to jail, there's almost no way to get out and get a job...

[–]RobDog101 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Christ. Just when I thought I'd heard the worst of how the government fucks over poor fathers. I'm definitely still learning. (Thank you God for letting me be homosexual.)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FYI: Scroll down there's two pictures.

Legit post OP I wasn't aware there was extra requirements on men to prove eligibility regardless of past history.

[–]RockFourFour 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Considering both men and women can be subject to having to pay child support, this is extremely sexist. It implies that only men would be delinquent.

OP's boyfriend could probably get this changed ASAP, and make some lawyer rich.

[+]coke501 -32 points-31 points-30 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Apart from the fact that the vast majority of people that pay child support are men I fail to see the sexism here.

[–]SchalaZeal01 18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The letter says they check everyone and they only check men, all men including never-married never-fathered ones.

[+]coke501 -14 points-13 points-12 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

well, that is sexist of course. You should clarify that in a top lvl comment

[–]thejam15 11 points12 points13 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It clarifies that in the picture.

[–]enjoycarrots 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

coke501 may be viewing the pictures in a way that does not show the accompanying text.

[–]thejam15 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

no i mean it straight up says it in the letter.

[–]coke501 -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn't see that before. thx.

[–]levelate 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

or...and this may be out there, you could think about it...

thinking is like doing stuff, with your mind.

[–]piar 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Quick aside since I learned something recently and feel like sharing: By population, child-support paying women are more likely to be behind on payments than child-support paying men are. Of course, courts are less likely to order women to pay child support than to order men (which correlates to primary custody).

[–]coke501 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are more likely to be behind but less likely to go to jail for being behind, so it's kinda fair /s

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah except for that pesky constitution with its 14th amendment, not to mention the anti-discrimination laws that are really just frosting for that.

Just because the majority of group X is composed mostly of [insert race, gender, religion, etc] doesn't mean that laws about X can be applied differently to different people based on their race, gender, or religion. That's a clear violation of both the due process and equal protections clauses.

It's just that when men get the short end of the stick when it comes to legal protections being unequal, nobody really gives a shit.

This would be like a policy of making women provide proof they've never killed any of their own children before they can adopt, but not men.

Or like requiring black people to provide proof they've never committed a violent crime before buying a gun, but not white people.

Or like requiring Muslims to provide proof they've never been a terrorist to fly on a plane but not Christians.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

DAE think we should racially profile all black people because they are violent more?

[–]RockFourFour 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Hi, we noticed that you checked 'African-American' as your race on your application form.

Please complete the following form certifying that you haven't robbed/killed/dealt drugs. Please also certify that you don't leer at white women with your shifty negro eyes.

Failure to complete this form may result in delay of processing your certificate and/or lynching.

Thank you."

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