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

Feminists are trying to get parental alienation delisted from the WHO ICD-11. Here's how you can say "Hell, no!"

ThePigmanAgain

October 26, 2019
167 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://empathygap.uk/?p=3092
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 Feminists are trying to get parental alienation delisted from the WHO ICD-11. Here's how you can say "Hell, no!"
Author

ThePigmanAgain

Upvotes 167
Comments 69
Date October 26, 2019 10:43 PM UTC
(6 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dnl1b7/feminists_are_trying_to_get_parental_alienation/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminists-are-trying-to-get-parental-alienation.866149
https://theredarchive.com/post/866149
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by ThePigmanAgain

Clever cartoon on what can happen when a man DOES talk about his feelings.

4092 upvotes
October 19, 2019
/r/MensRights

Man is found NOT guilty of rape, but the cops keep telling his prospective employers that he "might" have done it anyway. Another reason why false allegations are so evil.

4018 upvotes
August 6, 2018
/r/MensRights

"First Alaska woman charged with possessing child pornography gets no jail time." Well, of course she doesn't...

3985 upvotes
July 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

"Homeless father of five can't find shelter that takes men with children." Ah, that sweet, sweet male privilege!

3680 upvotes
September 5, 2019
/r/MensRights

Feminist Uses NZ Terrorist Attack Which Killed Mostly Males To...er...Vilify Males

3545 upvotes
March 16, 2019
/r/MensRights

Psycho woman claims she killed her BF in self-defence, footage emerges showing she is the aggressor. Pussy pass about to be revoked, methinks.

3333 upvotes
August 11, 2022
/r/PussyPassDenied

Sad but true. Society doesn't REALLY want men to be "vulnerable."

3074 upvotes
April 19, 2020
/r/MensRights

Male feminist reacts to vile scumbag who murdered his kids by telling ALL men to, you know, stop killing women and kids...

2658 upvotes
February 22, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[+]menstruatrix3 points 6 years ago [recovered] (46 children) | Copy Link

Why are feminists not concerned about child abuse?

[–]motosandguns 41 points42 points43 points 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Probably because they don’t see anything wrong with alienating the fathers.

[+]menstruatrix2 points 6 years ago [recovered] (16 children) | Copy Link

Well, most people don't give a shit about abused men, so it would be kind of dumb to try to frame an issue of women abusing children in those terms.

[–]FormedBoredom 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, these types of feminists aren't exactly smart.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no "smart" type of feminist.

[–]turbulance4 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So the framing should be what the child loses by not having the father around.

[+]menstruatrix1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Or by how this damages the child's relationship with both parents.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The woman doesn't suffer, she benefits by sacrificing the Father.

This has no harm to the women which is why Feminists push it.

This is purely Selfish Behavior.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

So if people don't care the solution is to accept defeat and watch innocent people suffer? I guess men really aren't human after all...

[+]menstruatrix1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

I mean, you can do that if you want.
Or you could follow my suggestion and reframe to problem in a way where people are more likely to support the solution and end the abuse and suffering.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

When you deny that men are the victims you create a situation in which people help the "Victims" you're pushing and leave Men out.

Why not just pump money into single motherhood? Tada! No men helped, more men enslaved via taxes, no fathers saved.

[+]menstruatrix1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

When you deny that men are the victims you create a situation in which people help the "Victims" you're pushing and leave Men out.

Except protecting children from parental alienation necessarily protects the parents as well.

Why not just pump money into single motherhood? 

Single mothers are bad for children. Quite a bit of data on the negative outcomes and effects of fatherlessness.

Tada! No men helped, more men enslaved via taxes, no fathers saved.

Which is a more likely outcome when you insist on framing the problem in a way most people don't care about.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Except protecting children from parental alienation necessarily protects the parents as well.

No protecting children from parent alienation requires first protecting the father from parental alienation. Parental alienation is a targeted attack against men. If you do not acknowledge and fight that issue, they will ignore it, produce false data, and then pump cash into a wasted effort.

Single mothers are bad for children. Quite a bit of data on the negative outcomes and effects of fatherlessness.

Yet they're universally celebrated and billions of dollars go into ensuring they get more money.

Which is a more likely outcome when you insist on framing the problem in a way most people don't care about.

No, it's not. It's the ONLY outcome of your suggestion. Your suggestion says "Who cares about men? Men are worthless! Only Women and Children matter, so any proposed solution that only helps Children (i.e. by pumping money to children of alienated parents) is totally fine!" and sweeps men off to the side - just like Feminists have always done in order to ensure male suffering.

You're saying "Ignore the root of the issue, ignore the discrimination, we can accept any fake solution that 'claims' to help without addressing the fact that the father is a person too."

[+]menstruatrix1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Your suggestion says "Who cares about men? Men are worthless!"

No, it doesn't. It acknowledges the empathy gap and suggests framing gender issues that primarily affect men in ways that will bypass people's inability to recognize that an issue exists when it primarily affects men.

Who cares about men?
Their children.
Won't someone think of the children!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So men without children aren't people worthy of love and respect?

You're saying that men are worthless unless value is "applied" by an outside force, that's exactly what the MRM should be combating not enforcing.

[–]Demonspawn 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

50% of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children.

--Surviving the Breakup by Joan Berlin Kelly

40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the father's visitation to punish their ex-husband.

--"Frequency of Visitation...." by Stanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

[+]menstruatrix2 points 6 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Try this:
50% of mothers see no value in protecting the child's relationship with both parents.

40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the child's visitation to punish their ex-husband.

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

?

The line after each is the source of the claim.

[–]ElBatDood 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He means you should change the wording of the claims to better emphasize that the child is the one being affected because it needs both parents.

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ahh, my brain focused on the missing lines. Thanks.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So your argument is that Men don't matter, and so we should devalue Men like Feminists do?

[–]ElBatDood 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Stop pulling shit out of your ass that's not his argument. Where the hell did you pull that from?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Keeps removing men from every argument that's made, undermining the reality that Men are the core victims, that Men are the targets of this abuse. Children are the collateral damage, not the target.

[–]ElBatDood 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're an idiot if that's what you took away from his comment. No, he did not remove the word 'men' to take attention away from the fact that the man is targeted. It is obvious that the man is targeted, there's no need to reinforce that. Quit jumping to conclusions, that's what radical feminists do.

He replaced it with 'children' to emphasize that while the woman might be targeting the man the child is the one who is most affected, and that the relationship with BOTH parents gets damaged. Because that is the point of the parental alienation discussion. It negatively affects the children all because some women want to be petty and sexist. That's the whole point.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He replaced it with 'children' to emphasize that while the woman might be targeting the man the child is the one who is most affected

This is misandrist and untrue.

[–]DJ-Roukan 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's not about the children. It is about an Aryan type of female supremacy.

Once we understand that, all this confusion as to what they are doing ends.

[–]ThePigmanAgain[S] 24 points25 points26 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Because most of it is committed by women.

[+]menstruatrix2 points 6 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

And all of it is committed against children.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

No. Men are the core victims.

They aren't doing it to "Hurt the Children" they're doing it to hurt the men because they don't view Men as human beings.

The fact that it's harming children is irrelevant to them.

Stop trying to erase male suffering.

[–]turbulance4 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd said men are the intended victims, but not the core victims. Warren Farrell covered exactly what children are losing without their fathers in The Boy Crisis

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No men are the core victims, children are collateral damage.

These women are seeking to harm men not children, and it's because they're seeking to harm men that they're allowed to do so.

Attempts to mitigate the collateral damage to Children will not stop the true issue, by making it seem as though the collateral damage is more significant (it isn't, men kill themselves over Parental Alienation) you risk making it such that people push financial programs that "Support Single Motherhood" and ignore this issue.

[–]turbulance4 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't recognize the term victim as requiring an intent to harm

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Neither do I, the fact of the matter is that you're undermining male victims, and in doing so you'll ensure they never get help, respect, equal treatment or love.

Men are the primary victims here - they suffer the most. Children will always be hurt as long as we allow Female Supremacy to remain as it is.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 18 points19 points20 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because that abuse is mostly committed by women.

[+]menstruatrix2 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

And all of it is committed against children.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Again, stop trying to erase male victims.

[–]Men-Are-Human 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's inconvenient to their ideology. Basically, it displays their lies if men are shown to suffer - which also highlights their guilt in attacking stuff like this.

[–]irrelevantmoniker 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because for feminists anyone and anything is acceptable collateral damage so long as a woman benefits or a man is harmed.

[–]AskingToFeminists 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the choice is between not harming a man but helping a woman, or harming a man but not helping a woman, they choose the second option, too. Which shows where their priorities stand.

[–]RingosTurdFace 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I second every other reply you’ve had to your question, it’s mainly because this is committed by women against men that they don’t care about it.

They’re also worried that this could be used by alienated parents (mainly men of course) to convince courts that the best interest of the child is to have both parents in it’s life and this could weaken a woman’s huge advantage in the family courts.

They basically want to keep the odds stacked in the favour of women.

[–]rabel111 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because their hatred of men and fathers is all consuming, and they are obsessed with women getting everything and anything they want, including proprietry rights to children.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it’s cycle abuse and endless ‘splitting’ by deranged BPD ‘mothers’..

[–]babno 26 points27 points28 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Imposition of equal time, joint custody presumptions or equal shared parental responsibility

Feminists are saying including parental alienation would lead to the above quoted section, and that's a reason to not do it. They're literally point blank saying they're against equality and shared parental responsibility.

[–]Yoshiezibz 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't understand this. Feminists can quite often be heard saying that men have caused women to take lower wages due to pregnancy, and that they don't like taking the lion share of parental responsibility.

[–]babno 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

NOW says that while spending millions to oppose shared parenting laws. It’s a standard pairing for them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

With one hand you promise peace, with other you stab them in the gut.

It's the Feminist manifesto.

[–]RacelessSexlessName 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done. This post needs way more love and attention.

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

Done

[–]ThePigmanAgain[S] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Thanks to the mods for making this a sticky. It would probably have disappeared by now if you hadn't done so.

[–]Sasha_ 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You might also want to contact Lady Catherine Mayer, wife of the former British ambassador to Washington.

She wrote movingly about being alienated from her sons by her previous husband - a German who used his countries courts to ensure she didn’t see her sons for years. She is an expert on international child custody/parental alienation. As you can imagine she also had many very powerful contacts in the international community.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Lady Catherine Mayer

This person is a Feminist who doesn't want equality. She founded a sexist party in the UK, and routinely pushes anti-male ideology.

Mayer's non-fiction, Attack of the 50ft. Women, was published in 2017.[22] The book covers the benefits of gender equality and how it is being promoted in various countries,[22][23] and has been described as "a compelling feminist call to arms".[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Mayer

Feminism is a hate movement, you're effectively summoning the Gender equivalent of the KKK.

I suggest anyone with an ounce of respect for this bigot check out her Twitter "catherine_mayer"

This woman losing access to her Sons was protection from child abuse.

[–]Sasha_ 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, my misspelling mistake. I meant this woman - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Meyer,_Baroness_Meyer

[–]HelperBot_ 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Desktop link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Meyer,_Baroness_Meyer


/r/HelperBot_ Downvote to remove. Counter: 287469. Found a bug?

[–]WikiTextBot 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Catherine Meyer, Baroness Meyer

Catherine Irene Jacqueline Meyer, Baroness Meyer, CBE (born 26 January 1953) is a British life peer and the wife of Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to the United States. She was the founder and chief executive of the charity PACT, now, Action Against Abduction.


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that's a pretty drastic difference in human beings right there.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I've upvoted every positive comment, downvoted every negative anti-male comment.

Also voted disgree on every "DELETE THIS PROPOSAL because [insert lie here]" entry.

[–]iainmf[M] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Mod Note:

To the person who reported this for breaking Reddit's rules, the poster above is talking about a completely different website and Reddit's rules do not apply.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

What rule did they think I violated?

I mean reddit literally works by "downvoting negative comments" (In my case I use anti-male as my criterion here), and "upvoting positive comments".

Voting disagree (downvoting effectively) on comments based on lies also seems reasonable.

If anything was against the rules it'd be sending someone to another subreddit to do that, but this is a website which is seeking input on all proposals from everyone.

[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I assume they thought you were talking about vote manipulation on Reddit, which is against Reddit's rules.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What exactly is "Vote manipulation"?

Isn't more votes inherently better? We're not using bots or something, just voting based on our views.

[–]MRA-Sid 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists are witches

[–]NAWALT_VADER 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the sort of Activism we need. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.

[–]RingosTurdFace 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done also. As others have said - thanks for posting.

[–]Wisemanner 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Done.

[–]turbulance4 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Hey OP, it says Rejected next to Linda Neilson's proposal. Does that mean it worked?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Added my contribution.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of the "DELETE" proposals were marked Rejected with the exception of the Spanish entries.

In addition "Team3 WHO" added the following comment at the bottom of the proposal:

Thank you for your proposal. We appreciate your interest in the ICD-11 and wish to inform you that the ICD maintenance process has determined the final outcome in relation to this entity and no further changes will be made at this time. "

The comment is somewhat vague as it hasn't elaborated on the "Final Outcome" but I hope that it's a good sign.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is so not my place, as a woman and mother, but I just hope to inform anyone curious about why most women who don’t seem evil and heartless choose to do this.

Just want to say I believe in visitation always and custody arrangements once the child no longer needs nourishment, nurturing, and mother bonding to develop.

So It All comes down to biology, and I know “muh pregnancy” blah blah blah so what, BUT just hear me out if you really want to understand the psychology behind the behavior.

Women aren’t just trying to hold pregnancy over your head, it’s way more than just growing a baby. Her body is creating a child and Mother Nature changes her brain and body to turn her into the best child producer possible forever.

So basically, once you become with a child, your body starts to release hormones. These hormones are very complex, and I won’t pretend to be a scientist so here’s a link to a video explaining it better- https://youtu.be/71LT-MnfMEY

Anyways, these hormones literally rewire your brain for life, and it gets rid of memory and any sense of self. It’s why pregnant women are emotional and protective. It’s why our species has made it this far, along with men protecting and providing.

I’m not saying fathers don’t matter, but to give your child to someone else, father or not for a week goes against every instinct a woman has been given.

This seems like petty, vindictive evilness, and in some cases, it might be, but a few of you reading this know pregnancy turned your ex, wife, or girlfriend into someone completely different.

You aren’t wrong. Biology turned her into a protective mother riddle with maternal instinct. She has a neurologically different brain altogether.

Evolution even gave her a stronger sense of smell so she would fall in love with her babies scent (wtf) and made it to where newborns look just like their fathers to encourage attachment (wtf).

Before you brush this off, think for a second how that must feel. Being attached Physically, chemically, and emotionally to a life to then be told you can’t see and protect it every day.

Rational thought holds no weight in the mind of a woman who is scared shitless beyond all reason because it isn't reasoning anymore; it’s biology.

She can’t even put into words why she doesn’t want you to take the child from her without sounding selfish and irrational. It’s because of those pesky maternal instincts that kick in.

(This is another reason women can’t or won’t be able to abort or abandon their children in most cases.)

( Also, anyone interested in single motherhood and factual evidence of child development-http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/018.htm)

[–]toseawaybinghamton 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Parental alienation is absolutely a thing. (And disproportionate higher with women)

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