King Arts
Well-known member
Well gotta respect that they aren’t hypocrites and are opposed to the draft.
"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists
- Thread starter Jormungandr
- Start date
Blasterbot
Well-known member
there was a reason most women opposed getting the right to vote until weak men agreed to hand over the benefits without the duties. Ian Crossland on Timcast made a hilarious recomendation the other day that I think would be fun. men get their vote when they sign up for the selective service. women get theirs when they have a kid. if nothing else birth rate crisis averted I guess. Ian has turned surprisingly based since he started working out. still weird though.
Except that'd cause a further rise in baby-trappings, "oopsie babies", and single mothers. It'd be a great way to fuck men over even further than they are now in the courts and in society.
We need less of this, not an incentive for more of it.
King Arts
Well-known member
I think single motherhood should be legislated against. So even if a girl does have an ooosie baby the man is forced to marry her. That would increase the birth rate and also cut down on fornication.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
That would lead to a drastic increase in domestic violence at best, and one in homicides at worst.
It also should not be legislated for, as it is partial contribution to the cultural mess we are in.
It's also beyond any sort of Overton window to force any people to marry, we're not fucking Pakistan or something like that. It would cut down on fornication, further lower birth rate and other relationship stats due to the risk of being forced into marriage, and raise crime statistics.
The surprise problem with modern legal systems being good at cracking down on deadbeats is that it was a big, first step in undermining the whole purpose of marriage and all the fallout of that. After all one of, if not the main purpose of marriage for a woman traditionally was to make sure a man provides for her and presumably his children, but if the state will force the man to provide for them anyway even without marriage, sometimes even with requiring less of the other side, that seriously undermines the purpose of marriage.
This imbalance should be countered, not reinforced with even more draconian measures.
The quickest way to get rid of single motherhood is to stop supporting it.
Just put in a law that single family households are no longer allowed to get any form of welfare. After a couple painful years this problem would mostly be fixed.
mrttao
Well-known member
Honestly, the simplest solution is to just delete the laws that broke the system in the first place
Delete alimony.
Delete child support.
Delete assumed parenthood for children who are not yours
Delete govt funds going towards single mothers.
Delete the laws that give an unemployeed couple with a child MORE money if the woman kicks the man out and becomes a single mom
Delete no fault divorce
Suddenly magically women will want a husband because daddy govt isn't giving them checks every month anymore. (whether it comes from taxpayer money or from the govt robbing a single man to give them)
Delete alimony.
Delete child support.
Delete assumed parenthood for children who are not yours
Delete govt funds going towards single mothers.
Delete the laws that give an unemployeed couple with a child MORE money if the woman kicks the man out and becomes a single mom
Delete no fault divorce
Suddenly magically women will want a husband because daddy govt isn't giving them checks every month anymore. (whether it comes from taxpayer money or from the govt robbing a single man to give them)
This.
If she (and it it usually the woman) decides she wants to end the relationship, then all obligations to her that are part of that relationship end too.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
“No fault” is a good idea, it’s just a same lefties with their broken worldview implemented it.
That aside it is vital we correct the overcorrection in the divorce courts. Yes, not so long ago women could get the shit end of the stick, but now it has swung to the other extreme in ensuring men get the shit end of the stick.
That aside it is vital we correct the overcorrection in the divorce courts. Yes, not so long ago women could get the shit end of the stick, but now it has swung to the other extreme in ensuring men get the shit end of the stick.
Blasterbot
Well-known member
no fault should require both parties to agree. otherwise there should be a fault for divorce. you are breaking a contract and so you can't just end it over nothing or because you are bored because he is working 60 hours a week to keep a roof over your kids heads.
Feminism/media versus reality.
All of this is obvious. All of these "broken" policies are serving their intended purpose of destabilizing society and destroying the family structure. These "broken" policies are intentional.
Typhonis
Well-known member
What if the woman is a widow? Her husband dying through accident, combat or something else other than foul play?
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
What a graceful reaction.
As for all the brilliant suggestions being posted here, please do remember that they'll be dead on arrival. Half the country's voters are women, and men aren't exactly on board with punishing women.
Feminism/media versus reality.
Amusingly, they actually did the grapples and throws for the first part, the second part is clearly stage-punches on both sides, well timed and executed stage punches, but stage punches nonetheless.
mrttao
Well-known member
then she can
1. remarry. maybe even with a male widow.
2. get a job.
3. get support from relatives from both sides of the family
4. get financial aid through the church.
Here is the thing, we do not need 100% absolute compliance.
if you have a solution that solves 99.99% of single mothers, it is good enough to rescue society.
mrttao
Well-known member
No, the "grapples" and "throws" were also acted out.
Those were also not real grapples and throws but holliwood ones. Designed to look "sexy" in a "femme fatale" kind of way. (I have lost count of how many movies and video games I have seen do these kind of femme fatale throws)
No actual defense instruction would teach a woman climb a man's shoulders, rub her vagina in his face, and curl her back to magically somehow make him roll forwards even though she has absolutely no leverage
She would have a much easier time making him fall backwards from the momentum of her jump. But one he did NOT fall backwards. then she is now just... sitting there with her legs on his shoulders.
We don't live in Somalia or Haiti, those are extra rare situations in first world countries.
It's insane to make an unconditional policy that can be abused by a good chunk of population to address 1 or 2% of cases.
You could address that with subsidized life insurance for families with children instead of welfare.