"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[Jormungandr]

Single mothers that are single mothers because of situations outside of their control, such as their spouse/partner dying, their fleeing/divorcing an abusive partner, or having been raped, are unfortunately the exception, not the standard these days.

If someone's a single mother in this day and age, 90% of the time it's because they, frankly, made poor life choices. I've got zero sympathy for them, especially when they try to find a man to basically be a "not parent" to his potential step-kid and use him as an ATM.

Remember, single mothers don't want a partner, they want help.

 

[King Arts]

That would lead to a drastic increase in domestic violence at best, and one in homicides at worst.

Maybe a little but it won’t be that bad. Past societies were healthier than modern ones.

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.

What are you talking about lowering birth rates. We don’t exactly rely on single mothers to pop out kids or our society will fall apart.

Also western societies used to have forced marriages rather recently look up the term shotgun wedding.

I want to keep no-fault divorce, but I think that by definition, since there is "no fault," it should be a clean break with no alimony or child support.

Heck no. I might tolerate no fault divorce if the couple has no kids. But if there are kids then divorce should be banned unless there is good cause. Kids with one parent do worse than those with two. I’m sorry but fuck freedom and happiness there is such a thing as duty to society and your children.

 

[Marduk]

What are you talking about lowering birth rates. We don’t exactly rely on single mothers to pop out kids or our society will fall apart.

If you base a society on single mother's kids it may fall apart too, long before birth rates make it. Instead stop incentivizing the mothers to be single FFS, in some sick fusion of feminist and conservative ideas that don't fit together.

Also western societies used to have forced marriages rather recently look up the term shotgun wedding.

Informal and technically illegal, so no, we didn't have it in law. By that logic we still "have" slavery and revenge killings.

 

[King Arts]

If you base a society on single mother's kids it may fall apart too, long before birth rates make it. Stop incentivizing the mothers to be single FFS, in some sick fusion of feminist and conservative ideas that don't fit together.

Informal and technically illegal, so no, we didn't have it in law. By that logic we still "have" slavery and revenge killings.

Wait your first thing you quoted. Were you saying I’m advocating for single motherhood? I’m doing the opposite I think you are misreading what I said.

 

[Marduk]

Wait your first thing you quoted. Were you saying I’m advocating for single motherhood? I’m doing the opposite I think you are misreading what I said.

You are advocating for it by... wanting to force men into marriage over it. As in promoting the classic baby entrapment scheme, which is part of the motivation for the problem.

So, what next if they didn't want to marry after all? Divorce followed by obvious single motherhood? Domestic abuse followed by prison as someone else suggested?
In the end it boils down to feminist sympathizing court systems fucking over men even harder than they already do.
If you are doing the opposite, you are doing it so poorly it's hard to tell.
Historically, the #1 reason for most women to avoid single motherhood was the sheer grinding poverty most would experience.
The #2 was the social stigma, turning into #1 for rich women, but with modern culture there's less of that stigma. And that stigma was in part backed by the physical and developmental damage living in such poverty would cause to the single mother's children, often to the point of disability or death.

 

[Cherico]

What if the woman is a widow? Her husband dying through accident, combat or something else other than foul play?

If its through combat america has had programs for war widows for a good chunk of its history, as has many other countries through out world history such programs do not historically upset the social order. In the case of acccident or natural causes life insurance payouts.

Ideally in both cases you want the woman to remarry eventually because raising children by yourself is increidbly difficult.

 

[King Arts]

You are advocating for it by... wanting to force men into marriage over it. As in promoting the classic baby entrapment scheme, which is part of the motivation for the problem.

So, what next if they didn't want to marry after all? Divorce followed by obvious single motherhood? Domestic abuse followed by prison as someone else suggested?
In the end it boils down to feminist sympathizing court systems fucking over men even harder than they already do.
If you are doing the opposite, you are doing it so poorly it's hard to tell.
Historically, the #1 reason for most women to avoid single motherhood was the sheer grinding poverty most would experience.
The #2 was the social stigma, turning into #1 for rich women, but with modern culture there's less of that stigma. And that stigma was in part backed by the physical and developmental damage living in such poverty would cause to the single mother's children, often to the point of disability or death.

But baby entrapment when it works does not result in single motherhood. Also I don't care if the woman does not want to marry after getting pregnant. It's for the good of the child so she or he can't divorce just because they don't love each other. They'd need a good reason, that would see one of them in serious trouble.

That would DRASTICALLY reduce single motherhood. Also making laws like this would change the culture as laws can change culture. Just look at gay marriage. In a pure democracy even liberal California was against it with Prop 8, yet after it was imposed undemocratically by the authorities it became popular and accepted.

 

[Marduk]

But baby entrapment when it works does not result in single motherhood.

It does when separation, divorce, or even more criminal further options exist.

Also I don't care if the woman does not want to marry after getting pregnant.

Most people do care, if you want to find people who don't care, look in Pakistan and that neighborhood.

It's for the good of the child so she or he can't divorce just because they don't love each other. They'd need a good reason, that would see one of them in serious trouble.

As above, that would just result in other problems.

That would DRASTICALLY reduce single motherhood.

Possibly also motherhood in general, on account of the risk of terrible step 2's, which was my previous point.

Also making laws like this would change the culture as laws can change culture.

Not any more than culture changes laws. The law you propose would be a stinker with few percent support though, which is why we don't have it and won't have in foreseeable future.

Just look at gay marriage. In a pure democracy even liberal California was against it with Prop 8, yet after it was imposed undemocratically by the authorities it became popular and accepted.

Gay marriage was preceded by decades of massive, overt and covert, and supported by massive institutions propaganda campaign both among the voter base and politicians.
Leftists being leftists didn't care to wait for genuinely crossing the 50/50 popularity mark, but that doesn't change the fact that they did it as early as that massive effort made it possible, and it would not be possible without it.

 

[mrttao]

It's for the good of the child

something that often gets missed.
divorce is child abuse, there better be a damn good fucking reason for divorce.

please note that before "no fault divorce", they could still divorce.
the no fault divorce rule is that a couple can divorce for literally no reason at all. "we just don't feel like it".
Never mind the horrific damage it does to the children.

But then again, as mentioned. 99% of this is because alimony and child support laws financially reward such actions

 

[Jormungandr]

So, yeah; succinctly put.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

the no fault divorce rule is that a couple can divorce for literally no reason at all. "we just don't feel like it".

Better than staying in an unhappy marriage.

 

[DarthOne]

Better than staying in an unhappy marriage.

The fact that you can say that not only shows how much you utterly miss the point, but how programmed people have become.

It’s ’no fault divorce’ that is the problem, combined with how horribly biased the system is towards women.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

’s ’no fault divorce’ that is the problem, combined with how horribly biased the system is towards women.

I see no reason for why anyone should be stuck in an unhappy marriage.

 

[Typhonis]

Marriage like everything else requires work. It is two people becoming one and living as one. It is trust, and commitment. You have to maintain it like everything else and everyone is different These days no fault divorce is the 'Easy' option but it may not be the 'right' option.

You also need to determine what an 'unhappy' marriage is. Because the systems to promote long term pair bonding in marriage have been damaged by modern life.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The fundamental idea of essentially an escape route from abusive relationships, is sound. But good grief does it need a revisit because it has spiralled out of control.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

You also need to determine what an 'unhappy' marriage i

What it says. A marriage where one or both partners are unhappy.

 

[S'task]

What it says. A marriage where one or both partners are unhappy.

Why should happiness be the defining measure of worth of a marriage?

Happiness is inherently a selfish measure. It is about the amount of pleasure an individual has in a given circumstance, and happiness is ALWAYS a transient matter as people are never happy all the time.

The purpose of a marriage to is create a family, this is a long term commitment that involves self sacrifice on the parts of those involved. "Happiness" is not guaranteed in the long term, and two people WILL have conflicts and have to reach compromise positions that neither one is happy with.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Why should happiness be the defining measure of worth of a marriage?

It isn’t, but it can most certainly become a deal breaker. For a long term relationship it really does help if both parties at least like each other.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Why should happiness be the defining measure of worth of a marriage?

Is this a serious question? Why should we inflict an unhappy marriage on anyone?

 

[DarthOne]

Is this a serious question? Why should we inflict an unhappy marriage on anyone?

It's not so much people being in an 'unhappy marriage' that is a problem these days. It's the women getting 'bored', or thinking she can 'do better', or just pure greed. And it is women, due to how the system is set up and biased in favor to them.