"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Oh? Then how did Abraham know anything about how the rich man had lived?

Fair point.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

so you'd rather everyone live in an unhappy marriage rather than maybe go for a better one?

you'll find that many would prefer that the 2 never got married in the first place.

 

[Cherico]

You really hate children don't you?

Divorce destroys kids, leaves many of them mentally and emotionally traumatized and stunted. Most kids who self destruct as adults come from divorces. Most serial killers and spree shooters and troons are raised by single moms or are the result of a female retaining sole custody of the kid. Drug dealers too

And in many cases divorce results in the system weaponizing them as extortion engines against their parents.

All you give a fuck about is the dopamine high of a pair of consenting adults.

Fuck the adults their kids matter more.

Divorce sucks for pretty much every one involved even the women who divorce their husbands because their bored and take all of their stuff end up worse off in the long run.

So you obviously don't want more of it because it results in more criminal activity, in a worse long term economy and pretty much fucks everything.

Well how do you get less of it? One way to do it is to stop subidizing divorce. Get rid of child support and Alimony, don't give single parents welfare. Make it so that if you want to dip from a relationship you pay the fincial cost of it. This will cause divorce to become more rare and more fair.

The current system as is is, is not working its time to change it.

 

[Jormungandr]

Divorce sucks for pretty much every one involved even the women who divorce their husbands because their bored and take all of their stuff end up worse off in the long run.

So you obviously don't want more of it because it results in more criminal activity, in a worse long term economy and pretty much fucks everything.

Well how do you get less of it? One way to do it is to stop subidizing divorce. Get rid of child support and Alimony, don't give single parents welfare. Make it so that if you want to dip from a relationship you pay the fincial cost of it. This will cause divorce to become more rare and more fair.

The current system as is is, is not working its time to change it.

Oh, it does work --- for the government and women.

Men, however? Yeah, we can basically go fuck ourselves in their eyes.

 

[Captain X]

I would just reform "no-fault" divorce. No alimony or child support, period. The one initiating it can only keep that which was theirs before the marriage, and only what the other spouse agrees to. Also, if there are children the one initiating gets only limited visitation while the other spouse has the children living with them, since they are keeping the home, after all. That's how I'd do it, anyway.

 

[King Arts]

Divorce sucks for pretty much every one involved even the women who divorce their husbands because their bored and take all of their stuff end up worse off in the long run.

So you obviously don't want more of it because it results in more criminal activity, in a worse long term economy and pretty much fucks everything.

Well how do you get less of it? One way to do it is to stop subidizing divorce. Get rid of child support and Alimony, don't give single parents welfare. Make it so that if you want to dip from a relationship you pay the fincial cost of it. This will cause divorce to become more rare and more fair.

The current system as is is, is not working its time to change it.

I would just reform "no-fault" divorce. No alimony or child support, period. The one initiating it can only keep that which was theirs before the marriage, and only what the other spouse agrees to. Also, if there are children the one initiating gets only limited visitation while the other spouse has the children living with them, since they are keeping the home, after all. That's how I'd do it, anyway.

But even allowing divorce will have kids be punished by having stupid selfish parents.

Better to not allow it at all I think.

 

[Cherico]

Oh, it does work --- for the government and women.

Men, however? Yeah, we can basically go fuck ourselves in their eyes.

For women?

In the short run yes, in the long run no, they discover pretty hard that they cant find a better man in their 30s then they found in their 20s, or a better man in their 40s then they got in their 30s. And the ones who get a pay day often waste that money and end up pretty bad off.

For the kids? A quick look at any prison shows you that the children of single mothers do worse in every metric.

For the men well duh we get fucked over the worse obviously.

For the government? Yeah in the short run a bunch of buracrats get to fuck people over for more money. But you have just made society a whole lot less stable, have increased the amount of social spending you are forced to engage with and the children of these broken families eventually grow up realize who fucked them over.

There is a reason why governments historically wanted in tact families. People who like social stability tend to really like it and though they rarely do violence they are very much very fucking good at it.

But even allowing divorce will have kids be punished by having stupid selfish parents.

Better to not allow it at all I think.

There will always bee stupid selfish parents because their will always be stupid selfish people. Life is a series of trade offs looking for a perfect solution often blows up in your face. Better off looking for either a decent solution or if thats not available the least bad option.

 

[Captain X]

But even allowing divorce will have kids be punished by having stupid selfish parents.

Better to not allow it at all I think.

Going to have to disagree with you there, mainly from a liberty-focused view on it. I would argue that being trapped in an unhappy home with a mother and father who don't get along can be damaging to them as well. I'm also not willing to make people miserable in the name of "tradition" the way you and others who are advocating against divorce seem to be. Also, if there are no children your Helen Lovejoy argument has no basis anyway.

 

[Cherico]

Going to have to disagree with you there, mainly from a liberty-focused view on it. I would argue that being trapped in an unhappy home with a mother and father who don't get along can be damaging to them as well. I'm also not willing to make people miserable in the name of "tradition" the way you and others who are advocating against divorce seem to be. Also, if there are no children your Helen Lovejoy argument has no basis anyway.

Statisically children from abusive homes outcompete the children of single mothers.....

 

[Captain X]

Statisically children from abusive homes outcompete the children of single mothers.....

In what? Ending up in prison? Besides, it isn't really a contest, because, as I said, either is harmful. You're also assuming that the single parent will remain single in the case of divorce. And with my reform, it's statistically unlikely that the mother will be the one to get custody because statistically women are the one to initiate it and with my reform they would only get visitation.

 

[S'task]

I'm not saying we should entirely return to the era of only at-fault divorce. Aside from it being a cultural impossibility at this time, one of the big issues with at-fault divorce was that the standards were often so high and difficult, plus required things that would often end up creating no-win scenarios for someone in an abusive relationship, that people couldn't actually escape situations they truly needed to.

That said, we clearly have swung to far with the present divorce laws, and there needs to be things that prevent the current level of abuse and "changing partners like one changes shoes" aspect. Breaking up a marriage should be a serious thing done only in situations where there truly is no other choice or if there has been adultery.

 

[King Arts]

For women?

In the short run yes, in the long run no, they discover pretty hard that they cant find a better man in their 30s then they found in their 20s, or a better man in their 40s then they got in their 30s. And the ones who get a pay day often waste that money and end up pretty bad off.

For the kids? A quick look at any prison shows you that the children of single mothers do worse in every metric.

For the men well duh we get fucked over the worse obviously.

For the government? Yeah in the short run a bunch of buracrats get to fuck people over for more money. But you have just made society a whole lot less stable, have increased the amount of social spending you are forced to engage with and the children of these broken families eventually grow up realize who fucked them over.

There is a reason why governments historically wanted in tact families. People who like social stability tend to really like it and though they rarely do violence they are very much very fucking good at it.



There will always bee stupid selfish parents because their will always be stupid selfish people. Life is a series of trade offs looking for a perfect solution often blows up in your face. Better off looking for either a decent solution or if thats not available the least bad option.

But the trade off from just not allowing it in the first place is better. It’s better for the kids if the parents simply don’t have the option to have a no fault divorce.

Going to have to disagree with you there, mainly from a liberty-focused view on it. I would argue that being trapped in an unhappy home with a mother and father who don't get along can be damaging to them as well. I'm also not willing to make people miserable in the name of "tradition" the way you and others who are advocating against divorce seem to be. Also, if there are no children your Helen Lovejoy argument has no basis anyway.

I actually don’t give a damn about freedom or liberty I’ve seen that argument used so much I’ve ended up hating it and see it as an excuse to be selfish.

Also sure children in a family where the parents love each other do best, but even older style rich folks who did have political/loveless marriages still had the kids do massively better than single parent or divorced parents families.

Again the argument isn’t “muh traditional” it’s you made a vow and you will be held to it and won’t be allowed to fuck your kids or society just because you are selfish and want to be happy.

As for your example of marriage with no children sure a secular argument can be made for a compromise to allow those kinds of unions to easily dissolve.

 

[Captain X]

I actually don’t give a damn about freedom or liberty I’ve seen that argument used so much I’ve ended up hating it and see it as an excuse to be selfish.

Yeah, you've made this apparent more than once, and frankly it's why I feel I can safely discount your opinion on basically anything.

 

[mrttao]

I'm not saying we should entirely return to the era of only at-fault divorce.

why not?
it was a good system that worked.

the only argument i can see for not doing it is because it is still a broken oath so we should go all the way to "no divorce ever".

 

[Blasterbot]

Going to have to disagree with you there, mainly from a liberty-focused view on it. I would argue that being trapped in an unhappy home with a mother and father who don't get along can be damaging to them as well. I'm also not willing to make people miserable in the name of "tradition" the way you and others who are advocating against divorce seem to be. Also, if there are no children your Helen Lovejoy argument has no basis anyway.

Liberty isn't the only factor to consider here. Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity are also factors in most peoples moral compass. pretty much only hardcore libertarians only value liberty. that is a small percentage of the total population. examining the other foundations.

Care? it hurts everyone to have this. it hurts men. it hurts women. it hurts kids. it fucks over society as a whole and incentivizes bored housewives to lie about being abused for the biggest payout they can get in a settlement

Fairness? it is extremely unfair to men as a whole and in specific cases the partner that is trying their best but who is getting fucked in the proceedings regardless. which is far more common than the abuse or infidelity claims going purely by personal experience.

Loyalty? from the get go no fault divorce is someone being disloyal to their partner. breaking their vows and screwing over someone who trusted them with that which is most precious to them.

Authority? this one doesn't yell out for me too much. could probably make an argument for how it undermines the authority of parents when dealing with their kids.

Purity? yeah this degrades and corrupts one of the most intimate and sacred relationships someone will ever have in their life.

Pretending that these things don't exist or matter to most people is not a good way to try and operate.

 

[Captain X]

Are you guys just ignoring what I said about reforming it?

Eh, whatever, just comes down to a bunch of you wanting to trap people in misery because "muh tradition," and you can't convince me otherwise.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I think it would be wrong to trap people in marriages that just aren't working. But on the flipside you have to take some responsibility for doing such a thing in the first place, actions have consequences.
Two parents who hate one another is just as bad as a kid having two separated parents.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Posted without need for context.

 

[Blasterbot]

Are you guys just ignoring what I said about reforming it?

Eh, whatever, just comes down to a bunch of you wanting to trap people in misery because "muh tradition," and you can't convince me otherwise.

It isn't about muh tradition. it is about the negative outcomes caused by fucking the institution of marriage. If I look at things from a perspective that only cares about outcomes this is such a massive negative externality for everyone. taking away allimony and child support isn't addressing the issue. that destroying a family ruins peoples lives. making it so that there is not a monetary incentive to do it is an improvement sure. it doesn't change that you will still have a bunch of ruined lives causing shit tons of issues that propagate throughout society.

If I look at things while weighing my moral compass which has more than just one value of liberty is the only thing that matters then I end up in the same position.

The only way is to ignore the negative impacts on society at large. ignore the negative impacts on the people involved. and ignore all other moral imperatives that most people have other than liberty. it isn't how most people operate. people don't wake up in the morning asking themselves what chains do I need to break to be as free as possible in my life today. they wake up and think how do I keep a roof over my head, food on the table, and raiders from coming in and murdering me and stealing my shit. with the better ones also caring about that for their family and not just themselves.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Trapping people into unhappy marriages is hardly the sort of proposition any moral person would want to support. I can see why Reagan didn't.

The government has no business telling us how we conduct marriage. If any man or woman wants a divorce for whatever reason, that's their responsibility. The only thing the government can do in this situation is to accept their signatures.