"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[Marduk]

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.

Empty argument, i can do it too.
Trapping people into unhappy divorces is hardly the sort of proposition any moral person would want to support.

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.

That would be also fine. But it would take stripping all legal powers regarding economic and child matters from marriage to make it purely a symbolic thing, leaving any consequences for creating, keeping and terminating it up to social reputational effects and religious ones if the people involved believe in such.
Just like you and your neighbor can sign a piece of paper saying that you will be your BFFs forever until death does you apart, but no one will have to care (or even know) about it.
You can even swear upon Cthulhu that you will never break this promise.
But as long as such very material effects exist for marriage and state enforces those, state unavoidably has business in marriage.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Trapping people into unhappy marriages is hardly the sort of proposition any moral person would want to support.

and you're still not getting it.

the fact that it's so easy to divorce means that young folks aren't properly vetting their partners. that leads to a cycle where they get married before they're ready, pump out kids their not ready for, run away at the drop of a hat, and leave the pieces for everyone else to pick up.
getting rid of no fault divorces puts up a barrier to them getting married in the first place.

 

[King Arts]

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.

Liberty just giving you free stuff makes for a spoiled arrogant unworthy people. No different than the nobles of the 1700 and 1800's. Having privilege, freedom, all that stuff it requires being virtuous also. People who are not virtuous having those is bad.

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.

Are you just ignoring what me and everyone else is saying that tradition has almost nothing to do with it?

It's because it's good for society, and if you are a super individualist and don't care about the people who live around you your neighbors. Maybe you'll care about your family? Your kids getting fucked up because you are selfish and want to be happy and publicly fuck who you want to?

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Trapping people into unhappy divorces

They're not trapped into an unhappy divorce. Nobody is forcing them into a divorce, nor are they prohibited from remarrying if they choose to.

Don't be disingenuous.

the fact that it's so easy to divorce means that young folks aren't properly vetting their partners. that leads to a cycle where they get married before they're ready, pump out kids their not ready for, run away at the drop of a hat, and leave the pieces for everyone else to pick up.

And I'm sure making it impossible to divorce will magically stop the fathers from abandoning their "baby mommas", right?

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Posted without need for context.

In reality, feminists have repeatedly sued for equal inclusion in the military and draft. Got shut down by the courts ruling that civil rights do not apply to the military because it’s a direct exercise of sovereign authority so the government’s decisions regarding military service are axiomatically correct and cannot be challenged, period.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

If you’re going to argue “good for society”, then we should go all the way back to the truly traditional scheme of marriage being arranged by parents / clan heads without input from the children. After all, young adults are practically as poor in judgement as actual children, and it’s more beneficial to society to have marriages based on family obligation and duty rather than any sort of romantic attachment anyway.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all silly things anyway, people should recognize that they exist to serve the Greater Good as determined by hereditary leaders empowered by God and not subject to being questioned by their lessers. This includes marrying who you’re told and pumping out babies as morally obligated.

(Sarcasm, in case anyone didn’t get it. But this was in fact the historical view….)

 

[Marduk]

They're not trapped into an unhappy divorce. Nobody is forcing them into a divorce,

Most divorces are initiated by one party, so the other is forced into it.
How many divorced people are happy with the result of their divorce?
Hence, unhappy divorces.

nor are they prohibited from remarrying if they choose to.

But they often are prohibited from having a most or all of their disposable income and chunk of some serious wealth, which will severely damage their chances of remarrying well, among other things, nevermind the emotional and reputational consequences of such an event - the consequences stay with them forever.

Don't be disingenuous.

You don't be disingenuous.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

And once again Soli doesn't give a single solitary fuck about the children and the colossal damage it does to them.

Or the amount of money we have to shill out in taxes when the product of said blowouts lights up a school and gers 20-life.

Or sells crack.

Or changes genders.

Lotta cash that comes out of our pockets to protect other people's arbitary definitioms of happiness.

...which honestly isn't even very libertarian, straight up Marxist shit. Why the hell do I have to spend the rest of my life paying for the generational failure of two selfish adults a thousand miles away from me?

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Most divorces are initiated by one party, so the other is forced into it.

Then it either serves them right for being such a bad spouse, or saves them from relationship with a bastard.

Win-win.

But they often are prohibited from having a most or all of their disposable income and chunk of some serious wealth, which will severely damage their chances of remarrying well, among other things, nevermind the emotional and reputational consequences of such an event - the consequences stay with them forever.

True, I'm all for alimony reform.

And once again Soli doesn't give a single solitary fuck about the children and the colossal damage it does to them.

Children from a broken family are never going to grow up well anyway.

 

[Marduk]

Then it either serves them right for being such a bad spouse, or saves them from relationship with a bastard.

Win-win.

How very feminist of you.
Have you considered that the man losing a house and a chunk of his income for years to a bad ex-spouse in fact may be quite unhappy with that deal anyway?

True, I'm all for alimony reform.

What i described goes *a lot* further than alimony reform, more than alimony abolition even.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

What i described goes *a lot* further than alimony reform, more than alimony abolition even.

I'm not sure if that's a good idea, if only because I hate extreme changes with a passion.

 

[Marduk]

I'm not sure if that's a good idea, if only because I hate extreme changes with a passion.

The marriage-relationship system in developed world has undergone extreme changes over the last 60 or so years. If you don't want to roll those changes back, the alternative solution is to clear the field and start from zero. But i refuse to act conservative to a shitty, leftism ridden system.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

The marriage-relationship system in developed world has undergone extreme changes over the last 60 or so years. If you don't want to roll those changes back, the alternative solution is to clear the field and start from zero. But i refuse to act conservative to a shitty, leftism ridden system.

Then why are you even a conservative if you just want to repeat the left's mistakes but from the other direction?

 

[Marduk]

Then why are you even a conservative if you just want to repeat the left's mistakes but from the other direction?

The left's mistake wasn't that they changed the system.
The left's mistake was that they made it leftist, the nature of the change is what we have a real gripe with.
Conservatives are supposed to be skeptical to changes and oppose bad ones, not mindlessly oppose all change, ever, in everything.
Conservatives can't be expected to be retarded and now defend the leftist system just because that's what the status quo is now. That would just make them the rearguard to the leftist revolution, allied to the vanguard that made those changes.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

The left's mistake was that they made it leftist, the nature of the change is what we have a real gripe with.

That is a non-statement. Their mistakes are basically that they make revolutionary changes that destabilise and destroy society. Which is basically what you want to do, except (just like leftists), you think it'll just... work out. Because you want it to.


Seriously, you guys are just Bolsheviks.

 

[LordsFire]

That is a non-statement. Their mistakes are basically that they make revolutionary changes that destabilise and destroy society. Which is basically what you want to do, except (just like leftists), you think it'll just... work out. Because you want it to.


Seriously, you guys are just Bolsheviks.

What he's saying is 'the problem is not that a thing was changed, the problem is what it was changed into.'

I think you'd agree with that much, though you'd disagree with what it should change to from what it currently is.

 

[IndyFront]

Posted without need for context.

Goddam this meme goes so hard, I saw a twitter feminist getting triggered by it with something to the tune "oh wel'll just let all you nasty men go off to war and die so we can take your jobs" or something like that lmaoooooo

 

[SoliFortissimi]

What he's saying is 'the problem is not that a thing was changed, the problem is what it was changed into.'

I think you'd agree with that much, though you'd disagree with what it should change to from what it currently is.

Tbf, any sweeping changes give me the heebie jeebies. I want the world to remain the same as back when I was in college.

 

[DarthOne]

Goddam this meme goes so hard, I saw a twitter feminist getting triggered by it with something to the tune "oh wel'll just let all you nasty men go off to war and die so we can take your jobs" or something like that lmaoooooo

Tells me that they don’t have a clue how society works. Which is hardly surprising.

 

[LordsFire]

Tbf, any sweeping changes give me the heebie jeebies. I want the world to remain the same as back when I was in college.

When were you in college?