Dudes’ Republic of China
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
I may need to reconsider my attitude.
IncrediblyFatMan added:
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
Revorob joked:
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Speaking of which, here’s a more balanced look at the issue on China.org.cn that examines some of the consequences of the new ruling for Chinese women.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
Posted on August 22, 2011, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, evil women, gloating, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, patriarchy, reddit. Bookmark the permalink. 697 Comments.
So women being treated as unpaid servants and ignored are expected to be all hot and bothered for their spouse?
Are you oblivious to the actual concerns of these women or do their experiences not merit consideration because they’re women? There seems to be a significant lack of your friends *actually* adressing the issues. And you’re ok with that.
If they behaved the same way at work, how long do you think they’d be employed. When my boss takes me in as says, “You’re lazy, disorganized and ignore your work to play Angry Birds.” is your response to go look for a job where you can slack off, leave crap all over the place and ignore your job?
Brandon: Divorce rates are increasing [citation needed]
@Rachel: Again, I am not insulting married couples
Yes, yes, you are. You are, at length, explaining why anyone who chooses to get married is, (if they are employed) a fool, because the only thing you say they get out of it, is the risk of debt. You also seem to think this financial risk is predominately to the male in the relationship, and that women favor it because of the gravy train it provides, even after divorce.
That’s insulting.
Brandon: Why would I settle for half the assets when I bought and paid for 100% of it? Seems like I am getting the raw end of the deal here.
So you paid a fair wage for the housework, and the cleaning, and the cooking?
I’ll bet you don’t want to know what I charge to cater dinner for two.
I’ll bet you’ve not looked at what hiring a personal shopper costs, either.
The fact that you said:
“Try taking care of yourself, a couple of small children, and an adult who, for all intents and purposes, is just another child, and a lot more troublesome in certain aspects”
shows your animosity towards men. I believe Voip earlier made the claim that I thought of women as children and it was misogynistic to think this way. So what would you call this Amused? Man-hatred?
I’d say you failed to notice Amused wasn’t talking about men (the same way you didn’t notice I wasn’t saying to use lead in place of gold as commodity to back a currency), but rather about you; as you have presented yourself here.
Nice try moving the goal posts. You claimed that marriage is bad because married women parasitise their husbands. This simply isn’t true. The overwhelming majority of married women work.
Filling out some stupid paperwork is not really difficult either. What’s your point? You devalue women’s work by assuming that if a woman does it, it’s so easy as to be completely negligible. And that’s regardless of whether she is filling a dishwasher or doing neurosurgery.
Why should a woman not get paid for providing you with round-the-clock services? seems like she’s getting the raw end of the deal here. Also: you didn’t pay for 100% of it. You may not have even paid for 50% of it. Again: most married women work.
What specifically do your friends do to try to make their wives happy? Going months without sex doesn’t count as “making your wife happy”, quite the contrary. Sounds like he would rather whine about what a bitch she is, rather than actually care and love her.
And? Are you saying those are not legitimate grievances? Are you saying that a woman has to work outside the home, get home, get to work again, put in another shift, and then enthusiastically have sex? And what is the man doing during all this? Why do you believe men should get priority in the marriage for leisure time, sexy time and doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want it? Hint: being a slob is a big deal, it’s not a trifle that you can dismiss. When you leave your dirty socks on the dining room table for your wife to pick up, it’s more than just an extra chore. It’s a slap in the face. It says you don’t respect her. So don’t be surprised if that puts a damper on her libido. Also: the fact that you claim you don’t need to talk to women to render a judgment of who is at fault in the marriage shows that you completely devalue women’s needs, thoughts and opinions.
Here is the thing, Brandon: men like you, who regard women as means to an end, take care of yourselves while you are single. Once you get married you stop — and you expect your wives to take care of you, to spend 15 hours a day taking care of you, and then be enthusiastic about fucking you after that’s done.
I call this nuance, Brandon. I am of the opinion that men are perfectly capable of acting as adults, and I don’t characterize men, as a gender as children. And in fact, most men are adults. But men who pine for the good old days, and treat marriage as if it should revolve around them and their needs — yeah, those men act like incompetent, helpless infants. Sue me.
Also, Brandon, again: We don’t care about YOUR sex life and YOUR choices.
‘Also, men are required to sacrifice in this aspect as well. The “you can only have sex with one woman” is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of men.’
FYI, women are required to sacrifice in this aspect. What makes you think all women love being monogamous?
Why would a man get married? There is absolutely no benefit for a man to be married. Feminist women, which most modern women, are cheaters extraordinaire. They can cheat on you, and you still have to pay alimony. They can take half your home, your children. Not to mention modern western white women are unbearably spoiled, selfish and entitled. F*ck that, I would just as soon have sex with a goat than marry a white woman.
Brandon – “Again, I am not insulting married couples…but the marriage institution itself which are two separate things. Not once have I said “people that get married are idiots” You trying to make that claim is like calling me un-American because I am criticizing one department in the government. I can be against marriage, but not against the people that do get married.”
There are many people who obviously feel that there are many benefits to the institution of marriage as it exists today. Your overarching claim that marriage, as it exists today, confers zero benefits upon the “earner” in the relationship both devalues the many different ways in which both individuals contribute to a marital relationship as well as insinuates that people who enter into the relationship when there are no benefits for them are niave, misinformed, or just plainly not as intelligent as you. So, while you don’t overtly say that people who enter into the institution of marriage as it exists today are “idiots,” your comments, taken as a whole, insinuate plenty.
“In the end, it really depends on how you look at marriage. If I was a woman then marriage does look enticing since I can get picked up my his insurance and if he dies I am entitled to his pension, 401K and Social Security check. I would also be entitled to half of his assets at the divorce. This most likely explains why the majority of divorces are filed by women.”
These are the types of comments that lead people to call you mysogynistic (which, I am fairly certain, you are well aware of). Again, if BOTH people have insurance (which, in your case, since you seem to be able to have this conversation only by making it all about you, obviously both people would, right? Because your significant other will always work), then you can BOTH be on whichever insurance is better. For instance, if I were to marry my current boyfriend, he would be on my insurance as he finishes grad school. Then, when he gets a full time job, we could evaluate the benefits of both policies, and choose the one that is most correct for our family. Simple enough. Doesn’t have to be his, doesn’t have to be mine. Could be both. Could be one to begin with, and a different one down the road depending on changed circumstances (like if one of us lost our job).
Pension, 401K, and Social Security go to the surviving spouse. Not the wife. Surviving spouse. Meaning, should you outlive your spouse, you would get those benefits as well. Why do you feel the need to gender very gender neutral benefits?
And have lf HIS assets in the divorce? But, in your scenario, aren’t both spouses working? So, wouldn’t the assets be OUR assets? And even if both people are not working outside of the home, is the only contribution that you consider worthwhile the contribution of money?
As for your personal relationship, I would have to disagree with some of the posters here. I don’t feel bad for your girlfriend, and I don’t question the quality of your relationship, because I really have no way of knowing anything about it. I assume you are honest with her about your beliefs about marriage and if she weren’t ok with your beliefs, she wouldn’t be with you.
I think the main problem I have with you Brandon, is your complete inability to even consider a different perspective from your own. Relationships and marriages, even “the institution of marriage,” aren’t cookie cutter. Marriage is wrong for some, right for otheres. Your pompous “I know better than everyone else” attitude is very tiresome and disrepectful to others.
@Rutee: Gold bug? Hardly. I feel the same way about gold as I do about investing in Google. I think their prices will continue to increase thus generating lots of capital gains for me. You claiming that I am an idiot for thinking they are good investments makes you the idiot because you would have to be able see into the future…which you can’t. So you don’t know if I am right or you are. I can only make educated guesses with my investment money. Sometimes I lose, sometimes I win…but not even trying is even worse than failing. If I am wrong, then I wont lose much because of my stop-loss orders and I can then look for other investments.
@Pecunium: Your thinking is slightly backwards. Investing in tax-deferred accounts lowers your AGI and increases your retirement plans net worth.
You are looking at it as: Get married > get tax breaks because of marriage > have more money to save for retirement because of those tax breaks > Save more money
I am seeing it as: Tell payroll to deduct X% of my paycheck into my 401K which lowers my AGI. I am not waiting to get a tax break to increase my retirement savings. I am using my paycheck and the legal system to get tax breaks because I am saving.
Medical proxies and power of attorney are standard legal documents that are enforceable.
My point about crime was the articles Elizabeth posted. One of them mentioned a spouses rights if the other becomes incarcerated. I responded by saying I wouldn’t marry a woman with a criminal record and if she became incarcerated, I wouldn’t stay married to her.
Spousal support is limited to married couples in most states. Common law marriages aren’t really enforced in a lot of states. Also, I find it somewhat immoral to force someone else to provide “a standard of living in which they have become accustom too”.
Some governments are trying to expand it to couples that merely claim to be married and co-habitation couples. These measures seem highly immoral and unethical since there is no written contract defining the actual relationship.
I do think marriage is only suitable to an ever decreasing amount of people. As more time passes the less marriage becomes necessary or needed. All the trends point to marriages demise. Less people are getting married, more divorces, people waiting longer to marry, etc…
I think marriage is in a steep decline. Marriage only works when both parties benefit. As more women become less dependent on men, the need for marriage will fall.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/marriage-rates-hit-record-low
One woman in the article claimed that she wanted to be financially independent first. While it is a positive that women are becoming financially independent, this behavior lowers the actual need for marriage. Marriage is moving from a need to a want. And fewer and fewer people want it.
Oh, also, since you seem to believe that divorce is always bad for the man involved, I shall share with you my personal history.
I dated a man for four years, living together through most of that time. During that time, I was a full time student (undergrad and then law school) who worked part time at a restaurant. During law school, I paid for ALL of our household expenses with my earnings, my law school living stipend (aka – student loans), and my credit cards, and he occasionally contributed (and he was working full time). He spent his money on his personal expenses. I also did all of the laundry, cooking, and cleaning. Oh, he also spent a large amount of money on alcohol. In addition to his complete lack of contribution to our relationship (despite his being what you would call the “earner”), he was also an abusive alcoholic who would regularly wake me up at 3:00 in the morning shouting various insults at me and either hitting me, throwing me out of the bed, or throwing various items at me. During the course of this relationship, we got married (at his insistance to help him with various personal problems-including getting him on my health insurance through my school). Shortly after we were married, he stole one of my checkbooks and starting writing himself checks out of my personal account. He also maxed out one of my credit cards.
When I found out that he was stealing money from me and forging my signature, and soon thereafter found out that he was sleeping around, I filed for divorce. In the end, we agreed that I would take most of the assets (which amounted to some kitchen appliances that I brought into the relationship, a bedroom set that was still on my credit card, and a couch, which was also still on my credit card), but the judge also told me all of the debt was my problem. The only reimbursement I was awarded (and have yet to see a penny of) was the amount that he stole from my checking account.
But you’re right…in a divorce the man always gets screwed out of everything that he has worked so hard for…and it is ALWAYS completely undeserved!
This statement is empirically false.
This. Statistics don’t work that way when applied to humans: you can influence what happens to you. Marry someone you like and love and treat them accordingly and there’s no reason to expect a divorce, just like “x% of the population are murderers” doesn’t mean that you have an x% change of murdering someone.
Yick, reminds me of this comic I saw on the Comics Curmudgeon:
The husband, watching TV, thinks about how busy his wife is with everything…and completely unironically decides that she’s neglecting him.
@Rachel: While I feel sorry for your past situation…did you not see the signs of his alcoholic ways? The longer you spend with someone, the more you see their actual self. Dating is pretty much a facade and everyone tries to “put their best look forward”. Men have this tendency of not changing So what you see at month number 2 is what you are going to get in year 5 of marriage.
I have a mixture of empathy and a “you should have known better” attitude. Why people make themselves financially vulnerable is beyond me. In what universe is it ok for me to walk into a bank and withdraw my spouses earnings? This is like handing over your passwords for everything you have and saying “I completely trust you to act exactly the way I would act”. This seems like going beyond making yourself vulnerable…it’s actively being naive and overly trusting.
If you kept paying for everything over and over and over…at what point did you say “I had enough”. Again you were under no obligation to assume all the responsibilities. You should have divorced and kicked him out at the beginning of his freeloading. You tolerated it for longer than you felt comfortable,
You enabling his freeloading makes you partially responsible for getting fleeced in the divorce. You had a choice in tolerating his behavior or not…just like I have the choice to tolerate my girlfriends bad behavior. The point is to notice the bad behavior and not tolerate it. Tolerating bad behavior from people is a sign of low self-esteem. Hopefully your current relationship is healthier.
I also never said it was ALWAYS the man. But most alimony and other forms of spousal support is paid from men to women. (97% vs 3%).
Brandon You are missing the point. The question wasn’t, “which is better”, but “are their benefits one can’t get when single, which one can by being married,”?
If you are taxed at 15 percent, and you sock away money to reduce your AGI and so your tax burden drops you are getting an advantage.
But if you are being taxed at 12 percent you can still put x dollars into your tax deferred vehicle, drop your AGI to get a lower tax rate and have more money in hand.
You get the tax break, you get the retirement bennies, and you get more money to spend on video games, high quality booze, collectibles, gold, what have you.
That is a benefit which you can’t go to a lawyer and make a parallel equivalent.
Medical POA’s and Proxies are enforceable, but that enforcement may require a court. Waiting until you can get the judge to listen doesn’t do much good when the doctors are making decisions in the here and now.
The issue of standard of living is one of ethics. Assuming rational actors one must assume both parties knew what the costs to the non-working party were, and the attendent moral obligations requesting/allowing that joint decision to be were.
Which means what you are saying is you think it moral to put one person in a position of economic disadvantage, and then abandon them.
“@Rutee: Gold bug? Hardly. I feel the same way about gold as I do about investing in Google. I think their prices will continue to increase thus generating lots of capital gains for me. You claiming that I am an idiot for thinking they are good investments makes you the idiot because you would have to be able see into the future…which you can’t. So you don’t know if I am right or you are. I can only make educated guesses with my investment money. Sometimes I lose, sometimes I win…but not even trying is even worse than failing. If I am wrong, then I wont lose much because of my stop-loss orders and I can then look for other investments.”
Dude, I didn’t say a fucking word about your investments; ever. I don’t give a shit about your investments, because I don’t care about anyone’s. Do you not remember trying to convince us all that The Gold Standard was a fantastic idea? Because it was a thing you were fucking dedicated to until me and Pecunium dismantled your bullshit.
You’ve done this kind of solipsism with everyone, where you forget what you were arguing, so when they refer back to what you said earlier you completely misread them. I don’t know if it’s malicious or not, but it’s certainly tiresome.
And… to put those numbers into perspective:
97:3 of 15 percent = 14.55 percent of men are paying spousal support.
Which you agree isn’t actually an unfair burden, because they knew what the risk was.
So again, the issue isn’t that marriage is bad, but that you don’t like it.
That you keep trying to expand your opinion to universal fact is the thing which is being disputed.
We get it, you don’t want to get married. Fine. But don’t keep expecting us to accept your claim that the institution is fundamentally flawed and there are no benefits. Certainly don’t expect us to accept that there are benefits, but only to greedy/lazy women.
You get the tax break, you get the retirement bennies, and you get more money to spend on video games, high quality booze, collectibles, gold, what have you.
Hookers and blow! Hookers and blow!
Wow, Brandon, you must be a real hit at parties. I bet all your friends confide in you. Tell me, when they do, do you tell them it’s all their fault?
Brandon –
I don’t want, or need, any sympathy, and I am certainly not going to get into the “didn’t you see this coming” debate with you because the fact is, unless you have been in an abusive relationship, you simply cannot understand it, and I would never expect that you could. And, yes, part of the fault lies with me, and I would never claim otherwise. I will point out that him literally stealing from me is not my fault. I didn’t know it was happening, and once I did, I put a stop to it. The fault lies with him and the people who allowed him to cash checks by forging my signature.
Also, I find it interesting that you respond to my personal story, but conveniently ignore my previous post.
And again, you miss the point. The point is that you are making overarching claims about marriage and divorce in an attempt to make a neat little argument for why marriage only benefits women, and why women get half of YOUR stuff in a divorce. The truth is that reality is always more complicated than a neat little one size fits all box your are trying to make it.
Also, I really like how you are always moving goal posts. My story, which you are apparently responding to, is about the division of assets and debts during a divorce…and yet you respond with some statistic about spousal support?
That’s because you are a mixture of a decent human being and a “victim-blaming doucheweasel.”
Also, from your previous comments I’m not sure “empathy” is the word you’re looking for, and if it is then I’ll be very surprised.
@Pecunium: It works even better when your income is hovering around a tax bracket. But that still doesn’t refute my point, the more money I put away in a retirement account, the less I get taxed even in my tax bracket. If I put 100 bucks every week into a retirement account I am saving 100 dollars. If I didn’t put it in a 401K, my paycheck would not be 100 dollars more, but 70-80% of 100 dollars. So I can either have 70 bucks now or save 100 dollars…that in itself is a 30% benefit. What is the tax breaks for married couples? Is it more than 20-30%?
The standard of living is a touchy issue. For myself, I wouldn’t approve of having her stay at home with the kids. She should be working and we can both pay for day care until they are old enough to go to school. It is in the best interests of the family and myself to have her continue to work before and after pregnancy. Even if her paycheck only covers day care, it is still a better idea since she won’t lose when it comes to time spent in the job market. Day care costs will go away once the kids go to school but her earning potential will increase much more if she stays working.
So having her work and only taking off the time to have the child and recuperate is far more productive and logical than having her stay at home and lose out on years of experience in the job market.
If that decision of having someone stay home is mutual, then it is not only the working person that is putting them at an economic disadvantage….the other person willingly choose to be put in that position. So they share equal responsibility for that choice.
Lastly, it’s not abandoning them since they would get 50% of the total assets since the marriage. If they both work, the amount of assets should be enough to live off of comfortably And if one person isn’t working, the assets can be used as the buffer so they can get back into the job market. And of course the non-custodial parent is paying child support.
yeah rachel have you ever considered that maybe none of that would have happened if you werent so perfect and above-it-all as brandon?
Brandon: They don’t get 50 percent of the assets. Not in contested divorces, not in non-community property states.
And you keep missing that in the second scenario, the money in your hand is greater* And you keep ignoring that this is an advantage which only accrues to someone who is married.
*don’t forget that tax deferred accounts aren’t as good a deal as direct investment. 401Ks pay tax at income tax levels, direct investment is capital gains so the larger chunk of non-taxed income in the exemption for married couples is money which can be put to a better rate of tax-deferred investment.
Part of the equal responsibility you so blithely dismiss is that the decision was joint, and the person who is providing the income for the family assumes the need to support the others in the event of the dissolution.
Most spousal support orders have clauses in them which change the payments as/if the supported spouse gains other income.
Is it hardship? Yes. But guess what… people don’t file for divorce because they are looking to live a free and easy life. They do it because the living situation is intolerable.
And the issue of spousal support is so minor, in the larger picture, that I wonder 1: that you choose to make it such a big deal and 2: keep citing a statistic in a misleading fashion when you talk about it.
I think it may go hand in hand with your consistently ignoring that we don’t care if you get married. The issue is your contention that no one should.
While I feel sorry for your past situation…did you not see the signs of his alcoholic ways?
Ye gods. “I’m sorry for you, but it was your fault.”
Brandon, if it’s so incredibly easy to predict how relationships are going, you should have a 0% chance of divorce.
@Pecunium: Ya…the spouse that gets the kids typically get more than 50%. They get the house, car, half the retirement accounts, pensions, and checking/savings accounts…and the provider is still forced to pay a mortgage for a house they don’t even live in.
Tax deferred accounts are nothing more than a regular investment account that doesn’t get taxed until retirement You can still make direct investments in anything you like: stocks, bonds, etf’s, mutual funds, etc…
When most people retire their income tax bracket is lower (since the only income they have is their retirement account) than it was when they were working. So they pay even less in taxes than capital gains tax.
I didn’t just dismiss that comment. I said that if the decision is mutual, then both parties are equality responsible.
Yes, divorce is used to get away from an intolerable situation…or they just don’t want to be married…or…they don’t love their partner anymore…or…you see were this is going.
I am just personalizing my comments. I am assuming you are talking about this paragraph:
“The standard of living is a touchy issue. For myself, I wouldn’t approve of having her stay at home with the kids. She should be working and we can both pay for day care until they are old enough to go to school. It is in the best interests of the family and myself to have her continue to work before and after pregnancy. Even if her paycheck only covers day care, it is still a better idea since she won’t lose when it comes to time spent in the job market. Day care costs will go away once the kids go to school but her earning potential will increase much more if she stays working.”
If it makes you feel better, I can re-edit it so it reads:
“The standard of living is a touchy issue. Most men, shouldn’t approve of having her stay at home with the kids. She should be working and both parties can pay for day care until they are old enough to go to school. It is in the best interests of the family and the provider of the marriage to have her continue to work before and after pregnancy. Even if her paycheck only covers day care, it is still a better idea since she won’t lose when it comes to time spent in the job market. Day care costs will go away once the kids go to school but her earning potential will increase much more if she stays working.”
Better?
I also find it interesting what women say when they are forced to pay alimony:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SuddenlySingle/WhenExHusbandsGetAlimony.aspx
Funny how when a man doesn’t want to pay it he is abandoning his wife. Yet when the roles switch, this woman in this article see’s it as her being punished not only in the marriage but after it. Why doesn’t she see it as “I can’t just abandon my ex-husband”
I also find this quote telling:
“When judges see a man asking for alimony they think, ‘What’s wrong with you?’ ” says Sandra Morgan Little, the past chairwoman of the American Bar Association’s family-law section.”
The last section “How to protect yourself” is just flat out depressing. People are spending countless hours of their lives protecting and defending what they own. If you want an example for his situation…this the difference between getting your identity stolen and scrambling to fix all the problems vs taking pro-active steps to not get your identity stolen.
Or..Trying to fix a bunch of problems because you gave someone your passwords vs never giving them your passwords so they don’t even have a chance to potentially fuck up your life.
…Brandon,
Y’know, I’m pretty anti-marriage, personally. But I’m not ignorant enough to argue that marriage doesn’t grant many, many benefits to couples who choose to go that route. Benefits that are time-consuming and difficult to duplicate in any other way.
Seriously, just because it doesn’t appeal to you, doesn’t mean it’s worthless. Trying to argue that because those benefits probably won’t apply to you and therefore they don’t really exist is kind of weird. I mean, unless you’re assuming that the world revolves around you.
Just say that you don’t plan on getting married. You don’t have to defend your decision to anyone. All the melodrama is really kind of weird, unless you really think someone is going to drag you off and force you to sign a marriage license. (If you do think that, please see someone about your paranoid delusions.)
And considereing you keep talking about all assets in a marriage as automatically belonging to the higher earning (i.e. you) partner doesn’t really help you seem less like a self-centered ass. Plus, it makes you seem like one of those jerks who would be emmasculated if his wife earned more.
Hello, class. Welcome to Being A Decent Human Being 101. Today we will be covering Are Abusive Relationships In Any Way The Victim’s Fault?
NO.
Well, that was a short class.
There are lots of reasons people stay in abusive relationships! Helpfully, some people on the Internet have written whole guides about why people stay in abusive relationships:
http://issendai.livejournal.com/572510.html.
http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-does-she-stay-with-that-jerk.html.
For people who are too lazy to click on links:
–There are good parts. Abusers can be sweet, romantic, kind, wonderful, charming people– and still abusers. Abusers can even do wonderful things for people– paying off their student loans, bailing them out of jail, staying with them when they flunk out of school.
–People love their abusers, and it is not easy to leave a relationship with someone you love.
–Abuse survivors are often too tired and busy trying to maintain the relationship to think if they want to be in it.
–Abuse survivors may have hope that the situation will get better in the future. Abusers are manipulative like that! “It’s only until I get a new job… a new house… the kid gets back to school…”
–Abuse survivors may have their self-esteem systematically broken down by their abusers enough that they think abuse is what they deserve.
–Abusers may control every aspect of the abuse survivor’s life so it is impossible for them to leave.
–The abuse survivor may think it’s not that bad, because if it was that bad someone would have noticed, or because it was just jokes, or because they deserve it. The abuser may even convince the abuse survivor that the survivor is the one abusing the abuser!
–The abuse survivor may be embarassed– possibly because of fuckheads like you– that they were stupid enough to get involved in an abusiver relationship.
–The abuse survivor think that abuse is just how relationships work, because they’ve never been in a non-abusive relationship.
–Abuse survivors may be dependent on their abuser for food or shelter.
–Abusers may be dependent on the abuse survivor for food or shelter or emotional support, and the survivor can’t bear to leave the abuser homeless or even dead.
–Previous escape attempts may have led to people saying “don’t make such a fuss, it was just a fight, don’t use big words like abuse” or to punishment from the abuser.
–Abuse survivors may have children and don’t want to leave their children with an abusive parent.
–Abusers may threaten to murder survivors if they leave.
Brandon, do you assume that all abusive relationships are obviously abusive right from the start? Because even the least observant person will notice the person they just had a first date with is a bad person if they get punched on the nose that first date. And that simply does not happen in abusive relationships.
Brandon: It’s not better. It’s exactly the same.
You aren’t personalising your comments, you are generalising your opinons, as if they were facts applicable to all.
As to you assertion on the division of assets… guess what… You are wrong.
What state do you live in? Is it a community property state (there are 10), or an equitable division state?
Asset division in divorce
Equitable Distribution
Equitable distribution is considered to be a fair (but not always equal) distribution of all the marital property and assets. Typically, the spouse with the higher income will receive a larger portion of the distribution based on the assumption that they contribution more financially to the union. Equitable distributions are used in all states except community property states.
When it comes to alimony:Alimony
When one spouse has given up earning potential in order to raise the children, the other spouse needs to compensate him or her. Judges grant alimony by considering such things as:
* How long the couple was married
* How much each spouse is capable of earning (earning potential)
* Ages of any children they may have and how much each parent has contributed to raising them
* The age of each spouse
* How mentally and physically healthy they are
* How the property was divided
* Whether one spouse contributed to the education of the other
* What each brought into the marriage
* Any marital misconduct, fault, fraud, violence, etc. that either spouse may have committed
The women who cavil at paying spousal support are no better than men who do so.
@tawaen: While I personally think marriage has no value, that doesn’t mean others don’t see value in it. What I am trying to point out is that marriage is slowly dying as fewer and fewer people place any value on those benefits. They might be benefits, but as more time passes, people have seem to look at those benefits with indifference. If they are looking at it with indifference, than is it really a benefit?
I am not defending my decision to not marry. I will do what I want and I don’t need anyone’s approval or validation. I am trying to make the point that marriage is a dying, antiquated institution that serves less and less importance as time goes on.
Have you read my above comment about not letting her stay at home because it opens me up for alimony payments and is detrimental to her because she would lose years of experience in the job market? My girlfriend earns about the same as me. Sometimes she earns more because of overtime…I don’t feel emasculated at all. That just means more money to spend on each other and save for a vacation.
Some of the comments here constantly try and say that getting married is as simple as paying 100 bucks and just drop by city hall and wham! you get all the benefits. But who actually does that? Most people spend a healthy chunk of their earnings on paying for a wedding. There is the reception, church costs, wedding hall, food, DJ or band, booze (if open bar), formal wear for the wedding party, flowers, and on and on and on depending on how extravagant the wedding is. My fathers rather simple wedding still cost him 15K. Fifteen thousand dollars for a party…talk about a waste of money. Oh, and lets not forget the honeymoon.
Let’s not forget the MONTHS of planning some couples do to create the perfect wedding. It took my stepmother 7 months just to get everything the way she wanted it. Plus she was basically a nervous wreck when time got closer to “the day”. That can’t be good for your health.
I see so many other things that that money can be used for. College, down payment on a house, get job certifications, get a more reliable car, etc… All of these examples are assets while paying for the cost of a wedding is throwing money down the tubes. It won’t give you more job skills or make it easier to earn more money….it is nothing but pure needless extravagance.
I don’t really care what people spend their own money on…but the above is to point out that marriage and weddings practically go hand in hand. So while marriages might be be cheap the wedding that will most likely follow isn’t.
Anyways, that is enough for today. Ashley just got here and I am taking her out for a little fun.
Brandon: What they need to do (pay the 100 bucks and see the magistrate) and what they choose to do are not at all related.
But you are willing to make moralising statements insulting those choices too.
So, you primarily object to weddings, then, not marriage.
Because nothing you’ve said has proven that marriage is a “dying, antiquated institution.” Denying the benefits exist doesn’t prove that marriage is dying. If you wanted to prove that, then you could cite the increase in co-habitation without marriage. Now that women are capable of providing for themselves, they don’t need to be married to someone for basic living conditions.
Of course, that doesn’t prove that marriage is dying, either, but at least it is topical to social trends, rather than why you personally feel marriage is a bad deal.
I have mentioned those things in previous comments tawaen. Later
“Some of the comments here constantly try and say that getting married is as simple as paying 100 bucks and just drop by city hall and wham! you get all the benefits. But who actually does that? Most people spend a healthy chunk of their earnings on paying for a wedding. There is the reception, church costs, wedding hall, food, DJ or band, booze (if open bar), formal wear for the wedding party, flowers, and on and on and on depending on how extravagant the wedding is. My fathers rather simple wedding still cost him 15K. Fifteen thousand dollars for a party…talk about a waste of money. Oh, and lets not forget the honeymoon.”
Brandon, I addressed this several pages ago. You might want to go read it.
Uhm…
/raises hand
Twice!
Um…some of the judges have a wedding a day at my work at $80 a pop. The brides sometimes wear nice clothes and the vast majority of them are not pre-weddings to have big fancy ones later. That means that there are 5 couples a week (actually it is more like five couples a day) that have zero interest in spend $15,000 for a perfect wedding.
Maybe your family wanted to have a geewhiz wedding but not everyone does. Hell my wedding reception will be at the beach because Costco has hot dogs at 50 a pack for $13. Plus the guests can go swim in the ocean and I do not have to be all entertainy.
I thought you loved your girlfriend and that your relationship was even closer than a stale, sexless marriage? I hope she’s OK with your implicit decision to walk out on her, whenever you feel like it.
Will her best interests ever factor into this?
Will she, in fact, even make the decision?
While I personally think marriage has no value, that doesn’t mean others don’t see value in it.
Yeah! Other people are free to do something that I know is totally idiotic!
Statistics don’t bear that out.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127234&page=1
I have mentioned those things in previous comments tawaen. Later
Yeah, and it was all refuted by other commenters. You just said it didn’t apply to your circumstances, and then ignored their data.
So, as the universe doesn’t revolve around you, it seems like you haven’t proven anything. Except that you’re kind of a whiny, self-centered brat.
We spent about $1500 on our wedding, including.rings, tux, and wedding dress.
Quakers spend… 250-1,500. Depends on how many people are invited to the potluck.
my parents got married in their backyard. my dad wore a blazer. my mom wore a sundress. a convenience store did the catering. they could have afforded to spend more, they just didnt feel the need to.
Some friends of mine just did that about two weeks ago – actually, pretty much exactly two weeks ago. They got married at city hall then had a backyard potluck party. It was awesome.
We got married in a bar. We paid a Unitarian minister $300 to do the ceremony and spent about 2K on catering. People bought their own drinks from the bar (which is how they made money) and my parents bought a case or two of prosecco for toasts. My dress cost about $100 and I’ve actually worn it a few times since then. It was a lot of fun and about what a party where you serve food to 60 people costs.
But as a woman, I’d clearly do or say anything to get onto that gravy train, amirite, ladies?
Oh, and VoIP just covered it upthread, but really – you would let your GF quit working to look after the children? You wouldn’t allow her to not have an income? Why do all of your statements assume that you are the sole subject and arbiter of all decisions?
Seems to me what you object to is not marriage but any situation in which you are not in total control. That must make you one swell boyfriend!
@Voip: The problem is that not all decisions are mutual all the time. I don’t think it would be good for me, her or the family if she became a stay at home mother because she would lose out on years in the job market. I think that is in the best interests of everyone. She might see differently, and she is completely free to make up her own mind. The decision that she ultimately makes while determine my course of action. I have no business telling or ordering her what to do. The only person I can control is myself.
So your notion that I am controlling my girlfriend is completely wrong. I let her make her own choices and if one of them is a dealbreaker for the relationship, then I walk. Life is short, I am not going to stay in a relationship that I don’t want to be in or doesn’t fit my lifestyle. It is better for me and it is better for her. I can go find a woman that wants to work and she can find a guy that doesn’t mind or likes the idea of her staying at home. Why settle for a win-lose when you can get a win-win?
@cynickal: Ya, what is your point? My life is not a headline for a news station. Also, married couples can only have sex with their partners. I tend to live a polyamous life so most times I have multiple partners.
@Katz: That has to be the dumbest thing you have said so far. I dislike the wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan…that doesn’t mean I dislike our soldiers (in fact it is the complete opposite). It is perfectly legitimate to dislike a system or institution but not dislike it’s participants.
—————————-
What percentage of people are Quakers? Everyone is constantly bringing up the exceptions to the rule…that doesn’t negate the actual rule. And that rule is most people get married AND have a rather expensive wedding AND go out and buy overpriced diamond rings. This is the norm.
So here I am talking about the cost of getting married and everything that goes with it (which 95% of the time includes a ring and a wedding). And you are saying “HEY you can just go down to city hall, pay a hundred bucks and your done.” This seems eerily similar in concept to “Hey, you don’t have to get married and most of the benefits can be duplicated with multiple contracts”
You know what they both have in common? They are both alternatives to the social norm of getting marred.
“Also, married couples can only have sex with their partners. I tend to live a polyamous life so most times I have multiple partners. ”
Sorry, dude, you strike me as the type of guy whose other partners don’t know about your polyamousness.
@HellKell: Some do some don’t. Right now I am in a committed relationship so my GF knows my past. Girls that I have hooked up with, I don’t feel that it is any of their business what I do.
Ah, got it. Just a garden-variety cheater.
@HellKell: How does hooking up = cheater? If I am in a committed relationship, I am faithful (otherwise why be committed). If I am not in a committed relationship, then I date around.
Are you just trying to find insults on the flimsiest pretenses?
Also, married couples can only have sex with their partners. I tend to live a polyamous life so most times I have multiple partners.
Married people have sex outside their marriages all the time. The question is if their partners know and are okay with it. So long as there’s consent on all sides, I don’ care. No consent, big problem. If a person can’t handle monogamy or can’t get up the chutzpah to tell their partner, they’re breaking promises. And, if you like, the implied contract of marriage.
@KathleenB: Again another exception to the rule (mainly cheaters and swingers). If I took a survey of married women and asked “Would you be ok with your husband was sleeping with other women but informing you of it?” How many would say “Yes”. I doubt many would.
While there are exceptions, marriage is practically synonymous with monogamy.
Why do you give a fuck what other people are doing? Your girlfriend (Who I can just feel the love for) is the only one with an opinion on your sleeping around that matters for your relationship. Just because you aren’t married doesn’t mean there isn’t implied monogamy in this culture; if the only reason you think you don’t have to tell her you’re fucking around is that there’s no rings, you’re an asshat (I’m not entirely willing to rule out stupid, I suppose). If she’s okay with an open marriage, your marriage can be open. If she doesn’t want an expensive wedding either (Which is entirely possible, if she’s okay with no marriage ever), you could just have a cheap one. What everyone does is irrelevant (And not everyone has an expensive marriage; there are too many poor people for that, you ignoramus), compared to what you do in your relationship.
None of this matters, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that you don’t really want a close relationship with someone else, and that’s fine too, just… don’t tell us you’ve only got a problem with marriage and with a wife who isn’t employed outside the home (Because believe me, a stay at home mom? She works. A lot.)
@Rutee: 1) I am not cheating on my girlfriend 2) I was talking about having multiple partners while you WEREN’T in a committed relationship.
So lets wrap this up shall we:
Committed relationship = monogamy = cheating is bad
Just dating = not restricted to monogamy = cheating doesn’t really exist since there is no commitment.
Are you implying my girlfriend is cheap because she doesn’t want a to get married? I almost feel like I should be defending her honor based on that comment…but this is the Internet, so it’s kind of pointless. But I do take offense to your implications of no marriage = cheap.
“Expensive” is relative. A millionaire spending 10 grand on a wedding could be seen as cheap. While someone working as a manager at McDonalds making 30K a year is spending excessively at 10 grand.
I don’t really know what YOU think is a close relationship…but I have a close relationship with my GF and both of us are happy.
When did I EVER say that stay at home mothers don’t work? Certain parts are easy (like filling a dishwasher) and others are amazingly difficult (raising children).
You are putting words in my mouth and then getting upset over it. You are creating and fighting your own strawmen.
the dude whos spent pages and pages setting up this fantasy version of marriage just for the purpose of knocking it down, who sticks his fingers in his ear and screams ‘i cant hear you’ whenever someone points out from experience that his conception of marriage isnt universal, that dude is now complaining about someone else creating a strawman? lol.
@Sharculese: What fantasy version of marriage? People are waiting longer to marry, less people are getting married and divorce rates are about 50-50. What part of that is fantasy?
With fewer people getting married year after year, what would you say is the main cause of that?
Girls that I have hooked up with, I don’t feel that it is any of their business what I do.
Well, like everyone should, I hope you have conversations about STIs and use protection!
@Comrade: Condoms every time!
no you goon, the parade of horribles that person after person has told you didnt happen in their weding and marriage while you come up with new excuses for why you know more about marriage than people who have been married
are you even paying attention anymore or are you just objecting for the sake of objecting
My point is, you’re wrong. Married couples have more sex than single people.
Period.
I just surveyed a poly person, she doesn’t have more sex than a married person.
So, you’re wrong again.
Studies show you’re wrong, anecdotes say you’re wrong….
Just admit you’re wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
:D
Hyu keep schayink dat vord, hy don’t tink it means vhat hyu beleeve eet meens.
“Are you implying my girlfriend is cheap because she doesn’t want a to get married? I almost feel like I should be defending her honor based on that comment…but this is the Internet, so it’s kind of pointless. But I do take offense to your implications of no marriage = cheap.”
No, actually, if it came off that way I do sincerely apologize. I meant precisely what I said; she probably doesn’t have big dreams of an expensive marriage if she’s okay with you not marrying her. That’s fine. I don’t have dreams of an expensive marriage, as such, either. I don’t think that makes anyone cheap, and for that matter I don’t think it makes them anything else either. Wanting a big to do for a marriage means, to me, you want a big to do for a marriage.
“@Sharculese: What fantasy version of marriage? People are waiting longer to marry, less people are getting married and divorce rates are about 50-50. What part of that is fantasy?”
The parts where that means that 50% of extant married couples *right now* will get divorced, the part where you claim marriage is dying (Losing primacy, mercifully, but hardly dying)….
“With fewer people getting married year after year, what would you say is the main cause of that?”
Considering how much of that decline comes in very recent years… I’m going to just hazard a guess and say “crushing economic depression”
““Expensive” is relative. A millionaire spending 10 grand on a wedding could be seen as cheap. While someone working as a manager at McDonalds making 30K a year is spending excessively at 10 grand.”
Uh, okay, but you can have one for 0 dollars if you’re sufficiently poor, and less than 200 otherwise. I don’t give a fuck what you consider expensive; it’s not necessary unless 200 dollars is expensive and you’re unfortunately not poor enough to qualify for indigent services. You don’t have to have a big to do. Only your family can exert any pressure to the contrary.
@Sharcules: You do realize that this site has a particular demographic that is attracted to it. Thus from a statistical perspective, one can only say that the people HERE have not had an expensive marriage/wedding. This says nothing of the general population. So while you might be correct within this particular sub-culture (gender studies, feminism). Most men and women do not label themselves as feminists or visit these kinds of websites. So the commenters here are a relatively small sample size compared to the rest of the planet.
You haven’t even answered my question. Which was what do you think the reasons why there is a decline in marriage?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-18/fewer-getting-married-as-people-say-it-s-obsolete.html
Marriage rates declined 22 percent from 1960’s and 68% of people in their twenties were married compared to 26% in 2010.
It seems my hypothesis is far more accurate and logical. Marriage is dying.
@Cynickal: You quoted one study and questioned one woman….that doesn’t really seem conclusive. At least marriage rates can be counted because there is paperwork that can be checked…people can lie when asked questions like “how many times are you having sex with your partner every week?”.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jan09/surveys.lying.mw.html
Summary: People lie on surveys because it boosts their ego and makes them feel good.
This is why you look at people’s behavior and not what they say.
So you’re emotionally blackmailing her. That’s. Just. Swell.
So when a survey agrees with you it’s well done, but when they disagree with you all the methodologies and standards used to eliminate bias are wrong.
Got it.
I’ll be publishing this in Psychology Today. I’m sure it’ll pass peer review.
http://tinyurl.com/ckbytm
Brandon, the solution is simple: marry a feminist woman, who wants to work outside the home, have a low-key and inexpensive wedding, have an open and honest marriage, share responsibilities (for breadwinning and housework and childcare) equally, etc. I’m not saying all feminists would fit that bill, but some certainly would, and you only need to find one woman who is all of these things.
Brandon: The cost of getting married is that of the license, and the fee to the officiant.
That’s it. Everything else is optional.
People choose to spend that money, the same way you choose to not get married.
You know not having a big ceremony and duplicating all the things that happen when one gets married don’t have in common?
One can be done, and the other can’t.
re your sexual morals. I presume you only have non-condom sex with women whom you have told about your most recent partners, and shown the results of your most recent STD panels. I presume, you inform them of any risky behaviors you have engaged in (sex with someone who is HSV positve, etc.).
So lets wrap this up shall we:
Committed relationship = monogamy = cheating is bad
No. Cheating is bad. Cheating is violating the terms of one’s relationship with one’s partner. Implied terms may apply (see above about informed consent to risky behaviors).
There are a lot of poly-people on this board (e.g. me, Ozy, Holly, Molly). We have sex with more than one person. All the people involved know we do this. What levels of disclosure about whom/when is between us and our partners. If we break those rules, we are cheating.
I’ll be publishing this in Psychology Today. I’m sure it’ll pass peer review.
http://tinyurl.com/ckbytm
Dude, no. It’s not cool to do this shit.
“It seems my hypothesis is far more accurate and logical. Marriage is dying. ”
Your conclusion doesn’t really follow the evidence. The logical conclusion to your evidence, if completely accurate, is that people are getting married later. It doesn’t follow from that that marriage is dying. It’s losing primacy, mercifully, but… dying is you trying to give yourself a feel good by saying it’s true.
I support buying gold for one reason and it has nothing to do with Glenn Beck. Gold is maintaining it’s purchasing power while the US dollar is becoming worthless. Why would I hold on to ever increasingly worthless money when I can prevent my savings from going down the drain?
Protip: No, the dollar is not becoming worthless. Inflation is stable and historically low. The dollar may be dropping relative to the yuan, but that’s been coming for 30 years (more like 750, if you take the long view). Similarly, the dollar may be dropping relative to oil, but there’s massive fluctuation in that. The dollar is weakening in certain respects, but it is NOT becoming worthless.
Seriously, the number of people who believe this continues to stagger me. Do you buy bread? Did you buy your last loaf with a single, small-number bill, roughly the same as the amount you spent last time? Welcome to a stable currency.
@Voip: How is that even remotely “emotional blackmail”? You seem to have a problem with selective reading. Did you not read the rest of that paragraph? Well here it is:
“Life is short, I am not going to stay in a relationship that I don’t want to be in or doesn’t fit my lifestyle. It is better for me and it is better for her. I can go find a woman that wants to work and she can find a guy that doesn’t mind or likes the idea of her staying at home. Why settle for a win-lose when you can get a win-win?”
What is the alternative when we have a disagreement? Do I just not express myself, agree with her and live a life I don’t want to live? That would make me miserable and her as well. How is that even remotely healthy for either of us?
@Cynickal: Asking one woman her opinion does not make a survey. The link I provided was an article mentioning data from the recent US Census…as in ALL Americans which equals huge amounts of data…not just one person. Also that link about married couples having more sex for some reason isn’t working…I tried it in IE, Firefox and Chrome and everything loads but the video.
@Comrade: Marry a feminist? What do I look like as sadomasochist? I fight the world enough as it is, I don’t want to go home and and fight about gender relations. I want to make my self some dinner and relax a bit before I get up and do it all over again.
@Pecunium: Everything is optional…including actually getting married. I spend time with my GF, we look after each other, help each other, try and accomplish our goals together…I just can’t see how marriage can make that arrangement any better. Why spoil a good thing? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! And I think over time, more and more people (mostly men) will come to the same conclusion I have.
I always use condoms…there isn’t a time where I don’t. Last thing I want is a STD. My past partners are none of anyone’s business. I am sure if I was asking a woman about her past lovers as a way to judge her, I would be seen as some misogynist. So I expect the same back from women. Fair is fair.
Yes, cheating is bad when you are in a committed relationship…this is exactly what this means: Committed relationship = monogamy = cheating is bad.
I tell women my lifestyle and if they are uncomfortable with it, they do not have to continue spending time with me.
@Rutee: Straight from the Census:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0129.pdf
Right were it says “Rate per 1000 population”. In 1990, 9.8 per 1000 married. Now in 2008 it is 5.4 per thousand. So in 18 years the total amount of marriages in the US dropped roughly 45%.
I bet it won’t even take another 18 years for it to drop another 45%. 18 years isn’t that long…in fact, I doubt if you have any children younger than 5, their generation will only remember marriage as “something from my grandparents and parents time”.
@Erl: Inflation happens when the money supply is increased. Which is exactly what Bernanke and Congress did with QE1 and QE2.
Prices haven’t increased? Are you kidding me? Just look at the CPI and you can see month after month increases in food, medical costs, clothing, transportation, etc…
The Yuan? The dollar is sinking amongst practically every currency trading. Gold and other precious metals are increasing in price compared to the dollar.
http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=0&chdd=0&chds=0&chdv=1&chvs=Linear&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1314577742399&chddm=2744769&cmpto=CURRENCY:USDGBP;CURRENCY:USDJPY;CURRENCY:USDCHF;CURRENCY:USDAUD;CURRENCY:USDCAD;CURRENCY:USDINR&cmptdms=0;0;0;0;0;0&q=CURRENCY:USDEUR&ntsp=0
Weakening just equals “on it’s way to become worthless”. The government might stabilize the dollar. But even still, what percentage of worth and value has to be given away for it to stabilize? 20%? 50%?
Food is rising due to natural disasters, transport due to rising fuel costs, clothing due to fuel and labor, and medical costs due to fucked up health policy. None of that is inflation.
@Orion: Yes, those also contribute to rising costs. But no matter how you look at it, when you increase the supply of money (which IS what the government did), then inflation will happen unless they decrease the amount of money in circulation.
The government basically printed up billions of new dollars and sent them out into the world. This by the law of supply and demand makes each one of our dollars worth less than before. Hence inflation.