About these ads

First comes feminism, then comes marriage

Every feminist girl’s fondest dream.

What do feminists want? Equal work for equal pay? An end to sexual violence? A new album from Le Tigre? Nope. According to the dude behind the still-awkwardly named Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, what they really want is to GET THE RING and get hitched up to some nice man they can happily exploit. Yep, feminists love marriage more than almost anything. Why? Because getting married is the necessary first step towards getting a nice, profitable divorce. Mr. PMAFT explains:

Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong.  Feminism is dependent on marriage and family.  Without it, feminism would collapse.  When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.

But …

Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?”  … [T]his represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is.  A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism.  The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women. 

Um, I’m pretty sure that the traditionalists are not eating in the same cafeteria as the “cafeteria feminists.” But PMAFT is on a roll:

The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such.  They have no interest in living in lesbian communes. They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want.  If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce.  Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men.  …  Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.

Huh, because most of the feminists I know, oh, never mind.

This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism.  Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.

I’m pretty sure most feminist women will get along just fine even if they can’t marry you.

 

About these ads

Posted on May 4, 2012, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, antifeminst women, evil women, marriage strike, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men. Bookmark the permalink. 196 Comments.

  1. vindicare: The default way to collect debts is property seizure.

    But it’s not debt that lands someone who is refusing to pay spousal/child support into jail.

    It’s that the payments are court ordered.

    The default way to deal with violations of court orders is to put the offender in jail for contempt of court. For some types of contempt (refusal to testify) the term is indefinite.

    It happens that, in all jurisdictions I know of, the orders are amendable. It also happens that, unlike most contempt of court citations/punishments, the trigger isn’t immediate. One has to refuse to both pay; and refuse to seek relief for inability, to rack up the level of contempt (which you are so blithely pretending is simple debt), which causes the courts to consider jail.

    That so many people who have been ordered to pay spousal support/child support have refused to do either of those things is why legislatures have codified it. This is as much to relieve the pressures on the court system when someone is in egregious violation as it is to encourage people to obey the orders of the court.

    It’s not debt, it’s violation of a court order. It’s violation of a court order which was made in the interest of a third parties health and well being.

  2. Are MRAs still giving out about child support payments? Hey guys, how about not having unprotected sex. Bet ya never thought of that one. ;)

    *departs on rainbow propelled unicorn*

  3. But Joanna… you forgot the semen-jacking sperm-burglars.

  4. “But Joanna… you forgot the semen-jacking sperm-burglars.”

    Oh right… em lock your doors and don’t walk down any dark alleys. =)

  5. I’d really like to see a cite for all this law Slavey is claiming exists. Doesn’t even have to be a link, just a statute or case citation, in any US state, that says what he appears to believe “the law” says. Bluebook for preference, but anything identifying the statute or decision will do.

    Or a rational explanation of why such a cite doesn’t exist, aside from what I’m pretty sure the real reason is.

    Slavey:

    @Lady Zombie
    “And as many of the folks here have proven, men aren’t being tossed in jail right and left for non-child support payments. They have opportunity to advise the court of unemployment, etc., and it takes several months for the court to come after non-paying fathers.

    So I don’t get it.”

    If men got default custody and women had to fight for equal custody, only to go into massive debt while losing 84% of the time. And the federal guv gave millions of dollars to every state to collect, (the more women tossed in debtors prison the more money each state gets from big daddy). Would ya get it then? I’ll bet all you’d equality feminists would be screaming bloody murder.

    Like, I mean, that’s not even a response. That would have fit equally well and been equally relevant after any other paragraph on this thread, or ever published in English for that matter.

    @JohnA
    “Besides, is not the insolence of officers, and soldiers, and seamen, in the army and navy, as mischievous as that of porters, or of sailors in the merchant service? Are not riots, raised and made by armed men, as bad, as those by unarmed ? Is not an assault upon a civil officer, and a rescue of a prisoner from lawful authority, made by soldiers with swords or bayonets, as bad, as if made by tradesmen with staves?”

    If men got default custody and women had to fight for equal custody, only to go into massive debt while losing 84% of the time. And the federal guv gave millions of dollars to every state to collect, (the more women tossed in debtors prison the more money each state gets from big daddy). Would ya get it then? I’ll bet all you’d equality feminists would be screaming bloody murder.

    See? Just as applicable

  6. Actually, yeah. Slavey, post to this thread anytime in 2012 a reference clear and specific enough that I can find the currently applicable statute or court decision establishing in its language any of the following:
    * Domestic violence laws protect woman and only women from men and only men
    * A man calling a woman names is domestic violence by definition
    * Women are allowed to force men to have sex
    * A woman is legally permitted to have her husband removed from their home without presenting evidence of cause, and a man does not have this right with respect to his wife.

    I will read the statutes and decisions you identify (provided you do identify anything specific enough to find) and, if they say any of this things, I will say so. If you find something that you think fits, but doesn’t, you can try again, as often as David will let you, until 11:59 pm CST, December 31st, 2012.

  7. Unimaginative

    Pfffft! Hershele Ostropoler, didn’t you read Zarat? FACTS don’t need no stinkin’ citations. Having citations is a clear indication that you’re making shit up, you feminazi.

    Oh my freaking god, my new macbook is autocorrecting my every fucking word. I’m kinda wanting my old one back, cracks and beachballing and all.

  8. No no, that’s just Zarat. Slaveboy is the one who says that facts from an outside source are less factual than facts you get from your own brain.

    That’s why the only reason I’m not staking anything more than reputation is that I’m also the judge of this little contest, and that’s a clear conflict of interest. I don’t expect him to come up with anything.

    But I want to know if there is anything, so I can write my representatives. Two of whom are female, come to think of it.

  9. Argenti Aertheri

    “facts you get from your own brain” o.O? how is that….definitions please! *head esplodes*

    and Unimaginative, I would think being able to load these threads without beachballing is worth the autocorrect, but then again, I can’t afford to replace my macbook…dented scratched up case and all

    …also, NWOslave is a clown loach I’ve decided — he does lots of things he things are special to get attention, but really, it’s just the same backflip over and over again, though it remains kind of amusing to watch…

  10. Argenti Aertheri

    oh and Hershele, depending where you live rape may be defined such that a penis is required, in which case no, women can’t commit legal rape…of course, I’ve yet to meet the feminist who doesn’t think that law needs updating. I could find you legalese implying “Women are allowed to force men to have sex” though, in 5 min flat. (point here is you might not want to challenge NWO to go find old laws still on the books, it’s pretty simple….or is that your point? that he’s not going to bother in any case?)

  11. Fish insults? I leave for a day and everyone gets body snatched by Captain Haddock?!! o.O

  12. “Currently applicable,” Argenti. In my state the relevant law refers to “sexual intercourse” — PIV — but says the victim is the nonconsenting party regardless of the genders involved.

    But yeah, I don’t really expect him to take me up on it. The benefit of vague, unspecified laws is that they say whatever he wants to rail against, and I don’t think he’ll want to ruin that.

  13. Anyway, I didn’t say it has to not be rape, I said it has to not be a crime at all.

  14. Argenti Aertheri

    yeah I’m pretty sure all the states I can think of would still count it as assault, no matter how ancient and fucked up the sexual assault/rape laws — I certainly wasn’t trying to agree with NWO that it isn’t a crime and that feminists would never make it one >.<

    Good luck if he does take you up on the offer though, as you hit the nail on the head with "The benefit of vague, unspecified laws is that they say whatever he wants to rail against, and I don’t think he’ll want to ruin that." (lol, do I need to prepare a defense for how hitting the nail on the head isn't about hating men?) — wonder what NWO will say when he realizes that not only do DV laws protect men too, but they even protect men from other men cuz gay relationships, they happen, and are sometimes abusive…he doesn’t actually do the critical thinking thing though does he?

  15. Unimaginative

    wonder what NWO will say when he realizes that not only do DV laws protect men too

    NWO will never admit to realizing any such thing. Evidence that doesn’t agree with his worldview is misinterpreted, twisted, dismissed, or completely ignored.

  16. Argenti Aertheri

    Yeah I need to remember where I’m posting too, why would evidence not be treated as twisting citations, given BRAIN FACTS! and all >.<

    And on that note — Hershele, I was mostly being pedantic, my apologies if my comment about legalese came off as saying that women should be allowed to force men to have sex with them, I was snarking at badly written laws, not agreeing with NWO — small wonder that any not clear comment would be taken as potentially in bad faith though, when presenting evidence just gets it ignored or twisted….how is anyone supposed to debate with that?

  17. I’m not aware of any state in the US that still limits rape to male perpetrators only. Many states have adopted some variation of the Model Penal Code, which instead of ‘rape’ has varying degrees of ‘sexual assault’.

  18. Argenti Aertheri

    mythago — I’m thinking of PA here, which doesn’t explicitly say male perpetrators only, but is badly worded enough it could, and probably was intended to back when it was written — I was amazed when I actually read it though, having grown up in a Model Penal Code state. Also, rape-by-object is deviant sexual intercourse, as is oral or anal….they’ve not managed to stop calling anal sex deviant yet >.< (by my reading, rape by envelopment *could* be legal rape here, but it's not remotely clear enough that NWO couldn't twist it to exclude that possibility….but it's moot, it's certainly some form of assault in all 50 states)

    shorter version? it'd be really nice if all 50 states would adopt the Model Penal Code on this one, but the one I'm living in currently hasn't yet…I was being excessively pedantic for the context, I should know not to snark at badly worded laws with trolls afoot.

  19. Pecunium, while it’s true that only failing to obey a court order to pay child support can be punished (I didn’t write anything else!), child support debts are debts. Otherwise for example, they wouldn’t accumulate while you are in prison and can’t pay them (incarceration is considered ‘voluntary unemployment’ in quite a few states)

  20. A court can summon me to a ‘debtor interrogatory’ where I have to explain my situation. I have to obey that order, if I don’t appear or don’t give the requested information I can be jailed for contempt of court.

    Do you mean a “debtor examination”? Normally an “interrogatory” is a written question, but maybe you live in a state with odd terminology. (And yes, if you disobey the court’s order, you can be found in contempt of court. Failing to obey a court order = contempt, pretty much everywhere.)

    Property seizure is a distant second to garnishment of wages, if you have them (it’s much easier to spend money than to sell your property and turn it into money) – but if you don’t have property, particularly if you’ve hidden it away.

    And no, child support isn’t particularly different. If you have a court order requiring me to reimburse you for your car, and I say “I don’t have money and no job,” I am disobeying the court order.

    Again, as has been pointed out by others, you can seek modification of a child-support order, and as *I* said, there should be more help for NCPs whose failure to pay child support stems from actually having no job and no money, rather than “I don’t want to pay it” or “My foreman pays me cash under the table.”.

  21. But how do I get this court order?

    The answer is: I can’t. Unless you enter a payment plan.

    That’s the difference.

  22. Argenti Aertheri

    Um, Vindicare? You know you entered a payment plan with the credit card company you owe and the car loan company etc etc….*all* debts are a result of non-payment per a payment plan, so wtf was your point there? If you mean to refer to mythago’s example of “If you have a court order requiring me to reimburse you for your car” then you enter a payment plan by successfully suing the person who should be reimbursing you for your car (and yes, you could get one of those payment plans if someone totally your car and neither car insurance would cover it)

  23. Argenti Aertheri

    blarg, totally there should be totaled, and I should go to bed >.<

  24. I suppose this is another incident where I am apparently not actually a feminist because I have no interest in marriage. I mean, if feminism was all about wanting to get divorced because we want to be lazy, wouldn’t we have never fought for the right to work and simply focused on the right to divorce? That way we could get married at age 18, deal with it for a few years, and then get alimony forever. That’s what we would do if we were really just after vaginamoney. Isn’t it funny that one of our issues is sexist hiring processes and wanting a fair shot at employment? That doesn’t sound like the desire to be lazy and collect vaginamoney to me.

  25. Vindicare: Pecunium, while it’s true that only failing to obey a court order to pay child support can be punished (I didn’t write anything else!)

    Yes, you did. You said Yes, but the question is: Why is it normally a constitutional right that you can’t be punished for not being able to pay your debts but with the exception of not being able to pay child support/alimony?

    Putting yourself in a state where you can’t pay your debts can ruin people’s lives who are not your child or spouse, too! I can accept that child support debts are privileged, but why alimony debts?[emphasis in original]

    Not the least mention of a court order in that, just an assertion that child/spousal support debts are a special category of debt, instead of a normal category of court order.

    child support debts are debts. Otherwise for example, they wouldn’t accumulate while you are in prison and can’t pay them (incarceration is considered ‘voluntary unemployment’ in quite a few states)

    Of course the court order continues while one is in jail. It’s not a fine, which one can pay off at a given rate of exhange (x time in jail = y dollars of fine), it’s an attempt by the courts to compel compliance; just as with any other contempt of process (e.g. refusal to testify).

    But how do I get this court order?

    The answer is: I can’t. Unless you enter a payment plan.

    That’s the difference.

    What difference?

    The court has decided on a remedy, just as with any other civil proceeding. Not at all different; from a legal standpoint.

    You seem to want to make it different, from a moral one, with the child/spousal support treated as less important than a simple case of property damage/loss; even though the harm from default is greater.

    Why?

  26. I succumbed to the temptation to reply to you again.

    If people were rational, they would just inform themselves, every lazy ass can look it up, that child support debts are privileged.

    Go there and read, for example, the Maryland Constitution:

    http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/43const/html/03art3.html

    SEC. 38. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, but a valid decree of a court of competent jurisdiction or agreement approved by decree of said court for the support of a spouse or dependent children, or for the support of an illegitimate child or children, or for alimony (either common law or as defined by statute), shall not constitute a debt within the meaning of this section

    You’ll find that in the constitution of other states, too.

    Not the least mention of a court order in that, just an assertion that child/spousal support debts are a special category of debt, instead of a normal category of court order.

    You are quoting the wrong post. I meant this one. “It’s like if I entered a payment plan: child support payments are court orders.”

    So, child support debts are privileged in that sense that a court order to pay them can be imposed against your will.

    Unless I voluntarily enter a court ordered payment plan my debts don’t become court orders and I can’t be thrown in jail for not paying them. Is that so hard to understand?

    (and yes, you could get one of those payment plans if someone totally your car and neither car insurance would cover it)

    I’m talking about court ordered payment plans. And regarding those, this is simply not true. A creditor cannot force a debtor to agree to a payment plan where payments become court orders.

  27. I succumbed to the temptation to reply to you again.

    I’ll grant you, that’s one of the classier ways not to flounce. 7/10.

  28. Argenti Aertheri

    Katz, classier? I keep trying to type a response to that that isn’t launching into swearing about how Vindicare has deigned to answer direct questions…I guess it *is* pretty classy for a non-flounce though…

    Vindicare, have you heard of debtor’s prisons? Do you understand wtf that law you are citing was a reaction against? Cuz they used to just lock people up on the creditor’s word that the debtor owed them money, without any sort of court hearing to proof that the debtor should actually owe that money…it’d be more like if women could just walk into court and go “Mr. X fathered my child, and owes me $$, so lock him up!” and instead of being handed paperwork to start a child support claim, the sheriff went “yes ma’am!” and went to arrest Mr. X on the spot…which, regardless what MRAs may think, just doesn’t happen.

    (I cannot believe I am trying to explain the difference between modern child support and Victorian era debtor’s prisons “are there no workhouses?!” >.<)

  29. Argenti Aertheri

    proof? that should say prove >.< (sooner or later I'm going to post without an error, sooner or later…)

  30. @Argenti Aertheri:

    Vindicare, have you heard of debtor’s prisons? Do you understand wtf that law you are citing was a reaction against?

    It’s a constitutional right that they found still so important in 1982 that they bothered to amend it.

    Cuz they used to just lock people up on the creditor’s word that the debtor owed them money, without any sort of court hearing to proof that the debtor should actually owe that money…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

    it’d be more like if women could just walk into court and go “Mr. X fathered my child, and owes me $$, so lock him up!” and instead of being handed paperwork to start a child support claim, the sheriff went “yes ma’am!” and went to arrest Mr. X on the spot…which, regardless what MRAs may think, just doesn’t happen.

    Straw man, yawn.

    But…

    Do I need to hammer it in your head until you start to accept it:
    It is a constitutional right that you cannot be thrown into prison for not being able to pay your normal debts. It would be the holy grail for collection agencies if they could do that.

    But you can be thrown into prison for not being able to pay child support and people are actually thrown into prison because of that.

    (I cannot believe I am trying to explain the difference between modern child support and Victorian era debtor’s prisons “are there no workhouses?!” >.<)

    Oh, I’m so sorry. Then we are allowed to abolish a few of your constitutional rights? (I cannot believe that I am trying to explain the difference between modern waterboarding and iron maidens of the middle ages… -.-).

  31. Vindicare, noble defender of the constitutional right to abandon your offspring.

  32. Argenti Aertheri

    Vindicare, I’m not arguing with anyone who calls an analogy a strawman, I am, however, going to at least try asking you one more direct question and see if I can’t get a direct reply — why do you think child support payments are only ordered for men to pay?

    And the difference is that the state has an interest in the rights of children, and could care less whether you paid for your car or not, cars don’t have rights.

  33. Cars don’t have rights, and it’s actually less important for the finance company to get its money back than for children to have food to eat and somewhere to live. Moreover, if you don’t pay, they’ll take back your car; there’s no parallel for defaulting on child support.

  34. Argenti Aertheri

    Hershele, I was thinking about including how they’ll just repo the car if you don’t pay for it, but I’m not sure MRAs wouldn’t consider foster care better than child support — I’m not sure where the “my tax dollars!” versus “that bitch!” line is with them. (Or do they think that if the state takes the child then the tooth fairy will pay for food or something? Maybe santa delivers it, and a house with chimney too?)

  35. Vindicare: So, child support debts are privileged in that sense that a court order to pay them can be imposed against your will.

    As opposed to all those court orders people insist on being entered against them.

    I’m talking about court ordered payment plans. And regarding those, this is simply not true. A creditor cannot force a debtor to agree to a payment plan where payments become court orders.

    And that’s not what a support order is either. The state is not the creditor. It’s an ongoing order of support.

    As such it’s a persistent obligation. That’s why it’s a special category of court ordered payment. A debtor can be forced to pay a normal creditor. He can attempt to avoid payment by having no assets, and; as the creditor isn’t suffering penury as a result the court doesn’t allow for imprisonment to compell payment.

    But it’s not “imprisonment for debt”. Imprisonment for debt is when one is imprisoned until the entire debt is paid. Imprisonment for non-payment of support order is either time limted, or voided when payments resume.

    One is not imprisoned for the entire duration of the order.

    It is a constitutional right that you cannot be thrown into prison for not being able to pay your normal debts. It would be the holy grail for collection agencies if they could do that.

    Actually the holy grail of collection agencies is student debt, which cannot be discharged, and accrused intersest. So a person who can’t pay is garnished, and garnished, and garnished. They can’t get out from under, and can be forced to pay multiples of the principle.

    Other abuses of debtors is the ability of any person to claim a discharged debt is still extant. Threats are used to get a response, any response is used to get money which is no longer owed, by companies such as RJM Collections.

    Further, any collateralised debt has forfeiture options available to the creditor; which allows for no-recourse seizure of the assets pledged against the debt. This is far more permanent than the jailing available to the courts. It’s also more arbitrary, as their are no structured means for changing the schedule of payments, such as are available to those who have an order of support they are legally obliged to meet.

    Oh, I’m so sorry. Then we are allowed to abolish a few of your constitutional rights? (I cannot believe that I am trying to explain the difference between modern waterboarding and iron maidens of the middle ages… -.-)

    Really…. I’m an Army interrogator, and interrogation instructor. If you’d like I can explain the differences; in detail. I’ll do a better job at that than you have on this subject.

  36. I wrote “cars don’t have rights” totally without having seen Argenti writing the same words. If someone else says it, will it sink in?

  37. Argenti Aertheri

    Maybe Hershele? You’re clearly male, and I like to keep the internet guessing on my gender.

  38. I was just wondering, David, are you aware of Onision, a youtube partner, who is infamous for misogynistic, ignorant comments? Here’s a mirror of a recent video where he compares alimony to slavery.

  39. Inspired by that video, a little thing I wrote a while back:

    So You Want to Compare Something to Slavery
    A Helpful Guide for Stupid People on the Internet

    So, you’re upset about something and want to make it clear just how terrible you think that thing is by comparing it to slavery. But wait! Did you know slavery was actually really bad? Before you compare something to slavery, please answer the following questions about the thing that upsets you:

    1. Does it involve you having to engage in brutally hard labor for hours on end for no pay? (Note: “not as much pay as you would ideally like” is very different from “no pay.”)

    2. Does it mean you literally and explicitly are legally considered subhuman? (Note: the word “literally” is important. And it means “literally.” If you are the sort of person who says things like, “My head literally exploded!” you may punch yourself in the face now.)

    3. Does it involve people literally owning you as property? (See above re: “literally.”)

    4. Does it cause you to be denied basic rights guaranteed under the US Constitution or your country’s equivalent, e.g. the right to vote?

    5. Does it present a serious risk of you dying of preventable causes? (Note: metaphorical “dying” does not count. We are not talking about dying of embarrassment, or dying of frustration, but rather your heart actually stopping and blood flow to your brain ceasing.)

    6. Does it involve one or more of the following: being starved, being beaten, being raped, being kept in chains, being forced to strip naked and allow strangers to inspect you like a farm animal, being denied access to basic education, being kidnapped and taken on an incredibly grueling voyage to a foreign country?

    If you answered “yes” to all of the above, congratulations! Your comparison to slavery is entirely reasonable. If you answered “yes” to at least one or two of the above, congratulations! Your comparison to slavery is at least not entirely stupid. If you answered “no” to all of the above, congratulations! You are a fucking moron.

    If this lesson has been helpful to you, be sure to come back next week, when we’ll be learning why we do not compare things to the Holocaust unless they actually involve horrifically murdering lots of people.

  40. The other day I fought with a friend with fake swords and we fell on the grass. It was literally like WWI.

  41. Yeah, this is the same guy who said it was “funny” that his ex claimed she felt pressured into having sex with him due to her having 20 previous sex partners. This jackass has said some incredibly vile shit and maintains partnership status and the adoration of impressionable teens everywhere. It’s frightening.

  42. Dudes, if you’re really really concerned about this, make sure to only marry women whose income is higher than yours. Problem solved. She’ll pay alimony to you when you divorce!

    No can do. You’re forgetting that feminists are the ones who go to college so they can steal mens’ jobs and keep them down. How do you expect them to have a relationship with their oppressors? Besides, Hooters waitresses are more in touch with their feminine side, unlike those lesbian feminazis.

  43. @kyrie

    The other day I fought with a friend with fake swords and we fell on the grass. It was literally like WWI.

    I am sad that I no longer do this. This is literally like clinical depression

  44. Shadow: to be honest, “the other day” is more “six months ago”, which it has literally been forever, but it wouldn’t have sounded as good if I said that. I might do it tomorrow again though, and I’m literally having a hard attack over the excitement.

  45. Argenti Aertheri

    nice typo Kyrie (I assume you meant heart attack? lol)

  46. @polliwog That’s brilliant. I like it even better today because I just came from the memorial service for a 103-year-old African American man who I met a few years ago through my work. He was a kindhearted gentleman, but as a lifetime fighter for civil rights he would have had some choice words to say about idiots comparing ___ to slavery on the internet. (I’m kind of glad he never mastered the internet; the sheer volume of idiots to be found there would have astonished him.)

  47. Unimaginative

    Is that guy even out of his teens yet? How much experience paying alimony can he possibly have? Or am I being agist? Age-ist?

  48. I did, ArgentI.

  49. LOL he’s like 26 and I believe he’s been paying it FOR A WHOLE YEAR!! HE DOESN’T EVEN LOVE HER ANYMORE! AHH!

    Note: he makes all his money from making unfunny youtube videos and he’s complaining about his ex being lazy.

  50. This guy’s rant was very…strange. Most women I know who identify themselves as either feminists or pro-women’s rights get married later in life and want to get married because they love their partner, not because they are part of a conspiracy to undermine men. And obviously this man doesn’t actually know any real women. I am a heterosexual woman, and I actually would like to have marriage taken off the table as a government institution altogether. I also don’t want any children, and want an awesome and fulfilling career so I do not have to depend on anyone else for my income. How does he explain that? This guy is just seriously delusional.

  51. I would also like to add, in light of the conversation on alimony and child support, is that the MR side of it is not even close to how women actually experience it. They think their money is not needed, and their exes are just using it for their own selfish needs and laughing in their faces. No. That is not how it works. I can say this because my mother was a recipient of alimony and I and my siblings were recipients of child support from my birth father. My mom tried to make their marriage work, but he was an alcoholic, a drug addict, and emotionally abusive (starting to become physical shortly before the divorce). I was witness to these events, and though I didn’t realize what was happening at the time, I look back and am so glad that my mom got out with us. She gave my dad the option of sticking around, fixing himself up, and having partial custody, but he bailed instead. So she got custody and he was ordered to pay alimony and then child support for his three children. We were so poor for a long time. We were on welfare and had to collect food stamps, my siblings and I all slept in one small room, and we were given most of our clothes through donations from friends and family. My dad just ran around the country and neglected to pay most of his child support (claimed he didn’t make enough money and such). Life was really hard. I’m in my early 20’s now and he still isn’t finished paying back child support that was desperately needed at the time. Then he recently “got his act together” and friended me on facebook. I looked through his profile and he had quite a few posts about how my mother cheated him out of his children and how he has suffered so much financially and emotionally because of it; he sounds exactly like the posters on the MR sights. And I call bullshit. Everything he said is completely twisted lies. It makes me so angry.

  52. *Meant to say sites, not sights. Sorry!

  53. I love (for values of “love” that mean “find incredibly stupid and confusing”) the way the guy in the video is all “Slavery is actually better than alimony, because slaves got food, water, and medical care!” That’s when I had to stop.

  54. Monsieur sans Nom

    Funny how feminism, despite all of its promises to women of a better world, has actually NOT made most(read >>50%) of women happy(er). Even in countries like Finland where women have even more social & economic power than men do, the women in those countries still whine and complain about how “oppressed” they are are how the eevil patriarchy is conspiring against them to reinstate sexist oppreshun. As to what makes women happy, I honestly don’t know. But even though biology doesn’t determine destiny, it imposes constraints that EVERY SOCIETY AND EVERY CULTURE must find a way to accommodate rather than circumvent. ;-)

  55. Gosh, it’s almost as though social change takes time, and is often met with ongoing resistance. But don’t let that stay you from your self-congratulatory prattle. This place is mainly about comedy after all.

  56. Finland isn’t a feminist paradise, it’s just closer to equality. You’re just reading a situation where women are less obviously oppressed as one in which women possess all power. Pretty common.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,939 other followers

%d bloggers like this: