>
Ladies, watch out! Over on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a fellow calling himself ac101202 has figured out a sneaky way that guys can escape you gals doing that whole marrying-a-dude-and-divorcing-him-and-taking-all-his-money thing you ladies like to do. All it requires is a little bit of fake-gay marriage on his part.
Imagine if two straight men got legally hitched (emphasis on straight). No expensive ceremony, no grueling engagement process, just signing the contract. Then, they go on and live their separate lives as bachelors. Because of their legally married status they … Cannot get remarried legally. This means if they get married with a women, come divorce time she will be unable to legally claim any of his property as they are not legally married. Bigamy and polygamy is illegal so all marriage contracts signed after the first are not recognized as valid by a court of law.
Oh, you sly dog you. Such a clever idea. And so original!
>Is it really that hard to just … not marry a woman? (I know, I know, MRA logic is not like our Earth logic.) And if bigamy's illegal aren't they just screwing themselves?
>I like how he notes that bigamy is illegal but fails to realize he would be breaking the law.
>And assuming he committed bigamy, and his heartbroken partner sued him for fraud (which I think you can do under these circumstances), it of course would be all her fault as well.
>I guess he never heard of palimony.
>That's clever! For a ten-year-old, that is. He should open an encyclopedia and look up "fraud". And then "punitive damages".
>Sorry, for back-to-back comments, but I mean, wow. I don't know what's more disturbing — the possibility that "ac101202" is a small child hanging around MGTOW sites or the possibility that he is an adult of extremely low intelligence who is contemplating reproducing.
>Two funny posts in a row, the Jezebel/Dworkin one was chuckles, too. So this guy thinks some court would look at that situation, and *that's* what they would get out of the whole thing? ROFLMAO. Like someone here already said, please look up "fraud". "See, your honor, she just *thought* we were married. Heh heh. Get it? I really fooled her! She's not too bright, found her in a Jezebel comment section."
>Yes, this is a good idea for men to do. This way independent women can't rape men and force us to support them. 70% of divorce is initiated by women. Women are the majority of those who divorce and abandon their family.
>Palimony….yes, independent women under law are entitled to be supported by a male provider under common law marriage but this would be void if he were already married to a male friend. I've already thought this out. I am for gay marriage as I plan on marrying my long time friend from childhood. We have already agreed on it. This way I can have a relationship with an independent liberated woman.
>Does anyone else here have any ideas on how to escape women's bigotry and oppression of men by forcing men to support a woman and her family? How do you escape the double standard that "female liberation" has created? Is there any way that women are able to survive on their own without a man supporting them or is it true that they are incapable and will surely parish on their own? Will women ever be independent and self supporting or will men have to carry them on our backs like we have since the beginning of time? Any suggestions? Feminism sounds good in theory but I don't think women are capable.
>Rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com Hit me up ladies, I'm itching for a debate.
>Why would anyone want to debate a moron?
>"Why would anyone want to debate a moron?"Excellent point M. Why WOULD anyone want to debate a feminist?
>I like how it's just tossed out there, like silly, fickle ladies divorce on a whim just so they can steal money from their unsuspecting husbands. I'm sure you'd prefer a system like in Japan, where most old ladies despise their abusive, drunken husbands and wish they could divorce, but would be destitute if they did so, after being basically forced to be housewives. Yes, it's so much better for women to stay in abusive situations out of a fear of homelessness than it is to *gasp* initiate a divorce!! What man wants to remain married to a woman who doesn't want to be married to him? I mean, unless she's basically become your indentured serv–oh wait …
>bwec said 'This way I can have a relationship with an independent liberated woman'In your dreams mate. They see you coming a mile away and run like the clappers…
>"70% of divorce is initiated by women."-I LOLED. Meaning what? Gee let's see all the things we can extrapolate from that statistic, true or not, Let's make it a game. I know that it's rude to suggest a blog topic, but wouldn't that be funny if the topic was that quote, and "discuss" and then the game is to get into the comment section and make it other 100+ thread where we project onto and extrapolate out of that statement, loads and loads of BS and we'll see how funny it gets. This is why I cannot respect MRAs. They have absolutely no desire to make any sense at all. Actually from their communication styles, one can immediately see abuse and gas-lighting tactics. They have vicious passive aggressive/denial styles of attacks. That stat was one of them. It's similar to what a troll does. I guess it's no secret that MRAs are just trolling feminists. (duh right?)
>Over on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a fellow calling himself ac101202 has figured out a sneaky way that guys can escape you gals doing that whole marrying-a-dude-and-divorcing-him-and-taking-all-his-money thing you ladies like to do.So the fact that 50% of all marriages, women initiate over 75% of divorces, and that only 3.6% of all men are the recipients of alimony warrants zero scrutiny.@BooMeaning what? Gee let's see all the things we can extrapolate from that statistic, true or not, Let's make it a game.[…]Actually from their communication styles, one can immediately see abuse and gas-lighting tactics. They have vicious passive aggressive/denial styles of attacks.Feminists are such pleasant, intelligent, and honest people who are always smiling. Feminism does not make women into vitriolic, caustic wretches who have to maliciously lie about their relationship prospects, noooo…
>Can I coin a term here?"Fratrimony".That is all.
>IR: So the fact that 50% of all marriages, women initiate over 75% of divorces, and that only 3.6% of all men are the recipients of alimony warrants zero scrutiny.Of course it warrants scrutiny. Clearly, far too many women STILL give up their education, career and employment prospects to become full-time butlers/secretaries/nannies/mommies/cooks/maids/incubators/unpaid workers to their husbands, eventually finding themselves in a situation where the choice for survival is between a lifetime of thankless servitude on the one hand and collecting alimony on the other. Since alimony is virtually never awarded to people who are fully capable of self-support, the disparity between male and female alimony recipients demonstrates that there is still a major double standard in social expectations as to who is expected to give up the most DURING the marriage.Moreover, traditionalist men who pine for "old-fashioned" women should be educated that nothing in this world is free. Marry a woman with a career and good job prospects, and you won't have a servant at home cooking dinner every night and ironing shirts — but in the event of a divorce, you won't have to worry about alimony. On the one hand, marry a woman who will make waiting on you hand and foot her full-time job — and you may very well have to pay her back wages if she ever decides she's sick of picking up after you. Also, marry someone of your own socioeconomic background; the greater the socioeconomic disparity, the more costly your divorce will be to you. This, again, goes back to the idea of no free lunch: if you snag someone who is a lot poorer than you but otherwise way out of your league, don't be surprised at the course of action she will take once she realizes she can have your money without having to put up with your sorry old ass. If you decide to treat marriage as a terse exchange of sexual and domestic services for financial support in a set-up of vastly unequal power between the partners, make sure you can stand the taste of your own medicine — because rest assured, the tables WILL be turned if and when circumstances change. In sum, "old-fashioned" men should understand that the good old days, when you could take a woman, take her money, use her up and then kick her to the curb (or make her iron your mistress' lingerie) are over; quit whining and suck it up. If you can't form an equitable partnership with someone you will treat as a human being, rather than a home appliance, then my best advice would be "don't even bother".As for women filing 75% of divorces — again, scrutiny should be applied to particular circumstances. I realize most MRA's are way too stupid to understand nuance, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the marriage is over long before the divorce papers are filed. The party who files for divorce isn't necessarily the one at fault for the breakup of the marriage — but rather, it's the party who has the most to lose from maintaining the status quo. Again, this is an issue of double standards. In our society, still, a man can simply walk out on his wife and minor children, withdraw his support completely and move in with a mistress — with little to no social opprobrium to accompany such behavior; in fact, any vitriol is far more likely to be directed at his wife. But when the wife files for divorce, to claim that the marriage broke up because of her, and not because of her indifferent, absent, philandering husband, is utterly ridiculous. This is not to say this is the situation in every case — this is to say that the statistic tells us nothing about whose fault it is; only that women still stand to lose the most by remaining in troubled marriages.
>Feminists are such pleasant, intelligent, and honest people who are always smiling. Feminism does not make women into vitriolic, caustic wretches who have to maliciously lie about their relationship prospects, noooo… No, it doesn't. Research suggests that self-identified feminists are more likely to be in a stable long-term relationship than women who identify themselves as non-feminist; and men involved with feminists report a greater degree of sexual and emotional satisfaction than men involved with non-feminists. (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm) And this makes perfect sense, if you think about it. All these MRA's whining about their bankrupting divorces, and their bitchy ex-wives, and how all this is supposedly the fault of feminism should stop and think for a moment about the fact that their ex-wives, after all, weren't feminists. With rare exceptions, MRAs' hatred of feminism and women predates their marriages, and when they married, it was almost without exception to women who identified themselves as non-feminists or even anti-feminists BECAUSE they identified themselves this way (and probably still do). So clearly, if you marry someone who shares your values about feminism being awful and evil, and this person screws you over — then perhaps feminism isn't the problem; maybe it's the solution.
>IR most women do not proclaim themselves feminists, and even declare they are not. Or when they feel history requires they give the word a nod, they then do everything in their power to show they are not threatening females to male testicular sensitivity. This is rampant in mainstream feminism. Malicious lying about relationship prospects has usually been the man's prerogative. I do not understand how the opposing patrons of this blog put any bad human behavior is somehow some core flaw of feminism and directly stems from feminism. Now on to the video, "does that pass the initial smell test with you?" The guy starts the video with saying, "How could that statement be possibly be true?" The first thing he takes issue with is an article based on a study. Many articles based on studies are crap, I always advise people look at the original study. How does PineGrove know so many feminists? It makes me LOL. Then he launches into something interesting. Feminism has done nothing according to Bernard. Only "talented women" are the ones who should be credited with advancement (no example given), so again we see feminism ONLY a force for evil in these men's minds. How is that possible? Next:" So if the woman doesn't side with the radicals…" There was no mention of "radicals", the statement was "eschewing feminism" as a movement. Bernard threw the word Radical in there on his own completely, just slipped it in. If it's such a radical branch of society you people can't be blaming every action of every women on feminism. LOL, oh here comes a lulzy part… he's talking about feminists being lesbians. Ok.. then he says out of the blue they are "their strategy is to play on the female lust for status, something we as males, just don't understand." LOL he then goes on to put forward an incomprehensible theory that they then, "traduce the status of men in society and raise their own status in the process, and that makes them, in their mind, more attractive as romantic partners for other women."Can someone please give us a real life example of what that would look like? What? Lesbians want to lower men's status to look more attractive to females? How do they do this, and what does this mean? Am I going to be a lesbian if I hear how low men's status really is…You know, like a lesbian spin on the world infiltrates my brain so that I'm no longer attracted to males and it's more clam for them??? o.0And don't forget, men don't understand "status" LOL. He appears to be rating women at 4:15 into by a number scale, is this correct? I have had a couple of drinks. I will never live in a world where this man's rating system of women affect me or my political, personal or philosophical inspiration or aspirations in any way. This man makes me LOL But I guess we're addressing stereotypes. To him a neg stereotype is a 2.
>I went through that whole pingrove video and wrote something, and I always copy it, but it kept telling me it was too big, which seems weird, so I cut a part out and saved it for two comments, I would not post the first part, and the second part I copied does not make sense with out the first part.Here is part II for what it's worth.There is tons of social pressure on women to not associate themselves as feminist and play up attractiveness. Your shaming tactic…"Feminists are such pleasant, intelligent, and honest people who are always smiling. Feminism does not make women into vitriolic, caustic wretches who have to maliciously lie about their relationship prospects, noooo… "Who are always smiling… [citation for relevance needed] Intelligent, clearly. I mean from the samples here on manboobz we dance circles around you jerks on logic and clarity, not changing the subject, getting nebulous and personal, throwing down a victim card, the list goes on. 'Honest', you know I'm completely honest, in fact I'll bet you have a problem with such candor and try to shame it. I fail to see a dishonest use of stats here on this site either, unlike standard MRA DV stats, which I have moaned about here sufficiently. Then we have this "vitriolic, caustic" charge. When people lie about such vital issues as domestic violence and societal status, then there are instances when you will draw caustic wrath upon yourself. If you are a horrible person that hates women,you deserve vitriol. Are these same people dealing out their caustic manners on everyone they know on a regular basis? I know a man that does that, and it's because he's concerned with all the suffering on the planet. And, he's right. Even if feminism were to cause a caustic turn of phrase to horrible people, what of it? I don't need to be nice to people ruining the planet, especially when they somehow expect niceness for me or ironically use it against our gender as a weapon because they know our gender is pressured by those tactics. It's called a dishonest ad hom tactic. So my original statement has not been addressed there was instead, AS USUAL some attempt to change the subject to something completely irrelevant, like you wanting me and an entire gender to smile at you. And the link you posted has NOTHING to do with "maliciously lie about their relationship prospects".
>No matter WHAT I try to post, unless it's this one line, it's telling me it's too large.
>booboo, I don't know what's going on with that; some sort of weird blogger glitch. I've run across that in the past, but at least some of the time when it gives me that message it does actually post the comments. There was one comment from you in the spam filter and I unblocked it. Thanks for your patience!
>Based on my understanding of most current law-a man who marries another man is still liable for any equitable division of property if he marries a woman later if he marries the woman in a state that prohibits marriage equality.So Matt marries James in MA to avoid having half of his assets seized in the event of a divorce-he never seeks a divorce and moves to Tennessee where he marries Petunia. The two of them build a company (in his name) that is worth 50 million dollars. He stops getting along with Petunia and cheats on her with Zara. Petunia finds out about this and initiates the divorce, seeking 50% of assets accrued during marriage. Matt files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)6-failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted due to the prior marriage to James. Problem is that Tennessee does not recognize marriage equality and his marriage to James is not valid, motion is denied and assets are equitably distributed.