MR Redditor: Unmarried women will have babies so the government will pick up their tab at restaurants

I filed the paperwork for my divorce, but my husband and I both wanted to take that step. I wonder how many of the divorces ‘initiated by women’ are similar to my case.

And thank god for no fault divorce, because we were both utterly miserable and now we’re both quite happy. 🙂

Dunno about you guys, but as someone brought up in poverty with a very solid West of Scotland working class background, I get pretty fucking tired of MRAs presuming to be the voice of the working class (fallaciously assuming all feminists are upper middle class).

This working class feminist vigoriously asserts that you know no’ a fuck of which you speak!

Also I simply can’t take seriously a guy like DKM when his posts me make me picture the British MP David Mellor. Seriously, do an image search…

PFKAE–27September 2011@ 8:03pm

A measly thousand divorces granted in Connecticut acccording to feminist tract: Women Before the Bar– ‘Gender, Law, and Society in Connecticutt 1639-1789…My, oh my, the more things change, the more they remain the same, don’t they?

Call me bullheaded, but I stand by my original assertion that women in prefeminist days knew something (probably a lot of somethings) that you modern women have forgotten, or perhaps never even learned, in the feminine arts of maintaining a home and family. ONE THOUSAND divorces, of which, in your words, “the vast majority were granted on grounds of the husband running away”. ONE THOUSAND divorces, over an entire State (Okay crown colony) in 160 years!! One thousand deserted and abandoned wives out of how many thousands, if not millions of marriages which took place over seven or eight generations? One thousand wives who couldn’t–or wouldn’t–accept marriage to men during the more than a century and a half (!) when countless other thousands of women WERE indeed nurturing and growing families with husbands and fathers (often of their parents’ choosing, no less). A measly little “thousand marriages” ending in desertion or abandonment when families in Connecticutt were faced with, for starters, plagues, periodic famines, Indian attacks, brigandage and robbery, both from outlaw colonists driven off their farms and homes by land pirates (real estate and mortgage speculators protected by the Birtish Crown–sound familiar??) who turn to looting and theft for bare survival, and also from homeless, recently discharged British soldiers and sailors, all too frequent crop failures, and fires which sometimes consumed entire villages–just like colonists, and other people around the world, experienced during those times everywhere else!

How many divorces take place today in the Nutmeg State ANNUALLY? How many are initiated by women whose only so-called justification is “I must find myself” and “marriage doesn’t do it for me anymore”? How many such women divorce for no other reason(?) that they feel entitled to their husbands support anyhow? How many such vile, spoiled, pampered, entitled, man-hating, modern women divorce just to resume the “career” she supposedly left only to get married and spawn a few children (in much the same way that she would grow a few potted plants…) Aren’t such women at least as much “deserters” or “abandoners” of their spouses and “marriages” as were those men, some three centuries ago, who may have been, for all we know, running for their lives?

PFKAE-I don’t know what you had in mind by citing a tract showing that women in prefeminist times exceedingly rarely–compared with today’s modern women–had a problem with abandonment or desertion, as contrasted with modern women, but those women faced difficulties and challenges, so much greater than the paradise that you modern over-educated, feminist-brainwashed, pampered, overindulged, and let’s face it. even parasitical, man-hating shrews face, that I am not even sure that the words “abandonment” or “divorce” could, or should, even have the same legal meaning for the two sets of women!

Once again–SOFG (Sweet, Old-fashioned girls) 100
Modern women– 0

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

PS–Mark me as a “male chauvinist pig” but I dare say that 99%+ of all of the benefits and inventions, the prosperity and security that has blessed our lives (especiallly the women’s) is due to the risks borne, efforts undertaken, and technology and medicine discovered and created by MEN in the past three or four centuries! You women don’t have to be grateful or anything–lacking as you do any sort of gratitude gene–but you don’t have to hate us or call attention only to our shortcomings either! DKM

DKM, can I still criticize you individually, since you as an individual didn’t develop technology or medicine? Or are you just automatically exempt on account of your gender? If you are, can I also be exempt from criticism based on the fact that I’m tall, and presumably some tall people developed some technology or medicine somewhere? I also have brown eyes if that helps.

so far from reality it might as well involve velociraptors.

Hey, velociraptors were totally real. The only reason there aren’t any around anymore is that they evolved into superdogs.

ZombieRottenMcDonald-28 September2011@9:11pm

Read Posts, and their replies before you comment on them!

PFKAE was citing a book that she was reading purporting to show that desertion and abandonment were not strictly contemporary problems with married couples. She was discussing a period of approx. 8 or 9 generations, to wit, 1639-1789, NOT Connecticut’s population in the year 1700.

Even with a 30,000 population, one may assume safely that there were c.14,500 males to c. 15,500 females, and that approximately 25-30% were recently married or of marriagable ages–15-25. There were somewhat more young people then and somewhat fewer old people than there are today.Perhaps 2500-3000 married couples in that one year would be a sound guesstimate of the field with which to apply the former Elizabeth’s demographics.

Let’s see what we come up with, shall we? 1000 divorces over a 160 year period amounts to almost 7 divorces per year. Using your population figure of 30,000 as a baseline, this suggests 7 divorces–actually slightly more than six, but I am a generous fellow–for (desertion or abandonment) out of some 3000 marriages in 1700–your date!

Your data suggests a marital breakup rate in British Connecticutt of FAR LESS THAN 1%. I don’t have the latest divorce stats from Conn. at my fingertips–and no–at <1%, I am NOT going to waste time looking them up–but I am willing to guess that divorce figures today are in the 45-55% range.

I dunno, ZRMcD, by my "bloviation" seems to be a pretty good match to reality, much to the shame of modern women (and I kind of made you look like a darned fool also. LOL)!

You'll have to do a little better than that!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Mark me as a “male chauvinist pig” but I dare say that 99%+ of all of the benefits and inventions, the prosperity and security that has blessed our lives (especiallly the women’s) is due to the risks borne, efforts undertaken, and technology and medicine discovered and created by MEN in the past three or four centuries!

You’re a male chauvinist pig.

And call me whatever the fuck you want, but I’d like to remind you that 100% of the humans who have ever existed on this planet came out of uteri, so it would behoove you to be a little less annoying to the uterus-havers you come across.

I mean, if having a penis gets you credit for penicillin, space travel, and the viola, surely having a uterus gets you credit for EVERY HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT EVAR.

What do you gain by picking on poor people?

It’s part of the prosperity gospel

I have some thoughts on this, but they’re gut truthiness and I’d probably be wildly off base. And there are lots of people here who would correct me.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
~Abraham Lincoln

“If they were not, there would have been no divorces now would there have been?”

If we follow DKM’s theory, the only reason these men would have left was because, pre-feminism, women were even WORSE! XD

No PFKAE–and Molly Ren,

I haven’t a time machine. I can’t explain WHY those few men chose to abandon their wives even though they could do anything they wanted to their wives and the wives could do little about it. I offered a suggestion that given the unsettled nature of the time and place, the men could have been forced to flee in fear of their lives, but it is only a guess (though a plausible one). First bona-fide time machine I get, I travel back to Connecticut in the periods you indicated, I will ask the men why they were leaving the women who were supposed to be their nearest and dearest, take note of their replies, and be the first to let you know!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

So wait, you are saying that the reason that these men were leaving their wives was due to their being cowards? Really?