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.
“…then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children…”
So children are the property of men?
Setting that aside, how many men want to have full custody of their children after a divorce, in particular where they have a high paying full-time job. I would have used MRAs in that sentence instead of men, but I just can’t imagine a situation where an MRA has a high paying job.
I don’t think the MRA’s want physical custody of their children. I think they just want to be able to make all choices regarding the raising of their children, and not pay any child support. They’re the type that would remarry as quickly as possible if they actually got custody of their kids, so that the stepmom could do all the work of raising them.
HUH?
I was under the impression that people got married because they wanted to legally tie themselves together in a partnership because of love, interest in tax breaks, and social acceptance from others. Silly me, not thinking that everything is ONE BIG VAGINAL CONSPIRACY.
If you think that marriage is a trap, there’s a simple solution for you- DON’T GET MARRIED EVER.
See how easy that was?
Polliwog: That sounds almost like they tried to remake “War of the Roses”, and were scared of the downer ending.
@Kyn- that’s actually what happened to my mother-in-law. She made a lot more money than her deadbeat “get rich quick scheming” ex husband who kept spending all her money on fanciful “business ideas” that he’d then just abandon without even making back the principle. So when they divorced, HE got the house (she had to move into an apartment) and SHE had to pay HIM alimony. Oh, right, and guess who got all that credit card debt that HE had put on their cards? SHE DID.
It’s never about gender- it’s all about who has the money.
Solution- marry someone who makes the same amount as you, and who you actually trust with monetary things. Or, ya know, don’t get married at all.
Kendra, thanks for the reply. Here in NZ the men must be permanently afraid as asset division is even-Stevens to each partner at the two-year point, where the partners have been living together in the nature of marriage, and you can’t pre-nup/contract your way out of this law. So de facto couples like myself fall under this law, which was the intent of the lawmakers.
Gasp. I let it slip through my fingers! I had the marriage, the kids, the divorce, the child support awarded! Hmm, it was likely my evil feminism that forced him to quit his near six figure job, refuse to have anything to do with “his” children, and use all the savings/investments on high priced toys for himself.
Am I not using my lady parts right? Crap, was I supposed to make more sandwiches or something?
I believe you mean you STOLE HALF of his assets, you conniving whore. Because women OBVIOUSLY don’t have assets of their own, and you couldn’t possibly have brought anything material into the marriage, or contributed materially to the relationship.
/sarcasm
WTF are socons and tradcons?
And what is it with MRAs and their love of stupid and confusing abbreviations?
Hesster, one theory is that jargon terms that only insiders understand is a hallmark of an elite group, such as medical doctors, engineers. In this theory, the use serves to identify members of the group (because only they understand the jargon), so that the hoi polloi are excluded. It makes them feel special.
In solidarity with the marriage strike, I would like to proudly report that I have not forced a single man to marry me.
I’m going to take a wiiiiiiiiild guess and say socon/tradcon = social conservative and, erm, traditional conservative?
Also, I just got through reading Title 25 (marriage laws in my state) and the language is definitely gender neutral. Nowhere does it say men owe me $vagina$money$.
In other news, I saw the word “vaginal” and pronounced it vuh-JAI-nuhl, because, um. Internal consistency? It’s not a VAGina. It’s a vaGINa.
Personally I like to fleece children because their down is softer. I don’t see where marriage has to enter into it.
Just don’t fleece them until they’ve gotten their spots. /CruellaDeVil
I never understood MRA’s and their incessant whining about marriage. What good does it do to bitch and moan about “how feminism is screwing marriage”. If they are advocating for people (or more specifically men) to not marry, then they need to provide rational, thought out reasons as to why marriage is against their best interests. Persuasion works much better than blame.
It’d be pretty difficult to argue that marriage under women’s law is anything but detrimental to men.
Does a man have any reproductive rights? No, clearly he can’t even stop his wife from slaughtering his unborn child.
Does he have equal protection from abuse? No, his wife can call him a lazy, worthless swine and it’s all good. If he does it, it’s DV and he goes to jail.
Does he have rights to his own property? No, she can divorce him days after being wedded and steal his property.
Does he have rights to his children if his empathetic wife decides not to slaughter them? No, she’ll hold the children hostage and he’ll be an ATM. If he refuses the deal she offers he goes to debtors prison.
Does he have rights to having sex? No, he has no right to having sex. His biological needs are irrelevant.
Can a woman cheat, bring her lover into the home her husband worked for, have her husband kicked out with a restraining order, and get the house and children? Yes she can.
There is no upside for a man to sign a marriage contract under women’s law. Feminists swore to destroy the family as one of their goals. Congrats!
You know, if they really believed in this, they shouldn’t make fun of older never-married women (and their presumptive cats). I mean, isn’t that exactly what they want women to do? Those “sad old spinsters” ought to be MRA heroes.
Cliff: The trouble is that they really just wish women didn’t exist. Anyone who has the affront to exist while female is part of the problem.
I think also they’re concerned the “spinsters” aren’t providing sex or domestic services for any men.
Pretty much the only thing that would make them happy is if marriage meant that a woman provided sex and domestic services, but got nothing at all out of it except room and board (revokable at any time, of course) and the ability to raise her own children (also revokable).
…Even then they’d be angry that they had to pay for the room and board. Get your own half-of-a-bed, freeloader!
@beshemoth
“I enjoyed seeing someone realising there are lots of different sorts of feminism out there, and that it’s not a monolith.”
Feminism is a monolithic block, and most western women, thanks to a lifetime of entitlement, feminist indoctrination have feminist leanings. Conservative, liberal, raunch, radical feminists all work towards dictating mens actions and resources.
Swankivy I guess what a lot of them don’t pay attention to is that if a man is being supported by his wife, and the wife makes more money, the wife has to pay alimony when they get divorced (assuming they’ve been together long enough that the laws support such things).
Didn’t you know men want “wives not co-workers”…?
That sounds like a lot of work just to get some stuff. Might as well get a job, you know, instead of marriage.
Kendra: I don’t think the MRA’s want physical custody of their children. I think they just want to be able to make all choices regarding the raising of their children, and not pay any child support
wfprice is currently in Europe rooting his girlfriend, something he could not do if he had full time or even 50% custody of his children. But what about the children?
“rooting” his girlfriend? I’m unfamiliar with that verb.
Rooting = fucking
(cultural slang)