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.
shad roe
anadramous
cod dammit.
Blue blistering Yog Sothoth!
I’m rather drugged up right now, so unless you want some theory of how my brain works on narcotics, I probably shouldn’t try theorizing at the moment. Though I will say that it is extremely obvious that these ‘anti-marriage’ mras aren’t anti-marriage a all. They just want a victorian marriage with their wives as legal property/legally servants. They aren’t arguing against marriage at all, they are just against women having any rights or being seen and treated as people. You know, their usual.
Yes Antsy, we do have the effrontery to deny that feminists are heartless tax-farmers who hate men and for whom the sole purpose of matrimony is money- and child-stealing.
I have nothing intelligent to add except the fish curse words made my day.
fish insults!!!? Ichthyism I say!! I am going to start a fish right’s movement now!
Great barnacled Jehosephat. That codsucker just cut me off. I will stuff a sea cucumber up his shadder.
Jumbo, you’re milting this for all it’s worth. If you aren’t careful people are going to take you to school and you’ll feel the gaff for all your guff, trawling for piscatory privilege.
It will net you nothing, someone will make you walk the plankton and send you off to Davy Jones.
Ichthyism I say!!
That is a beautiful neologism.
Don’t make me give you the walleye.
It’s all a bunch of crappie.
I trout it was true, but it was just a bream.
This is spawning new ejaculations. There is the same sort of precision with language that a sturgeon uses when operating.
Mythago, I’m not going to correct everything in your completely wrong explanations. Just a few words:
If I have no job, no money to pay my normal debts (not related to fraud, no child support/alimony, …) and I don’t bother getting a job I cannot be thrown in jail for that.
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.
Another thing is if I decide to enter a payment plan, payments then become a court order, and it’s true that I can be thrown in jail for contempt of court if I fail to make my payment.
But these are special cases.
The default way to collect debts is property seizure.
It’s totally different for child support. Just saying “I don’t have money and no job” is not enugh. It’s like if I entered a payment plan: child support payments are court orders. For example I have to cooperate with the Child Support Officer, if I can work I actively have to look for work, if I fail to do that, I will go to jail (and ironically may not come out until I have a job).
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.
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*
But Joanna… you forgot the semen-jacking sperm-burglars.
“But Joanna… you forgot the semen-jacking sperm-burglars.”
Oh right… em lock your doors and don’t walk down any dark alleys. =)
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:
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.
See? Just as applicable
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.
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.
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.
“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…
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?)