[quote]jasmincar wrote:
If these guys masturbate, then they are fucking losers. If they do not, more power to them. Ever wondered why monks make a wish of celibacy by the way?[/quote]
And also wtf to this lol
“wish of celibacy” haha; I think you mean vow of celibacy
I bought into feminism for quite a long time. For me the problem with it is how many feminists buy into a self fulfilling prophecy.
The main chunk of feminist theory hinges on a marxist theory known as the dialectic. This is the problem with almost all leftist movements, what is does is reduce society and all living in it to factions and removes all individuals and replaces them with classes, races, oppressed nations, imperialist nations and so forth.
So the feminist line will never deal with real world examples, because for their analytic method to be valid women have to be the oppressed and to deny that on any level is to upset their hypothesis. For example admitting women are favoured int he courts is to downplay the oppression of women in society, so if you argue that position you are a misogynist, if not wilfully then objectively.
The dialectic is what leftist movements barring some anti authoritarian ones have bought into, it is basically a way to analyse society. Most people think Karl Marx was a communist, he was not, he was first and foremost a dialectical materialist. He was merely communist because his analytic tool of dialectics believed communism to be the likely outcome of class society.
Thesis - Anti thesis - Synthesis
Class society - class war - egalitarian classless society.
Now this might be right or wrong, you don’t have to agree with that to be a dm, for example Christopher Hitchens (famously anti feminist and pro war and hated by the left) said in an interview on the BBC just before his death he was still a DM.
The problem is like all philosophy it is all just ideas of how to analyse things, not a concrete proof. And rather than examine if Marx drew the right conclusions the left (I am talking about the radical anti capitalist left not democrats) they rather uphold foregone conclusions and argue anyone showing evidence of things not being that way as merely upholding the patriarchy. Or merely supporting the oppression of the bourgeoisie, rather than asking is the marixst theory of value right, because to them there can be no argument.
To address the other side I think a lot of men in society are very sexist and i think sexism in society by men affects us just as much as it does women, as another poster mentioned if we are not slaying gash we are losers, if we are not rich we are not real men and providers. Sexism is a double edged sword but i think historically men have been very oppressive and repressive to women.
This however is largely amongst my generation, not the case.
And while I think feminists and leftists have it wrong after being a self identified one for many years I also think most people who identify to the right have it wrong too. The problem is we all have preconceived ideas and we let them get in the way of a real discussion. I have been guilty of this before and I try especially hard not to do so now.
For example for years I would read Marx and Lenin and Bakunin and Paine and Jackson and just like very other ash sole I developed an idiotic bias, never reading any differing views, never trying to expand my knowledge past what I already believed.
I think starting to read other economic theories and other accounts of history and to weigh differing value theories and different ideas on what constitutes freedom and justice has matured me more than anything over the last decade has.
I just wanted to clarify my criticism of feminist thought as it pertains to the dialectic. Dialectics view classes and forces in society at constant odds and struggle with each other, contradictions build and clash and the old replaces the new.
So feminists view society as class society and like they view the master of capital at odds with the worker who works it, they view the husband in conflict with the wife, the historic owner of the female at odds with the oppressive master of the nuclear family.
Of course the problem with this is this form of looking at things takes into no account reforms, evolution of equality in law and in culture. So all things all figures and statistics become proof of that systematic oppression, they take correlating things like rape statistics and act like this is proof of patriarchy and then they take this supposed pay gap and rather than look at history, women biologically weaker being at home raising kids and making food as men hunt and go to war and later work and build as their labour is more valuable because they are physically more adept.
This meaning men were naturally dominating the workplace (not that sexism had zero part in women breaking into equal opportunity work) instead this is proof of women being oppressed, not the logical outcome of biologically different sexes that had men and women carry out different roles out of a physical reality that necessitated it.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]jasmincar wrote:
If these guys masturbate, then they are fucking losers. If they do not, more power to them. Ever wondered why monks make a wish of celibacy by the way?[/quote]
And also wtf to this lol
“wish of celibacy” haha; I think you mean vow of celibacy[/quote]
I sure wish all of these women would stop draining my dumplings. I sure wish I was celibate.
Pearsy92, I don’t post often. When I do post, it’s generally to belittle or call out some fuckin moron that wrote some retarded diatribe.
This time I am posting to say that your posts were very well written, and I enjoyed reading them. Please post more.
SholesGoals and jasmincar, I hereby decree you guys royal fucktards of the dumbshit clan.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
SholesGoals and jasmincar, I hereby decree you guys royal fucktards of the dumbshit clan.[/quote]
I second the motion.
[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:
Pearsy92, I don’t post often. When I do post, it’s generally to belittle or call out some fuckin moron that wrote some retarded diatribe.
This time I am posting to say that your posts were very well written, and I enjoyed reading them. Please post more.
SholesGoals and jasmincar, I hereby decree you guys royal fucktards of the dumbshit clan.[/quote]
Agreed
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Women who are found to have cheated don’t get half first of all.
[/quote]
False.
49 of the 50 states are no-fault divorce. So in 49 states it matters not whether she cheats or not. She gets half plus some.
I know. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I know.
Time for thee to disengage from the conversation because it’s apparent thou knowest not of what thou speaketh.[/quote]
You and I BOTH know from personal experience, but this guy is gonna sit here and tell us otherwise. Don’t waste your time feeding the trolls, brother. When you gonna come through DC again?[/quote]
How about this fall?[/quote]
Sweet! I just bought 580lbs of grass fed beef (a whole cow). We will have an EPIC feast!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ScholesGoals wrote:
Women who are found to have cheated don’t get half first of all.
[/quote]
False.
49 of the 50 states are no-fault divorce. So in 49 states it matters not whether she cheats or not. She gets half plus some.
I know. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, I know.
Time for thee to disengage from the conversation because it’s apparent thou knowest not of what thou speaketh.[/quote]
You and I BOTH know from personal experience, but this guy is gonna sit here and tell us otherwise. Don’t waste your time feeding the trolls, brother. When you gonna come through DC again?[/quote]
How about this fall?[/quote]
Can I come, guys?[/quote]
Yep, you have to be there.
[/quote]
of course - we should turn it into a “DELMARVA/DC meet up”.
In the States, you can’t just be “common-law married” against your will. It’s not a “gotcha”
Most states have no common law marriage provision and the ones that do, require you to take affirmitive steps such as: file your taxes jointly, wear wedding rings, change names to one common last name, etc.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
In the States, you can’t just be “common-law married” against your will. It’s not a “gotcha”
Most states have no common law marriage provision and the ones that do, require you to take affirmitive steps such as: file your taxes jointly, wear wedding rings, change names to one common last name, etc.
[/quote]
This was my understanding as well, but I’m not really abreast of the current laws on the topic, so I stayed mum.
Damn you guys are lucky.
In British Columbia it’s 2 years before common law kicks in. I have a friend who was telling me about this couple he knew who were living together during university and by graduation they were deemed a common law couple.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
In the States, you can’t just be “common-law married” against your will. It’s not a “gotcha”
Most states have no common law marriage provision and the ones that do, require you to take affirmitive steps such as: file your taxes jointly, wear wedding rings, change names to one common last name, etc.
[/quote]
Can you file taxes jointly without being legally married?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Damn you guys are lucky.
In British Columbia it’s 2 years before common law kicks in. I have a friend who was telling me about this couple he knew who were living together during university and by graduation they were deemed a common law couple.[/quote]
I thought that there would be no way that this is true.
But it is.
What a fucking nightmare.
http://www.davis.ca/en/publication/bc-new-family-law-act-grants-rights-to-cohabiting-couples/
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
In the States, you can’t just be “common-law married” against your will. It’s not a “gotcha”
Most states have no common law marriage provision and the ones that do, require you to take affirmitive steps such as: file your taxes jointly, wear wedding rings, change names to one common last name, etc.
[/quote]
Can you file taxes jointly without being legally married?[/quote]
Yes, but only if you’re in a common-law state and you and your common-law spouse identify as married.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
In the States, you can’t just be “common-law married” against your will. It’s not a “gotcha”
Most states have no common law marriage provision and the ones that do, require you to take affirmitive steps such as: file your taxes jointly, wear wedding rings, change names to one common last name, etc.
[/quote]
Can you file taxes jointly without being legally married?[/quote]
You can file however the fuck you want to honestly. Might have to write a letter or two, but in the end, no, one hand does not know what the other hand is doing.
*I should add, filing single while married is not a smart play, lol (without certain divorce agreements, etc). When they catch on, you’ll just pay then what you should have.
Is there any way a couple without any kids prior to getting married can co-sign an agreement saying neither are entitled to financial stimulus from the other in the event of a divorce and all joint investments like a house would be split down the middle with all individual purchases being kept by the one who purchased them? Could they also co-sign a legal document that would guarantee both parties equal custodial rights of any child born during the marriage and only find the father culpable for the same financial investment in the upbringing of the baby as the mother pays?
There must be a way to do this that is legally binding. I have told my girlfriend I will never get married until I know I can and do do that. I might not have any money god dammit but it is the principle.
I wonder how much these kind of concerns affect couples who earn the same amount of money as each other (custody not included) I mean most of the horror stories of these kept women being paid by their ex husbands to keep them at the level they are accustomed to seems to always be some younger woman with no career and a well off successful guy.
[quote]Pearsy92 wrote:
Is there any way a couple without any kids prior to getting married can co-sign an agreement saying neither are entitled to financial stimulus from the other in the event of a divorce and all joint investments like a house would be split down the middle with all individual purchases being kept by the one who purchased them? Could they also co-sign a legal document that would guarantee both parties equal custodial rights of any child born during the marriage and only find the father culpable for the same financial investment in the upbringing of the baby as the mother pays?
There must be a way to do this that is legally binding. I have told my girlfriend I will never get married until I know I can and do do that. I might not have any money god dammit but it is the principle.
I wonder how much these kind of concerns affect couples who earn the same amount of money as each other (custody not included) I mean most of the horror stories of these kept women being paid by their ex husbands to keep them at the level they are accustomed to seems to always be some younger woman with no career and a well off successful guy.
[/quote]
Yes, you can write up any contract you want. The trick is one of the two who signed it NOT finding a lawyer good enough to break it when sour grapes and/or 20 years has past and things have changed from when it was signed.
Lawyers get paid very well, and for a reason, lol.
Like my divorce attorney said, “A pre-nup is simply exhibit 1 in a divorce trial.”