Why Do Men Get Married These Days?

Off Topic
701

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened.

702

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
When you start basing your marital decisions on what will happen in divorce, you might as well schedule your hearing the same day.[/quote]

That sounds good, but isn’t sensible. People create prenuptial agreements all the time. If you start a business with your best buddy, I’d hope that you have a contract that covers what happens in the event that one or both of you decide you don’t want to be involved with the business anymore.

703

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. [/quote]

An imaginary past? You’ve truly gobsmacked me this time, orion. I’m only talking about 50 years ago, when women couldn’t easily get credit and rarely had incomes of their own!

It wasn’t until 1920 that wife-beating was made illegal in the US!

WTF, man. WTF.

704

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

The reason I emphasize legal consequences is that, as you say, the wheels of justice grind too coarsely to address these matters with full fairness (or better, justice proper). But if you know the rules going in, it is much harder to legitimately protest. No one forces you to go into a casino and place bets, and everyone know the odds are stacked in the house’s favor. Can you honestly blame the casino? [/quote]

Yes.

Its predatory coupling.

Hence “divorce rape”.[/quote]

Hey man. Dude was asking for it when he walked into that church dressed like that. And he didn’t say no to the alimony until after the fact. He totally consented to this shit.[/quote]

Totally asking for it.

Suit in a church?

Auto-consent for financial rape the next 15 years or so.

Thats why they give you a free tub of lube if they sell you a tuxedo.

705

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. [/quote]

An imaginary past? You’ve truly gobsmacked me this time, orion. I’m only talking about 50 years ago, when women couldn’t easily get credit and rarely had incomes of their own!

It wasn’t until 1920 that wife-beating was made illegal in the US!

WTF, man. WTF.[/quote]

WTF woman, WTF, mebbe do some research.

And dont pester me with the rule of thumb either.

Reverse donkey rides and whatnot, no, men were not allowed to hit their women for a very, very long time AND YET, they actually had to take responsibility for their misdeeds!

Misdeeds, I say!

706

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

The reason I emphasize legal consequences is that, as you say, the wheels of justice grind too coarsely to address these matters with full fairness (or better, justice proper). But if you know the rules going in, it is much harder to legitimately protest. No one forces you to go into a casino and place bets, and everyone know the odds are stacked in the house’s favor. Can you honestly blame the casino? [/quote]

At no point has a casino ever told me that I cannot lose. Marriage isn’t going to a random casino. It’s walking into one that promises you the second you walk in that you will be a high roller living in the penthouse “till death do you part”.[/quote]

Do your due diligence before you walk into the church. I can’t imagine you don’t look back and see very clearly in hindsight the issues you had in your marriage and ultimately in your divorce.

The trick is to not ignore those things. [/quote]

Hindsight is always 20/20, and she certainly was not without her flaws, but I can’t say that in retrospect I should have known that her first pregnancy would lead to depression that would swing up into mania, and that she’d develop into a full blown bipolar nightmare. I didn’t marry a crazy woman. But I did get divorced from one. My marriage was not built to last certainly, and that’s ok - I have NEVER asked for more than my fair share, or try to jew her out of hers. But having the courts give someone with legitimate bouts of mania a blank cheque to draw on my account is like giving a woman’s abuse ex-husband the keys to her house, while the cops serve him booze.

708

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
When you start basing your marital decisions on what will happen in divorce, you might as well schedule your hearing the same day.[/quote]

That sounds good, but isn’t sensible. People create prenuptial agreements all the time. If you start a business with your best buddy, I’d hope that you have a contract that covers what happens in the event that one or both of you decide you don’t want to be involved with the business anymore. [/quote]

Prenups are not worth what people tend to think they’re worth. As soon as you have kids, they’re pretty much null and void, including any parental planning they may contain. In the end they’re really only as good as the people they concern allow them to be.

The fact that people try to use them at all though should tell anyone with even a casual interest that family law is completely fucked. You don’t stop to draw up a contract and get it signed in triplicate with every person walking down the street that specifically states they won’t knife you as soon as you turn your back. And if you get stabbed the victim doesn’t go to jail for not having said contract.

Also marriage is not a business. Prostitution is a business.

709

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sounds familiar.

The mental disease was very pronounced in her siblings, all older than her, but by the time I learned of it (was even capable of learning it, actually) it was too late. And I mean that in both the cases of the siblings and her.
[/quote]

I feel for ya man.

710

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Prenups are not worth what people tend to think they’re worth. As soon as you have kids, they’re pretty much null and void, including any parental planning they may contain. In the end they’re really only as good as the people they concern allow them to be.

The fact that people try to use them at all though should tell anyone with even a casual interest that family law is completely fucked. You don’t stop to draw up a contract and get it signed in triplicate with every person walking down the street that specifically states they won’t knife you as soon as you turn your back. And if you get stabbed the victim doesn’t go to jail for not having said contract.

Also marriage is not a business. Prostitution is a business.[/quote]

Good attorneys are hired to write prenups for a reason. Obviously the results vary. Child support is a different issue.

It seems to me that family law is getting better and more equitable as time goes by.

Marriage is a partnership that involves physical and monetary assets.

Look, I don’t mind arguing with orion, because no matter how worked up he gets, he hasn’t been screwed in a divorce. We’re arguing in the abstract. You’ve obviously had a horrible experience, and I don’t have any interest in trying to make that seem invalid or arguing with your lived experience. So, I’m done on this one.

711

[quote]nephorm wrote:

Look, I don’t mind arguing with orion, because no matter how worked up he gets, he hasn’t been screwed in a divorce. We’re arguing in the abstract.[/quote]

Well…

713

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
… or try to jew her out of hers.[/quote]

Unfortunate choice of words.[/quote]

What’s an internet thread without a bit of casual racism?

714

Your threads all remind me of the scene from Good Will Hunting (I think) where a character says something about how you can see the Mona Lisa in a million books but until you see it in real life you can’t truly experience it

I like what you said in your reply. I just watched this movie with my husband a few days ago, and your got the quote totally correct.

715

It works great if you get a real keeper. Here’s a good one:

Seriously though, anyone you are in a relationship with should value you and share your concepts of fairness, authority (making a sensible division of labor and observing it), respect and loyalty. Either party taking the other for granted (this counts as “empowerment” when women do it to men and demeaning if men do it to women) is the first step in ending it all.

Oh and being infatuated is no grounds at all for marriage. Indeed, that is the number one reason to wait a couple of years, because infatuation is internal to you and will not survive a collision with reality. Great disservice to everyone is assuming that romantic love alone can create or maintain a relationship. (There are 2 other types of love that are far more important.)

Yeah I remarried and we are starting a new family soon too. My first one failed precisely because I was in it for the long haul and she was not, then she wanted out (thank heavens I ended up with the kids). Second one I was way more thoughtful about and I think it will last (and yeah, my current wife reminds me more than a little bit of the lead in the song. I just adore her.)

– jj

716

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. [/quote]

An imaginary past? You’ve truly gobsmacked me this time, orion. I’m only talking about 50 years ago, when women couldn’t easily get credit and rarely had incomes of their own!

It wasn’t until 1920 that wife-beating was made illegal in the US!

WTF, man. WTF.[/quote]

WTF woman, WTF, mebbe do some research.

And dont pester me with the rule of thumb either.

Reverse donkey rides and whatnot, no, men were not allowed to hit their women for a very, very long time AND YET, they actually had to take responsibility for their misdeeds!

Misdeeds, I say![/quote]

Research what? There’s a difference between something being frowned upon and something being illegal. Right now, it’s frowned upon for women to take men to the cleaners and withhold his kids for no reason. It’s even becoming more and more against the law. Like raping your wife.

And I don’t know where you get this idea that men are all nobly care-taking of women while women are remorseless and wicked unless strongly constrained. You’re a lunatic.

717

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. [/quote]

An imaginary past? You’ve truly gobsmacked me this time, orion. I’m only talking about 50 years ago, when women couldn’t easily get credit and rarely had incomes of their own!

It wasn’t until 1920 that wife-beating was made illegal in the US!

WTF, man. WTF.[/quote]

WTF woman, WTF, mebbe do some research.

And dont pester me with the rule of thumb either.

Reverse donkey rides and whatnot, no, men were not allowed to hit their women for a very, very long time AND YET, they actually had to take responsibility for their misdeeds!

Misdeeds, I say![/quote]

I haven’t read that particular work by Aristophanes, but are you really going to quote an ancient Greek comedic playwright known for his ability to ridicule anyone? That doesn’t seem like a reliable source for any solid information.

718

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. [/quote]

An imaginary past? You’ve truly gobsmacked me this time, orion. I’m only talking about 50 years ago, when women couldn’t easily get credit and rarely had incomes of their own!

It wasn’t until 1920 that wife-beating was made illegal in the US!

WTF, man. WTF.[/quote]

WTF woman, WTF, mebbe do some research.

And dont pester me with the rule of thumb either.

Reverse donkey rides and whatnot, no, men were not allowed to hit their women for a very, very long time AND YET, they actually had to take responsibility for their misdeeds!

Misdeeds, I say![/quote]

Research what? There’s a difference between something being frowned upon and something being illegal. Right now, it’s frowned upon for women to take men to the cleaners and withhold his kids for no reason. It’s even becoming more and more against the law. Like raping your wife.

And I don’t know where you get this idea that men are all nobly care-taking of women while women are remorseless and wicked unless strongly constrained. You’re a lunatic.

[/quote]

http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."

[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups – especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists – punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.

719

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. [/quote]

An imaginary past? You’ve truly gobsmacked me this time, orion. I’m only talking about 50 years ago, when women couldn’t easily get credit and rarely had incomes of their own!

It wasn’t until 1920 that wife-beating was made illegal in the US!

WTF, man. WTF.[/quote]

WTF woman, WTF, mebbe do some research.

And dont pester me with the rule of thumb either.

Reverse donkey rides and whatnot, no, men were not allowed to hit their women for a very, very long time AND YET, they actually had to take responsibility for their misdeeds!

Misdeeds, I say![/quote]

I haven’t read that particular work by Aristophanes, but are you really going to quote an ancient Greek comedic playwright known for his ability to ridicule anyone? That doesn’t seem like a reliable source for any solid information. [/quote]

It is interesting insofar as he not only predicted the consequences of something that was unthinkable which would be universal suffrage, but also because he could simply put this view of women forward as the basis of a more or less light hearted comedy.

Athenians laughed because they recognized themselves in his plays.

720

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Okay, well, I don’t agree with you, but on the other hand I don’t entirely disagree with you. I think there are better and worse ways to do things and your divorced dad in a shitty apartment who barely sees his kids is an example of how it should NOT work, not a justification for poor treatment of a different set of people.

But I established a career for myself because I like managing my own security, and I would tell a young homemaker to make the best use of time and at least take classes, so I’m not really sure what I’m arguing except that it’s not okay to make an arrangement and then decide “sorry! deal’s off!”[/quote]

I pretty much agree with Emily, and I’ll add that people don’t reasonably enter into marriage ignorant of the consequences of divorce. If you agree that your wife should be a homemaker, you know what the legal implications of that might be.[/quote]

Moving away from the legal piece I think what it comes down to for me is that if someone has been a good egg, they should not be treated badly in return. Whether that is an earnest, hardworking man or an earnest, dedicated housewife is all the same to me. I am firmly against sucker punches. I would love it if the law could ensure this, but of course it paints with too broad a brush for that to be the case.
[/quote]

Well, I am pretty sure that a system is possible where people are at least nudged to cooperate and where defection is not outrageously rewarded.

And, as a student of history I believe we had something like that and I believe we called that “marriage”.

I forgot who said this, but the idea was that you could change the very core of a state as long as you kept the old institutions, with their old names, but changed everything they stood for.

Hajek basically made the same observation, just with words, in that he accused the SJW of his time of using “weasel words” because weasels apparently suck out the egg but leave the shell intact so unless you look carefully…

I am afraid marriage has suffered the same fate. [/quote]

Orion, you consistently ignore the fact that when society was fully patriarchal many women were very badly mistreated. Let’s merely look to the Middle East to see the utopia you envision. I’m going to guess women were brutalized in similar proportion to the men getting raped by the system today. Equal but opposite - brides put on their pretty dresses and walked down the aisle hoping like hell that they hadn’t just given themselves over to someone who would beat or sodomize them if he felt like it, or turn into a nasty drunk or whatever. If he didn’t earn, she and her kids didn’t eat. If he gave her barely enough money to scrape through with while he was out at the bars buying drinks for other women, well, that was her shitty luck and she didn’t have the resources to do anything about it.

There is a REASON things changed. Not all men are good.[/quote]

Yeah, I could of course make up an imaginary past too, the thing is we can prove neither.

And there is a reason why the system changed, because women can vote and whereas men actually take womens needs into account, women do not give a shit about male needs, unless they are forced into a system that makes them care.

Aristophanes “Ecclesiazusae”, this guy knew 2500 years ago what would happen if women were on equal footing with men in the public realm.

And, lo and behold, that is exactly what happened. [/quote]

An imaginary past? You’ve truly gobsmacked me this time, orion. I’m only talking about 50 years ago, when women couldn’t easily get credit and rarely had incomes of their own!

It wasn’t until 1920 that wife-beating was made illegal in the US!

WTF, man. WTF.[/quote]

WTF woman, WTF, mebbe do some research.

And dont pester me with the rule of thumb either.

Reverse donkey rides and whatnot, no, men were not allowed to hit their women for a very, very long time AND YET, they actually had to take responsibility for their misdeeds!

Misdeeds, I say![/quote]

Research what? There’s a difference between something being frowned upon and something being illegal. Right now, it’s frowned upon for women to take men to the cleaners and withhold his kids for no reason. It’s even becoming more and more against the law. Like raping your wife.

And I don’t know where you get this idea that men are all nobly care-taking of women while women are remorseless and wicked unless strongly constrained. You’re a lunatic.

[/quote]

http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."

[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups – especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists – punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.

[/quote]

Some states, huh? Well, then. That’s almost like all states, but different.

The last state to pass legislation against wife-beating did so in 1920. As I stated above. At that point, wife-beating was illegal in the U.S.