[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Aristophanes was a satirist.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Aristophanes was a satirist. [/quote]
Yes, there is a German expression which only Varquanir will appreciate “bis zur Kenntlichkeit entstellen”, so of course I need to use it.
That is what satire does, it twists/defaces/morphs something until it becomes recognicable, because you are so used to it that you are blind to it.
Aristophanes played on attitudes that already existed, you cannot riff on a guitar with no strings.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Aristophanes was a satirist. [/quote]
Yes, there is a German expression which only Varquanir will appreciate “bis zur Kenntlichkeit entstellen”, so of course I need to use it.
That is what satire does, it twists/defaces/morphs something until it becomes recognicable, because you are so used to it that you are blind to it.
Aristophanes played on attitudes that already existed, you cannot riff on a guitar with no strings. [/quote]
Clearly you’ve never seen someone shred an air guitar.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Aristophanes was a satirist. [/quote]
Yes, there is a German expression which only Varquanir will appreciate “bis zur Kenntlichkeit entstellen”, so of course I need to use it.
That is what satire does, it twists/defaces/morphs something until it becomes recognicable, because you are so used to it that you are blind to it.
Aristophanes played on attitudes that already existed, you cannot riff on a guitar with no strings. [/quote]
Clearly you’ve never seen someone shred an air guitar. [/quote]
How dare you!
I watched at least one air guitar World Finals in its entirety!
Well, you cannot riff on an air guitar without the idea of a guitar.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Aristophanes was a satirist. [/quote]
Yes, there is a German expression which only Varquanir will appreciate “bis zur Kenntlichkeit entstellen”, so of course I need to use it.
That is what satire does, it twists/defaces/morphs something until it becomes recognicable, because you are so used to it that you are blind to it.
Aristophanes played on attitudes that already existed, you cannot riff on a guitar with no strings. [/quote]
Clearly you’ve never seen someone shred an air guitar. [/quote]
How dare you!
I watched at least one air guitar World Finals in its entirety!
Well, you cannot riff on an air guitar without the idea of a guitar.
[/quote]
What about the strings?
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Aristophanes was a satirist. [/quote]
Yes, there is a German expression which only Varquanir will appreciate “bis zur Kenntlichkeit entstellen”, so of course I need to use it.
That is what satire does, it twists/defaces/morphs something until it becomes recognicable, because you are so used to it that you are blind to it.
Aristophanes played on attitudes that already existed, you cannot riff on a guitar with no strings. [/quote]
Clearly you’ve never seen someone shred an air guitar. [/quote]
How dare you!
I watched at least one air guitar World Finals in its entirety!
Well, you cannot riff on an air guitar without the idea of a guitar.
[/quote]
What about the strings?[/quote]
Are part of the idea of a guitar.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Aristophanes was a satirist. [/quote]
Yes, there is a German expression which only Varquanir will appreciate “bis zur Kenntlichkeit entstellen”, so of course I need to use it.
That is what satire does, it twists/defaces/morphs something until it becomes recognicable, because you are so used to it that you are blind to it.
Aristophanes played on attitudes that already existed, you cannot riff on a guitar with no strings. [/quote]
Clearly you’ve never seen someone shred an air guitar. [/quote]
How dare you!
I watched at least one air guitar World Finals in its entirety!
Well, you cannot riff on an air guitar without the idea of a guitar.
[/quote]
What about the strings?[/quote]
Are part of the idea of a guitar.
[/quote]
Fuck me. You’ve taken non-sequiturs to another level.
Had to bring this thread back since I didn’t know where else to post this
Yeah, they’re a local couple.
The important part of the article: Under Illinois law, where the family lives, child support is calculated based on the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved.
That being said, it’s open to broad interpretation by a judge.
Rich people problems…
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Yeah, they’re a local couple.
The important part of the article: Under Illinois law, where the family lives, child support is calculated based on the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved.
That being said, it’s open to broad interpretation by a judge.[/quote]
I think that’s pretty standard most places. Although it’s not always open for the judge to interpret.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Rich people problems…[/quote]
Yeah, exactly. I find the couple revolting and the children (four nannies for three children?) pitiable.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Rich people problems…[/quote]
Yeah, exactly. I find the couple revolting and the children (four nannies for three children?) pitiable.
[/quote]
Why is he revolting? He’s not asking for $1MM a month for “child support”.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Rich people problems…[/quote]
Yeah, exactly. I find the couple revolting and the children (four nannies for three children?) pitiable.
[/quote]
Why is he revolting? He’s not asking for $1MM a month for “child support”.[/quote]
In addition to the relegating of child rearing tasks to a staff that outnumbers the children in question? I thought both sounded unbecomingly “poor me” given their circumstances. The article is skewed to show her as a greedy opportunist, which I assume comes from his camp. I’m disgusted by public bickering over money on the part of two people with more money than ten families can spend in a lifetime. STFU and suffer your grievous ills in something approaching dignified silence.
That’s why.