User Tag List

First 2272112120121122123124132 Last

Results 1,211 to 1,220 of 1614

  1. #1211
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    I think shared physical custody should be the legal default, and something we should work toward, but I don't think we are ready for it yet.
    I don't think you are considering the options here accurately:

    (And frankly I wouldn't be surprised if an increasingly large percentage of the few who are still getting married are the ones who's religion or religious environments requires them to so).

    The choice isn't between a fair legal treatment of marriage and one that is more "Respectful of traditional values" (By letting people force their partners to maintain traditional marriage roles against their will). The choice is between a fair legal treatment of marriage and an irrelevant one.

    There are ways around this, and we're already seen that take place, but they aren't exactly good ones: Some places enable mothers to demand child support from fathers even without marriage (And sometimes without proof of fatherhood), other places treat cohabitation as if it was marriage (Common law), but that doesn't mean people are consenting to the system, it means you are reducing the barrier to what can count as consent, precisely because people aren't giving it (His kilt was too short, he was asking for it).

    How far do we need to run from a system before it's a clear enough indication that we are ready for it to change?

  2. #1212
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    @Coriolis
    Just to step back for a bit, notice what you are doing here: You are arguing in favor of enabling people (Mostly women) to force their partners (Mostly men) to maintain traditional marriage roles against their will. And we can continue and you might successfully argue for it, but the fact is, that is what you are currently arguing for.

    When both feminist organizations and individuals are fighting & arguing in favor of enabling people (Mostly women) to force their partners (Mostly men) to maintain traditional marriage roles against their will, when the evidence suggests its in spite of the children's well being, when both reason and statistics suggests its in spite of men's well being, and when its very transparently in spite of the values of liberty and gender equality... And it just happens to correspond with women's interests... Can you understand why people might find that somewhat disingenuous to feminism as a whole? Can you understand why anyone who genuinely values any of those, and getting educated about feminism beyond simple dictionary definitions to the extent of seen this, might have a very difficult time reasoning for any position that isn't in direct conflict with this and thus "anti feminist"?

  3. #1213
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    16,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    @Coriolis
    Just to step back for a bit, notice what you are doing here: You are arguing in favor of enabling people (Mostly women) to force their partners (Mostly men) to maintain traditional marriage roles against their will. And we can continue and you might successfully argue for it, but the fact is, that is what you are currently arguing for.
    No, it is not. And notice what you are doing here: namely trying to put words in my mouth. I am not going to repeat the statements I have already made that demonstrate the inaccuracy of your summary. Moreover, you are now introducing a new variable: whether the parents of children are legally married or not. This requires we make distinctions between what the law should enforce, and what is simply a good idea.

    The goals of feminism are broad and long-range. Reasonable feminists understand that their implementation (not their basic correctness) must be balanced with other competing concerns, like economic costs, the welfare of children and family units, national security, and individual rights. None of these trump the end goal of removing gender bias, but will often affect the manner of reaching that goal. How to handle child custody and apportionment of wealth and income in a divorce is just one example of such a situation. Deciding who is responsible for the daily care and financial support of a child is another, related to what expectations we can have of fathers, whether married to the child's mother or not.

    When a traditional family arrangement is suddenly upset by divorce, it is mothers who frequently get the short end of the stick. This might be why some of them are so insistent on maintaining the previous arrangement, at least for awhile. Ideally they would not consent to such an arrangement to begin with, or embark on adult life incapable of being financially independent. Ideally, men would be unwilling to marry such a woman. Unless we are going to forbid such arrangements, something I don't think we should do, we will need to deal with the fallout as rationally as possible when divorce occurs.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Qre:us liked this post

  4. #1214
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    No, it is not. And notice what you are doing here: namely trying to put words in my mouth. I am not going to repeat the statements I have already made that demonstrate the inaccuracy of your summary.

    I am sorry - I meant to do nothing of the sort. Can you explain which aspect of your words I've gotten wrong?

    1. That you are arguing in favor of a system that makes couples maintain their primary caregiver / supporter roles after divorce, or...
    2. That this system enables people (Mostly women) to force their partners (Mostly men) to maintain traditional marriage roles against their will.


    If it's the later, then no - those aren't your words - just a factually true statement about the system you are defending. If it's the first... Then what are you arguing fort?

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    When a traditional family arrangement is suddenly upset by divorce, it is mothers who frequently get the short end of the stick.
    That is not only wrong, it's laughable.

    As far as empirical evidence goes, statistically most people filing for divorce are women. I don't know what is your particular interpretation of that statistic, but the excuses I've heard so far... let's just say I personally I don't think women are less relationship oriented then men are or are somehow just faster with calling lawyers - those are claims I have actually heard, but feel free to throw in another. I think it's a lot more likely that women are exiting unhappy relationships because they can afford too leave them at a reasonable loss, men are staying in unhappy relationships because they can't. Someone is a lot happier with their end of the stick then the other.

    As far as logical connections go, frankly saying that the caregiver has the short end of a stick is about the same as a saying that about wealthy children who don't get a chance to prove that they can make it on their own because of their daddy's allowance, except replace willing daddy with unwilling ex for a wage slave. You've said yourself, most of the additional hours on the caregiver end changes when the kids grow up and start spending longer hours at school. What you seem to not acknowledge is that the agreement is very unlikely to change after, so she can take that time to work, in addition to the money she makes off of her ex (Or even use the time to study a more profitable profession, something I've seen happen quite a bit), usually more then enough to cover the decreasing difference it has in needed daycare hours (Which will also become irrelevant once the child is old enough).
    Last edited by Mane; 05-12-2015 at 12:06 AM.

  5. #1215
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    16,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    1. That you are arguing in favor of a system that makes couples maintain their primary caregiver / supporter roles after divorce, or...
    2. That this system enables people (Mostly women) to force their partners (Mostly men) to maintain traditional marriage roles against their will.
    In a divorce where the court must impose a settlement, someone is going to be forced to do something they don't want. I would much prefer that divorcing couples reach an agreement on their own and just present it to the court for approval. Sometimes that happens, but often not. If the court must impose a settlement, needs of any children should come first. The court should consider the facts of the specific case, so any default is exactly that: a starting point from which one makes adjustments to accommodate the specifics.

    Your description generalizes that I always think the primary caregiver role should continue after divorce. I outlined instead the kind of situations in which it would make sense. Your summary further dismisses the inherently transient nature of what I recommended in such cases, the course of which I spelled out quite clearly. Again, we don't blame the law for poor application by the court; we fix the court. It also ignores the fact that a court requiring a primary caregiver arrangement to continue for some period of time is simply reflecting the choice that the couple had already made. In other words, they made their bed, and they are going to have to lie in it awhile longer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    That is not only wrong, it's laughable.

    As far as empirical evidence goes, statistically most people filing for divorce are women. I don't know what is your particular interpretation of that statistic, but the excuses I've heard so far... let's just say I personally I don't think women are less relationship oriented then men are or are somehow just faster with calling lawyers - those are claims I have actually heard, but feel free to throw in another. I think it's a lot more likely that women are exiting unhappy relationships because they can afford too leave them at a reasonable loss, men are staying in unhappy relationships because they can't. Someone is a lot happier with their end of the stick then the other.

    As far as logical connections go, frankly saying that the caregiver has the short end of a stick is about the same as a saying that about wealthy children who don't get a chance to prove that they can make it on their own because of their daddy's allowance, except replace willing daddy with unwilling ex for a wage slave. You've said yourself, most of the additional hours on the caregiver end changes when the kids grow up and start spending longer hours at school. What you seem to not acknowledge is that the agreement is very unlikely to change after, so she can take that time to work, in addition to the money she makes off of her ex (Or even use the time to study a more profitable profession, something I've seen happen quite a bit), usually more then enough to cover the decreasing difference it has in needed daycare hours (Which will also become irrelevant once the child is old enough).
    Most women going through divorce aren't laughing. If you want statistics, when couples divorce, the standard of living generally goes down for the wife and children, and up for the husband. Part of this no doubt comes from so-called "deadbeat dads" who stop supporting their children financially. I am sure they would join you in agreeing that courts have no right to insist that they continue to support their children just because they did so before the divorce.

    As for who can afford to leave a relationship, it is generally women who stay because they are afraid they won't be able to support themselves and their children if they leave. Yes, some women earn well, some have a relatively amicable divorce, and some know their husband will continue to be a responsible dad. For the many other women out there, they stay because they know they can't make it financially on their own. Even abuse victims will stay.

    Obviously, a woman who does have a good income should not receive support in the event of a divorce. A man who has been forgoing work to care for children should likewise receive support until able to support himself. Either way, children should still be able to rely on both their parents for support. Many factors will go into determining how financial support should be apportioned, such as the income of the two parents, where the children spend most of their time, who cares for them on a daily basis, etc.

    If men truly want to minimize the risk that their wife will fleece them financially in a divorce, they should marry women who are financially self-sufficient, or help them become so. Otherwise, they cannot complain about an outcome that is as avoidable as it is predictable. Better yet, they can make a wiser choice of spouse to begin with so things don't come to divorce. They cannot expect to have their cake and eat it, too.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #1216
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Your description generalizes that I always think the primary caregiver role should continue after divorce. I outlined instead the kind of situations in which it would make sense.
    The situation you've outlined was one when it was the case before they divorced, that condition remains intact with the word "maintain".

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Your summary further dismisses the inherently transient nature of what I recommended in such cases, the course of which I spelled out quite clearly.
    That I did dismiss - You are saying we aren't "ready yet" for something as simple as a shared physical custody to be the assumed default unless there's a reason not too, yet your suggestion of a divorce settlement that changes over time requires that we'd either be ready to revolutionize how court rulings work in general or find a way to make humans would be willing to rethink and compromise a situation that they have all the power in and have no interest reason or benefit in doing so. The formula here is that we aren't ready to do a 100% of X for a 100% of it's cost so let's do 30% of X for 300% of it's cost (With X a measure of fairness and the cost a measure of required social change).


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    It also ignores the fact that a court requiring a primary caregiver arrangement to continue for some period of time is simply reflecting the choice that the couple had already made. In other words, they made their bed, and they are going to have to lie in it awhile longer.
    Again your ignoring the fact "for some period of time" is until the child's a legal adult or that the only requirement to be in that situation to begin with isn't the consent of the other parent its simply not having a job.

    The argument that "They made their bed and they are going to have to lie in it" holds for any unfair deal that disadvantages people, regardless if it's marriage or employment or education or a bad contract with a credit card company - we still provide regulations that try to tackle those disadvantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Most women going through divorce aren't laughing.
    They aren't the ones killing themselves either, plus now you are ignoring both the point that they have the option to go through with it of their own choosing and the fact they are choosing to go through with it in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    If you want statistics, when couples divorce, the standard of living generally goes down for the wife and children, and up for the husband. Part of this no doubt comes from so-called "deadbeat dads" who stop supporting their children financially. I am sure they would join you in agreeing that courts have no right to insist that they continue to support their children just because they did so before the divorce.
    If your definition of deadbeat dads extends to include those who'd join me in agreeing that they should take an equal share of the parenting then agreeing with you requires a traditionalist mindset that assumes specific gender roles and condemns men for breaking them by taking more time for caregiving. If it doesn't then it's inclusion is just a poor attempt to paint the resistance to a forced traditionalist marriage as agreeing or protecting with deadbeat dads which demonstrates a poor and somewhat desperate debate tactic to defend a position that can't be ethically or rationally defended.

    And given that this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    As for who can afford to leave a relationship, it is generally women who stay because they are afraid they won't be able to support themselves and their children if they leave.
    In combination with the previously mentioned statistics of who initiates divorce requires the conclusion that the gender who is more likely to initiate divorce be the one less likely to be able to afford it... Option two seems more likely (A.K.A. desperately trying to defend a position that can't be ethically or rationally defended).

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    If men truly want to minimize the risk that their wife will fleece them financially in a divorce, they should marry women who are financially self-sufficient, or help them become so. Otherwise, they cannot complain about an outcome that is as avoidable as it is predictable. Better yet, they can make a wiser choice of spouse to begin with so things don't come to divorce. They cannot expect to have their cake and eat it, too.
    Again the argument that whether it's a rotten deal doesn't matter because they had to consent to a rotten deal to begin with... Which is technically true and yet I have a hard time imagining many feminists willing to defend that principle if it was applied to virtually anything else over the course of the last century - "That's just company policy, it was your choice to join that company". The only reason for this exception to the rule is because among the few social cases of consenting agreements it's an exception to where the advantages was in the first place, again demonstrating that it's not about fair treatment to women but about interest of women regardless of fairness, showing us again how the dictionary definition of feminism isn't the drive behind the movement but a very selectively applied excuse, reinforcing that anyone who is genuinely against gender discrimination should be apposed to the feminist movement in it's modern incarnation.

  7. #1217

    Default

    3ird, wavve feminism has, oficialy distroyd thee familee gud job m8

  8. #1218
    Super Ape Luke O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    954
    Posts
    1,740

  9. #1219
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    There are several layers of fail here - and while the immediate one is the now expected fail of reading comprehension - the other ones are unfortunately on Aaron Clarey's part. The failure in the basic premise of the article is a failure of understanding narratives: To complain that Charlize Theron gets more focus as a character then Mad Max is like complaining that Morpheus was more dominant in the Matrix trailer then Neo;The protagonist isn't there for character it's there to act as a neutral mask. There's a reason the interesting inspirational characters you end up quoting and remembering after a movie are very rarely the actual protagonist but the cast around them who you see through the protagonist's eyes.

    As far as his own narrative goes, it seems like he watched this and instead of getting it's sarcastic tone he decided "Yes we should totally do that ourselves"... The appropriate reaction is a faceplam. The deeper layer of fail, is that the writer's premise and the fact he has a following at all is a very strong support for the MGTOW critique about the MRA movement for having quite a few people who use progressive MRA points not as the fuel itself but as a feminist counter point fueled instead by underlining traditionalism.
    Likes Luke O liked this post

  10. #1220
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    Weird. Charlize Theron is a great actress, but that just goes to show how blinding ideology can be. Maybe Aaron Clary and Anita Sarkeesian should spend some time on a deserted island together, given the absurdity of both of their causes. That might make for some interesting reality TV, far more interesting than anything either of them have ever written.

    That said, I've never seen the original Mad Max movies and this one doesn't interest me, either.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."
    Likes Luke O liked this post

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • :bye:
  • :)
  • :hi:
  • :happy2:
  • :smile:
  • :wubbie:
  • :D
  • :hug:
  • :wink:
  • ;)
  • :newwink:
  • :(
  • :cry:
  • :doh:
  • :mad:
  • :dry:
  • :shrug:
  • :blush:
  • :mellow:
  • :unsure:

Similar Threads

  1. A new INFJ *waves!*
    By moonlit_reveries in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 01:14 AM
  2. Feminism
    By GZA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 07:31 PM
  3. The Ocean Waves: a NF introduction
    By music_educe in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-16-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. *waving*
    By Sandy in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 08:29 PM
  5. Hello :D *waves*
    By Indranizia in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 04:40 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO