Feminists have ruined marriage. Women have rights, men have responsibilities. Discuss
Scroll to see replies
Original post by SophieSmall
I never said you trust women, you're the one who said it.
But if you want to marry anyway then don't be the main financial earner and then she can't take you to the cleaners. Or signs forms before marriage, there are host of things you can do to prevent these things happening but most people go into marriage naive and in love and so do not take precautions.
But if you want to marry anyway then don't be the main financial earner and then she can't take you to the cleaners. Or signs forms before marriage, there are host of things you can do to prevent these things happening but most people go into marriage naive and in love and so do not take precautions.
Pre-nups are thrown out a lot of the time, apparently, so there's that.
You are imposing a further restriction on me: if I want to get married and be protected under the law, I now cannot be the main financial earner. If we are agreed that safety in marriage should be an inalienable right (are we?) I think it's highly unreasonable to demand that my career be curtailed, rather as we evil men supposedly spent so long doing to women. (This of course holds also for those high-earning women which our generation will see so many of, as the pay gap reverses. They should now avoid being the higher earner in case their husband takes them to the cleaners.)
How would you feel if I defended the laws which allowed husbands to beat their wives by saying "if you don't want to expose yourself to that possibility, don't get married"? I don't think you'd like it.
You'll probably object to the comparison, as you have (probably more justifiably) done below, but I'm afraid you will have to lay out why, because here I definitely don't see why it's an unfair comparison.
I'm going to completely ignore your rape comparison.
Why? I know rape is an emotive issue, and different in many ways from divorce settlements, but I believe the logical progression is sound. By using rape I was attempting to take a position I knew you would agree with so as to prove your argument wrong on your own terms, and I was also trying to use a live debate where the arguments are well known. If this is unacceptable, maybe you could give an example of what might be an acceptable comparison.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
Pre-nups are thrown out a lot of the time, apparently, so there's that.
You are imposing a further restriction on me: if I want to get married and be protected under the law, I now cannot be the main financial earner. If we are agreed that safety in marriage should be an inalienable right (are we?) I think it's highly unreasonable to demand that my career be curtailed, rather as we evil men supposedly spent so long doing to women.
How would you feel if I defended the laws which allowed husbands to beat their wives by saying "if you don't want to expose yourself to that possibility, don't get married"? I don't think you'd like it.
You'll probably object to the comparison, as you have (probably more justifiably) done below, but I'm afraid you will have to lay out why, because here I definitely don't see why it's an unfair comparison.
Why? I know rape is an emotive issue, but I believe the logical progression is sound. By using rape I was attempting to take a position I knew you would agree with so as to prove your argument wrong on your own terms. If this is unacceptable, maybe you could give an example of what might be an acceptable comparison.
You are imposing a further restriction on me: if I want to get married and be protected under the law, I now cannot be the main financial earner. If we are agreed that safety in marriage should be an inalienable right (are we?) I think it's highly unreasonable to demand that my career be curtailed, rather as we evil men supposedly spent so long doing to women.
How would you feel if I defended the laws which allowed husbands to beat their wives by saying "if you don't want to expose yourself to that possibility, don't get married"? I don't think you'd like it.
You'll probably object to the comparison, as you have (probably more justifiably) done below, but I'm afraid you will have to lay out why, because here I definitely don't see why it's an unfair comparison.
Why? I know rape is an emotive issue, but I believe the logical progression is sound. By using rape I was attempting to take a position I knew you would agree with so as to prove your argument wrong on your own terms. If this is unacceptable, maybe you could give an example of what might be an acceptable comparison.
I'm not holding that restriction upon you, it is just a measure you can take among many others to not have an ugly divorce. Along with you know just signing some paperwork which is hardly a difficult task and does not really stop any of your freedoms. And yes pre-nups are often thrown out because it seems not many people get a solid one drawn up. Pre-nups are quite a complicated matter and I am no lawyer.
Of course I would not like it but the difference between that and this is that one physically harms someone.
Because you argued the rape comparison on the premise I agreed with the beliefs you seemed to think I hold on getting married. In which you were completely false.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SophieSmall
I'm not holding that restriction upon you, it is just a measure you can take among many others to not have an ugly divorce. Along with you know just signing some paperwork which is hardly a difficult task and does not really stop any of your freedoms. And yes pre-nups are often thrown out because it seems not many people get a solid one drawn up. Pre-nups are quite a complicated matter and I am no lawyer.
Of course I would not like it but the difference between that and this is that one physically harms someone.
Because you argued the rape comparison on the premise I agreed with the beliefs you seemed to think I hold on getting married. In which you were completely false.
Of course I would not like it but the difference between that and this is that one physically harms someone.
Because you argued the rape comparison on the premise I agreed with the beliefs you seemed to think I hold on getting married. In which you were completely false.
Hmm, if you say so, but it is funny how you are prepared to "blame the victim" here and say men/higher earners should be the ones to take all the precautions, rather than even entertain the possibility of legislating for a fairer system for divorce settlement. As far as I can see, making the system itself fairer would be fairly simple and disadvantage nobody but gold-diggers; moreover, it would be much more efficient than individual action in creating a fairer legal environment around divorce.
I am less sold on the idea that physical harm is different to financial harm for the purposes of this comparison, but we will have to agree to differ.
For information, it would appear that the Law Commission was earlier this year drafting a bill to recognise pre-nups. From my reading of the article, it would be mainly assets that a pre-nup could protect, it appears that they want the court to continue to decide on maintenance payments. Apparently this brings us up to speed with Europe and America.
I note wryly that the case which prompted this involved an heiress successfully protecting her fortune from her (admittedly rich) husband, rather than the other way around.
Original post by scrotgrot
Hmm, if you say so, but it is funny how you are prepared to "blame the victim" here and say men/higher earners should be the ones to take all the precautions, rather than even entertain the possibility of legislating for a fairer system for divorce settlement. As far as I can see, making the system itself fairer would be fairly simple and disadvantage nobody but gold-diggers; moreover, it would be much more efficient than individual action in creating a fairer legal environment around divorce.
I am less sold on the idea that physical harm is different to financial harm for the purposes of this comparison, but we will have to agree to differ.
For information, it would appear that the Law Commission was earlier this year drafting a bill to recognise pre-nups. From my reading of the article, it would be mainly assets that a pre-nup could protect, it appears that they want the court to continue to decide on maintenance payments. Apparently this brings us up to speed with Europe and America.
I note wryly that the case which prompted this involved an heiress successfully protecting her fortune from her (admittedly rich) husband, rather than the other way around.
I am less sold on the idea that physical harm is different to financial harm for the purposes of this comparison, but we will have to agree to differ.
For information, it would appear that the Law Commission was earlier this year drafting a bill to recognise pre-nups. From my reading of the article, it would be mainly assets that a pre-nup could protect, it appears that they want the court to continue to decide on maintenance payments. Apparently this brings us up to speed with Europe and America.
I note wryly that the case which prompted this involved an heiress successfully protecting her fortune from her (admittedly rich) husband, rather than the other way around.
It is not just men who suffer at the hands of divorce, although it is more common (which is hardly surprising in a society in which women are most often the homemakers and take on much lower paid jobs). In a marriage where the woman is the main bread winner it would be her who paid out in the divorce not the man.
Yes of course there should be systems in place to protect people in divorce. But at the moment there aren't, or at least not perfect ones (though as you say it is being proposed? which is good). And so in the event the state will not protect you, you must protect yourself.
Perhaps since her husband was rich anyway the judge (or however it works, I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer) saw no need for her to pay him maintenance. As if I believe correctly, the system of maintenance is in place to make sure that the divorced spouses have an income to live on (as it was originally to make sure divorced wives had money to be able to live as the man was always the earner and she would have always been a housewife and as such had no means of taking care of herself come divorce). But it seems he already had an income.
Not going to argue that the system could be fairer though, pretty much every system could be improved and made fairer.
Original post by MarriageSucks
For example, do you want equal numbers of men and women to die at work?(currently 93% of people who die at work are men)
Do you want equal numbers of men and women to kill themselves? (currently it's about 4-1 men-women)
Do you want equal numbers of men and women to be homeless? (currently men make up far more homeless people)
Do you want equal numbers of men and women to kill themselves? (currently it's about 4-1 men-women)
Do you want equal numbers of men and women to be homeless? (currently men make up far more homeless people)
Surely a sane person wouldn't want anybody to suffer those fates?
Original post by scrotgrot
This is so ironic when feminism is basically a white middle-class movement. The main internal hand-wringing in the feminist movement presently is how it doesn't cater for ethnic minorities etc.
If you think ethnic minority and poor women are or have ever been on board with feminism you need to look at the facts.
It's doubly ironic when you consider that this petty identity politics of race and gender divides people and prevents them from engaging in class struggle.
If you think ethnic minority and poor women are or have ever been on board with feminism you need to look at the facts.
It's doubly ironic when you consider that this petty identity politics of race and gender divides people and prevents them from engaging in class struggle.
Bell Hooks? Patricia Hill Collins? Angela Davis? Pam Grier even? It's insulting that you can't recognise the black contribution to feminism. Malcom X can even be argued to have eventually recognised the feminist struggle:
"in every country you go to, usually the degree of progress can never be separated from the woman. If you’re in a country that’s progressive, the woman is progressive. If you’re in a country that reflects the consciousness toward the importance of education, it’s because the woman is aware of the importance of education.
But in every backward country you’ll find the women are backward, and in every country where education is not stressed it’s because the women don’t have education. So one of the things I became thoroughly convinced of in my recent travels is the importance of giving freedom to the women, giving her education, and giving her the incentive to get out there and put the same spirit and understanding in her children. And I am frankly proud of the contributions that our women have made in the struggle for freedom and I’m one person who’s for giving them all the leeway possible because they’ve made a greater contribution than many of us men." - Malcom X
Type in black feminists into Google. Black feminism has addressed the racial problems of the mainstream feminist movement. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You need to look at the facts actually mate and stop trying to school me on a topic you need to do more research on. Yes every movement like Feminism has weak points, but your ignorance is in refusing to accept the positive things it has done.
Feminism also isn't one huge movement in which women are all screaming "right on sister". Feminists actually disagree with each other a lot!
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by TolerantBeing
Also, you may hold back your 'emotions' but you're sat there (probably alone) downing your alcohol. Resorting to alcohol to deal with situations is very weak.
Also, you may hold back your 'emotions' but you're sat there (probably alone) downing your alcohol. Resorting to alcohol to deal with situations is very weak.
I drink because I enjoy it
The concept of enjoying something must be alien to an ardent feminist like yourself because you're far too focused on playing the victim and not enjoying yourself. I also wasn't alone and I also wasn't resorting to alcohol but nice attempt at trying to slander me as someone dependent on alcohol.I dont need to provide any more evidence to suggest men are physically and mentally stronger when it comes to the work place, life itself proves that. As for your other pathetic ramblings, yes sports are classed as business, most CEO's are men, the Forbes rich list is full of men and I could go on and on.
Men at the top end are more intelligent and mentally stronger. We're also at the lower end mentally weaker and less intelligent. The range is far superior as has been proven time and time again. Also, before you go around abusing people routinely you should realise that some people are actually from the same area you're from and actually know who the hell you are. Not coming across as a pleasant individual at all.
1. One of your posts is just full of abuse
2. Your next post is full of abuse
3. Your next post tries to insinuate i'm dependent on alcohol which simply isn't true
4. Your next post again is full of abuse
This is the feminists way of trying to defeat you in an argument everyone. Absolutely laughable.
http://news.yahoo.com/women-more-likely-broken-heart-syndrome-184939504.html
If that's not weakness I don't know what is. If you're going to cry about losing a partner then God help you when your boss tears into you or you have numerous deadlines to meet etc. You'll probably have a break down.
Of course, I await your response of attacks and nonsense again.
Original post by SophieSmall
I wonder why more men commit suicide then.
Spoiler
Actually that also supports what pseudocode said because females attempt suicide far more often but are not able to go through with it while males' attempts usually end in suicide.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tazarooni89
Why should everything be divided equally, when no two individuals themselves are equal? Would it not be more efficient to assign the responsibilities in a household according to who is able to perform those responsibilities most effectively?
If a burglar breaks into the house, who would you say should be given more responsibility for fending them off, attacking them, protecting the rest of the family etc.? Or should this too be assigned to both partners equally?
If a burglar breaks into the house, who would you say should be given more responsibility for fending them off, attacking them, protecting the rest of the family etc.? Or should this too be assigned to both partners equally?
By equally- I meant that responsibilities should be divided up equally depending on who was the best one at doing it. (Apologies if that wasn't clear- I was half asleep when I got into the debate)
If a burglar were to break into the house, the one who was the best at self defence would be the one to confront him (which could be either partner.)
Original post by 41b
Piss off. Maybe someone other than you knows what is good for their own life. 
funny because im not the one wanting to return to proto fascism when men could rape their wives legally
Original post by Pseudocode
I drink because I enjoy it The concept of enjoying something must be alien to an ardent feminist like yourself because you're far too focused on playing the victim and not enjoying yourself. I also wasn't alone and I also wasn't resorting to alcohol but nice attempt at trying to slander me as someone dependent on alcohol.
I dont need to provide any more evidence to suggest men are physically and mentally stronger when it comes to the work place, life itself proves that. As for your other pathetic ramblings, yes sports are classed as business, most CEO's are men, the Forbes rich list is full of men and I could go on and on.
Men at the top end are more intelligent and mentally stronger. We're also at the lower end mentally weaker and less intelligent. The range is far superior as has been proven time and time again. Also, before you go around abusing people routinely you should realise that some people are actually from the same area you're from and actually know who the hell you are. Not coming across as a pleasant individual at all.
1. One of your posts is just full of abuse
2. Your next post is full of abuse
3. Your next post tries to insinuate i'm dependent on alcohol which simply isn't true
4. Your next post again is full of abuse
This is the feminists way of trying to defeat you in an argument everyone. Absolutely laughable.
http://news.yahoo.com/women-more-likely-broken-heart-syndrome-184939504.html
If that's not weakness I don't know what is. If you're going to cry about losing a partner then God help you when your boss tears into you or you have numerous deadlines to meet etc. You'll probably have a break down.
Of course, I await your response of attacks and nonsense again.
The concept of enjoying something must be alien to an ardent feminist like yourself because you're far too focused on playing the victim and not enjoying yourself. I also wasn't alone and I also wasn't resorting to alcohol but nice attempt at trying to slander me as someone dependent on alcohol.I dont need to provide any more evidence to suggest men are physically and mentally stronger when it comes to the work place, life itself proves that. As for your other pathetic ramblings, yes sports are classed as business, most CEO's are men, the Forbes rich list is full of men and I could go on and on.
Men at the top end are more intelligent and mentally stronger. We're also at the lower end mentally weaker and less intelligent. The range is far superior as has been proven time and time again. Also, before you go around abusing people routinely you should realise that some people are actually from the same area you're from and actually know who the hell you are. Not coming across as a pleasant individual at all.
1. One of your posts is just full of abuse
2. Your next post is full of abuse
3. Your next post tries to insinuate i'm dependent on alcohol which simply isn't true
4. Your next post again is full of abuse
This is the feminists way of trying to defeat you in an argument everyone. Absolutely laughable.
http://news.yahoo.com/women-more-likely-broken-heart-syndrome-184939504.html
If that's not weakness I don't know what is. If you're going to cry about losing a partner then God help you when your boss tears into you or you have numerous deadlines to meet etc. You'll probably have a break down.
Of course, I await your response of attacks and nonsense again.
I think you might need this.
Original post by GoldenEmblem277
If a burglar were to break into the house, the one who was the best at self defence would be the one to confront him (which could be either partner.)
Are we just assuming that all criminals are men now? Appalling.
Original post by GoldenEmblem277
By equally- I meant that responsibilities should be divided up equally depending on who was the best one at doing it. (Apologies if that wasn't clear- I was half asleep when I got into the debate)
If a burglar were to break into the house, the one who was the best at self defence would be the one to confront him (which could be either partner.)
If a burglar were to break into the house, the one who was the best at self defence would be the one to confront him (which could be either partner.)
But if responsibilities are assigned depending on who is best at performing them, it's not really "equal" in any way, is it? (Except in the almost impossible case where both partners are exactly equally good at everything).
The notion of equality just wouldn't even play a part here.
Original post by GoldenEmblem277
By equally- I meant that responsibilities should be divided up equally depending on who was the best one at doing it. (Apologies if that wasn't clear- I was half asleep when I got into the debate)
If a burglar were to break into the house, the one who was the best at self defence would be the one to confront him (which could be either partner.)
If a burglar were to break into the house, the one who was the best at self defence would be the one to confront him (which could be either partner.)
You want equality with men, just not when it comes to doing the dangerous stuff that might get him killed.
Which is fine. You're a girl and you're not evolved for high stress violence situations. In which case, you are inferior to your male.
So which is it? True equality and equal responsibility, or admitting that women are weaker and need protection? If the latter, then there must be a tradeoff somewhere else. He protects you in exchange for... historically that involved things like doing more housework, comforting him when he was depressed, loving him for who he is and not nagging him endlessly, and so on.
Then again, feminists believe that women are weaker because society encourages them not to build uppity body strength, so really, there is no excuse to adopt the second position. Be a Strong Woman and go to the gym and hit the bench press. Total, true equality. Gender quotas in all fields, including mining, back breaking labour, soldiering. And because men have been doing these jobs exclusively since the dawn of time, dying for the oppressive matriarchy that doesn't recognise them as anything more than utilities to be discarded when used, the women joining these fields should be paid 50% less, be subject to no safety regulations and no healthcare. You know, as justice, to make up for the centuries of oppression men endured because of cowardly, abusive women who refused to do dangerous work!
Do you see how easily the ridiculous feminist argument can be turned on its head? Men have done the nicest jobs. And their wives have had the nicest lives. Why aren't you looking at who benefited from a class society? Was it the man who had the high stress, high responsibility position, or his wife who reaped all the benefits?
Men have also done the hardest jobs. Women, almost universally, have never had to do difficult work. Maintaining a household is not oppression, it is a luxury. Working in s coal mine and dying at 40 is much closer to oppression.
But men do it because they love their families and will do anything to see their wives and children succeed. She's mine, they're mine and I will do anything to prosper them. OFCOURSE in return I want her to keep the house clean, raise the kids and make love to me. What kind of heartless, selfish, ungrateful hag would refuse to do in exchange for all that I do for her?
So many women don't realise the privileges they have and only look at the responsibilities. This isn't feminism, this is childism.
Original post by bittr n swt
Do you ever believe men and women will have equality in the UK?
Don't they already?
Original post by Annabelle-xx
Don't they already?
Lol if that helps you sleep at night sure.
Original post by bittr n swt
Lol if that helps you sleep at night sure.
Glad you agree,fellow feminist
Original post by Annabelle-xx
Glad you agree,fellow feminist
Woah woah woah I'm the opposite of feminist and don't you forget that
Tbh there's nothing wrong with traditional roles if that's what you and your partner desire.
However there are problems when it is expected/forced on to women in that their life becomes their children and housework. To some this may be fulfilling but to others its not. Also there's a tendency for women who work and have children to still do everything at home. I don't know if this is by choice but I know there are certain expectations. In my opinion both partners have a duty to raise their children.
However there are problems when it is expected/forced on to women in that their life becomes their children and housework. To some this may be fulfilling but to others its not. Also there's a tendency for women who work and have children to still do everything at home. I don't know if this is by choice but I know there are certain expectations. In my opinion both partners have a duty to raise their children.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
