Reader BC gives some historical perspective to the alimony issue. (“Historical whaaa? I’m a feminist, I know not of such things. Please to dress it up in snark so that I can properly menstruate in the comments section at Jizzebel.”)
In Olde Timey days — like, medieval England, we’re talking about — a husband gained ownership of all his wife’s property (her dowry) when they married, and did not relinquish it when they divorced. Since women didn’t work [ed: in a cubicle] back then, the result was that a divorce would frequently leave the woman totally destitute. Alimony was a way to avoid that: a divorced man kept the dowry, but incurred an obligation to feed, house, clothe, and otherwise support his ex-wife until she remarried or died.
Two things upended the applecart. First, we started dividing marital assets at divorce. That’s a subject about which entire books could be (and have been) written, but the key point is that ex-wives ceased to be penniless; they took (oftentimes substantial) assets with them when they left a marriage. Second, women fully entered the workforce as primary wage-earners in their own right, and there ceased to be any good reason why they couldn’t support themselves.
Together, those two developments have pretty thoroughly undermined the policy rationale for alimony, and in a sane world it would have become a historical footnote occasionally pressed into service to avoid injustice in truly extraordinary cases. Instead, the American family law system in which I toil has been marinating in femcunt ideology since the sixties, and while there are a few scattered efforts at reform, the result is that alimony largely persists — not as necessary spousal support, but to make it more financially convenient for women to abandon the beta providers they swore to love, honor, and obey.
One thing you have to understand about the divorce industrial complex if you want to know how and why things traveled this far down the circles of post-nuptial hell: The spiteful degenerates who advocated for no-fault divorce and punitive alimony and child support, and the blood-sucking parasites who inevitably followed in their wake, never had fairness in mind. What they wanted, ultimately, was the reconstruction of society to extend and enshrine total female freedom of access and removal of accountability in the marital and sexual markets, while restricting and regulating as much as possible male access to the sexual market, particularly beta male access, and placing upon men responsibility for the consequences of both men’s and women’s actions within those markets.
And that is why I declare a guy like this a justifiable American hero who, if the West were ever to regain its sanity, would have a monument erected in his honor. Or at least a Truck Nutz dedicated in his name.
OT: Has President Nigger cried like a bitch because Ryan Lanza is white?
You’re an unbelievable asshole. I say that from the bottom of my white heart.
Chicks dig unbelievable assholes.
Do you dig me, sweetheart?
Not ones who lack any semblance of class.
Actuallly…yes.
They wouldn’t know what ‘class’ is if it fell on their head and bit them in the nose.
You’re deluding yourself into thinking you’re “more evolved” or “better than this” as a human- you’re also quite the base animal as are they; it takes so damned much energy and intelligence to counter these impulses that most quite simply LIE to themselves about them and claim they’re not doing them. Yourself included.
All I can recall reading was that easy-divorce (so the White-Knights, and Right-Reverends said) would be a boon for Don Juans. How stupid could they get: Don Juan’s don’t marry; they don’t need to. Easy Divorce is merely a boon for hypergamous serial monogamist gold-diggers.
Here’s a set of Bible verses to compare to the world we have now.
Some caveats.
Remember this is how they dealt with female slaves of their own people.
The word redeem in verse 8 in this context means to sell the slave to someone else maybe even back to her father. Verse 11 is also talking about redemption in the same context but for zero money.
Exodus
chapter 21
(NASB)
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8 If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10 If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11 If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.”
Verse 10 was the interesting one to me. If the master takes another slave to his bed but doesn’t sell the first slave, the first slave would legally still have access to her master’s body if she wanted some sex for fun or making a baby as well as being assured of food and clothing.
It doesn’t quite work like that… there’s a body of law around that which was encoded about 2000 years ago. It’s complex stuff.
The crux is that the movie employs a dopey and paper thin veneer to rationalize gleeful killing of whites, which Foxx admits.
I wonder if that Lanza idiot who shot all the kids in CT had just been watching Django.
Life expectancy was very different in medieval times. And women were generally married very young to a much older man. So, if the Wife of Bath is any indication, she’d be married a couple of times because the old coots would keep kicking the bucket! Men would also experience more “variety” as there was a much higher chance their wives would die during childbirth. The lifetime committment of marriage and any ensuing fallout is simply more dauting now because of our longer lifespans.
Win for men back then.
They had access to a young virgin bride, and by the time she pumped out a handful of kids and showed wear and tear, she’d ride off into the sunset during childbirth. The husband would then rinse and repeat.
Today, instead of dying off, they just get divorced and take everything. What incentive is there for a modern man to get married?
Kids?
Don’t need marriage to raise kids. See cohabitation.
Love?
See divorce court.
Respectability?
That went out the window when it became ok for women to be non-virgins before marriage.
Well, respectability is still pretty important to me, so I’d say the incentive is eternal gratitude and devotion.
I may be disagreeing with the published commenter above. I may or may not be right. Here it goes anyway. The No Ma’am blog by Robert Federer stated that American men up until the 1860s(American Civil War) usually got the house and the children unless he was deemed at fault for the divorce or an unfit parent. The wife got told to leave and she seldom if ever had to pay child support. If she was deemed at fault or an unfit parent, I’m sure she got nothing but the door. It was very difficult to prove men were at fault for divorce up until that time. The divorce rate in the USA was 1% and it was usually men who initiated divorce up until that time. Then the laws changed for the woman to get the house and children unless she was deemed an unfit mother or truly at fault. They made it easier to prove the man at fault and that he was an unfit father in the 1860s. The divorce rate shot up to 10% and it was women who were initiating most divorces. Then the no fault divorces came in the 1960s(Vietnam War) and by the 1980s there was a 50% divorce rate. I’ll try to find the link.
It is also interesting to note that up until 1990 that South Korea had a divorce rate of 1% and that from 2000 on it’s divorce rate has been 45%. The family, marriage, child custody and divorce laws changed. Before the husband got the house and and children if he wasn’t deemed unfit and he wanted them while the wife got shown the door but usually did not have to pay child support. It was difficult to prove that the father was at fault and he was an unfit parent in South Korea. Husbands initiated most divorces up until this year. After 1990, the wife got the children and the house and the husband was forced to pay child support. It was difficult to prove the wife and mother was at fault and was an unfit mother after 1990. South Korean wives initiated divorce in about 65% of the cases. I believe that fault divorce is still in effect in South Korea. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny this.
I promised that I would give the link above. The article was entitled, “Marriage is Fraud”, on Sunday, 21 November 2010. Here’s the NoMa’am blog spot link. http://no-maamblogspot.com/ Here’s the specific links below:
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02questionators-should-women-have-right.html
link doesn’t work
You’re not wrong. Divorce laws weren’t static from Magna Carta through the 1960s; different jurisdictions experimented with different post-marital arrangements to try to make things equitable. But the policy rationale for alimony started crumbling when we began dividing marital assets, and it pretty much collapsed when women started achieving a level of wage-earning self-sufficiency.
No-fault divorce plays into this at the margins, because frequently alimony was allocated (or denied) on the basis of fault: an unfaithful spouse was less likely to be awarded alimony, and more likely to have to pay it.
Manosphere, stand by…
Roosh V Forum now HIGHLY RECOMMENDING “Django” aka “Let’s kill some white people for 2 hours
“really good movie and highly recommended…..It was one of those movies where I knew everyone would clap at the end, and they did.”
Where’s Roosh – I know he is a stand-up guy, and I’m waiting for Roosh to condemn the killing of whitey
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-18664.html
Roosh isn’t white. Why would he be shocked?
But I forgot,… race is a social construct!
What anon said. About 98% of non-Whites HATE HATE HATE White guys (they’re OK if they’re guys with hot White women though). Roosh = hypocrite. He’s perfectly willing to bang a hot White chick. He’s not willing to disapprove of killing a guy who could be her brother. And that’s about 98% again of Non-Whites. If you want the ugly truth of it.
Heh… and we’re supposed to shut our mouths, for the sake of a few “good ones”.
Never known it to fail… I remember back in my army days, the usually “good ones” would always revert to tribe when around their militant bruthuhs, who’d correctly say:
“When da revolution git here… you black!”
I just left this comment at Mangan’s:
“So my guess is that this movie could see a further escalation of black-on-white violence.”
This movie was made for a reason. First, consider the idea of “Precalibration”
The secret of Las Vegas, a place that was actually built to suck money out of everyone that enters: to “Precalibrate people to lose.”
This sounds ridiculous on the surface – but, you and me and everyone else have bought into this idea. We have all been precalibrated to go to Las Vegas and blow money and have fun, and LOSE – and we don’t care.
Because that is what’s supposed to happen. That’s what we should expect.
There are few things more powerful over other humans than controlling the frame of what they should expect/
Expectations govern behavior.
It was Erving Goffman, in books like “Frame Analysis,” that first pioneered the concepts around “Frames.” Obviously we are familiar with things such as “Frame Control” in Game.
It is extremely powerful to plant a seed of expectation in your victim’s mind (or the person you’re seducing) before it even happens.
You can the precalibrate masses to do many things they would not consider could be permissible in reality – and this has been going on for years.
This white-baiting movie has an agenda: to stoke animosity towards White Gentile Americans. There is no other reason to finance and produce this movie (Harvey Weinstein,).
When you release a movie where one White after another are being murdered for over two hours, — and positioning it as humor — you are planting a seed in the national psyche
And * emboldening * this to happen in reality.
We have now entered a dangerous new chapter in American life.
We have now entered a dangerous new chapter in American life.
That chapter opened with O.J.
This is merely another turn of the page.
Does the chosen tribe believe that Blacks, whom they so deftly manipulate, will, when in attack mode, make a distinction between members of said tribe and White gentiles?
That’s the gallows-joke-waiting-to-happen for them and all the SWPL fellow traveler useful idiots who believe that, when the time comes, they will get a passover… as having been “good whites”.
No. Exhibit A. Ron Goldman. Quentin Tarantino is the guy behind this movie. He’s Italian. ITALIAN. And uber-nerdy. Tarantino has worshipped Blacks since Pulp Fiction; as bankrupt an enterprise as hating Blacks. He’s also SWPL zeitgeist of fantasy remaking of history. Slaughtering Hitler, imposing SWPL stuff on the pre-Civil War era. Etc.
Blacks HATE HATE HATE Jews more than any other White group, in fact, because Jews made the Civil Rights movement effective when Blacks were failures, and because Jews are on average smart and Blacks dumb. The movie is SWPL central, you’ll notice no White women get the Nicole Brown Simpson treatment.
Some gay-faggot-SWPL I was talking to once was masturbating furiously about how “Inglorious Basterds” was a genius political film with no precursors. “I mean, who ever rendered a person personally killing Hitler?”
I then informed him that both Captain America and Superman had fought Hitler personally back in the day—and Captain America was made famous by a cover of his physically punching Hitler.
“All Tarantino did was take Captain America (and his personal solider squad, like Dum-Dum and Bucky) out, put a Jewish squad in there, and make it ultra-violent. So really, it’s a comic movie book with blood and guts, and the Jews get to celebrate themselves as heroes instead of the pushovers of WW2. Propaganda film.”
Mind of a SWPL BLOWN.
Blow his mind even more with this one:
If memory serves, back in the ’70′s there was a D-grade drive in movie starring an aged erstwhile famous blonde actress playing a doctor that was allegedly experimenting on a “Youth Treatment” in South America, in order to lure the expatriate Fürhrer into her clinic… the movie ends with her putting all sorts of super-maggots on his face and laughingly giving him the heil salute as they eat him alive.
Expect a Tarantino remake in the near future. llozozozozlzlzlzlzl
It’s no secret many Roosh V Forum Members = Lowest Common Denominator
OT…I’ve recently discovered All in the Family and I remember the man bag that herbs wear. Archie sums it up nicely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grtLSCyNrdo
The ultimate aim of feminists is not, as they might claim, the abolition of ‘the patriarchy’ in the pursuit of ‘equality’. Rather, they seek to replace the patriarchy themselves.
Feminism is Communism in Drag.
Ha. Win!
slightly OT but : I conducted a somewhat unscientific survey to gauge the whoredom of contemporary middle to upper middle class women. I created a fake LinkedIn account with a womans name and sent about a 100 invites to (attractive)women working in the usual femcunt professions such as law,HR,graphic design,government and such. About 40 accepted(so far) and those who did accept I enquired if they would be averse to making a whole lot more money in the worlds oldest profession in the rich sheikh intensive Middle East(far from judging eyes).And 5 responded with a request for further details.So thats about 12.5% (sure to increase) of PROPER women who are open to a crass transaction of cash for pussy.
Take what you will from this.
lol. You should say that you’re setting up a “very discreet service” in their city. Many are probably more adverse to moving from their SWPL havens than to prostituting.
Also, this reminds me of that classic joke:
“Honey, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?’
(smiles) “You don’t have a million dollars.”
“Ok. How about 5 bucks?”
(angry) “What kind of girl do you think I am?!”
“Honey, we’ve established what kind of girl you are. Now we’re just negotiating.”
Based on your writing style you sound like you would be horrible at masquerading as a woman, so yes I would take 12.5 percent as a floor.
Hey H, did you keep a record of the Hero’s name? Unfortunately, the original news article is gone. I’d love to find out what happened to him.