"Well men do it too, if men were given the legal power to destroy women in divorce proceeding they'd be divorcing in equal numbers" etc.
This is standard operating procedure (for self depracating, koombaya, and upon the collapse of feminism men and women lived in wedded bliss forever and ever) MRA types.
Never mind the study that I mentioned in my anti traditionalism videos, showing two and a half decades worth, of women exhibiting a 40% increase in initiating divorce if they were the primary breadwinners in the household. Here it is directly quoted from the article itself.
researchers found that the tipping point is when the wife pulled in at least 60% of the family’s income. Couples in this position were 38% more likely in any given year to get divorced. And it didn’t matter how rich or poor the pair were. Race, however, is a factor; more impact for whites than blacks.But career women who are the family breadwinners are nearly 40% more likely to get a divorce than women without the same economic resources, according to a 25-year study by Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash.
According to this study, women, regardless of whether or not they are affluent or poor, will still chose to trade up and marry more successful men for wealth/status. This is hypergamy in its purest sense, and yet pointing it out in the manosphere will trigger knee jerk grand mal seizures from self loathing, utopian MRA's that have declared a war on pointing out any correlative behavior women exhibit with feminism.
In the land where unicorns roam, and correlative female behaviors must not be named, the ministry of love regularly gins out tripe such as the quote below for export to my channel's comment section:
If women could get off their ass and earn/invest at the same rate as the men we would see 50% divorce rates (roughly).
Unless you can aptly demonstrate hypergamous behavior as being STRICTLY a female trait then it is useless for MRAs or MGTOG to obsesses over.
Or wait, could it be that... (Nah never mind -shudders-)
Eh..fuck it I'll say it. Could it be that women are naturally inclined to divorce men the moment they don't need them anymore?. Could it be that men (generally speaking) are very much less likely to abandon their families than women are?
What am I doing contemplating such thought crime, we have feminism to destroy...right after we convince a few hundred thousand more women that we don't hate them. Onward ho! to the perpetual mens rights public relations campaign!
At the very least judging by the highest rated comment on stardusk's video, at least some men are catching on to the PC creep seeping into the mens movement these days.
More to come my freinds. Stay tuned.
Posted with Blogsy
Excellent article. I have been a long time follower of yours and you really helped me with the acceptance of this idea. I wanted to know what your idea is on having children/families with females. I only ask because I have a long term girlfriend who also follows you on YouTube. I want a family but am drawing up a blank on how it would/should be constructed.
ReplyDelete"if men were given the legal power to destroy women in divorce proceeding they'd be divorcing in equal numbers"
ReplyDeleteWhoever is giving you this argument is staggeringly unaware of history. Prior to the 1900s, men were given custody of children by default because the law considered them his children. See the bottom of page 18 here:
http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf
But here's the important part: when men were granted automatic custody, the divorce rate was at or below 5%. Men were not campaigning for child support, or crying for the state to support them. Extensive welfare laws did not exist then as we have them today.
Also, we should consider that many mothers died during childbirth because of the lack of advanced medicine. One must wonder how all those fathers carried on by themselves without all the welfare that single mothers have today.
- TCM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2263518/I-left-love-life-I-thought-I-better-Now-Im-childless-42.html
ReplyDeletecheck it out!
"The qeustion they never ask is if feminism was a big bad conspiracy to destroy families, then why were ONLY women given the power to divorce without consequence?. If the goal was to destroy families, surely they would encourage and legally empower both men and women towards frivolous divorce."
ReplyDeleteWomen had very little obligation to society in comparison to men. As a result men were awarded the right to vote, to property, work and governance of a family. Considering the natural tendency of both males and females to sympathise with the imagined plight of women, coupling that with half the population that had zero obligations (as a result were easily manipulated) it was much easier to hand legal power to women that it is to men.
That does not mean the common women is not to be held responsible for feminism, as they actively agree with it. It was done by Marxists to women, and perpetuated by women. Every time you post something, I am affirmed in what I've always suspected about you; a feminist.
The Norwegian blogger Eivind Berge rightfully calls you a feminist-apologist and a victim, as you espouse feminist ideals and believe men can be rapped by females.