Not enough cash and prizes.

The Telegraph has an article up about the impact of reduced cash incentives for women to divorce:

Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years.

This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.

This should surprise no one.  Incentives matter.  Raise the cash reward paid to women who blow up their families, and more women will choose to blow up their families.  Lower the cash reward, and more children will grow up with daddy in the home (but mommy is restricted from having sex with other men).

There is a less obvious but socially even more powerful impact of these cash incentives.  Cash incentives aren’t just designed to blow up some families, they are designed to destabilize all families.  As Wolfers and Stevenson explain in Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress, by encouraging wives to divorce, feminists are able to give wives power and control over their husbands (emphasis mine):

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

To see how divorce laws affect the external threat point, note that prior to unilateral divorce, a partner wishing to dissolve the marriage could leave without their spouse’s consent.  However, in such a situation, a legal divorce is not granted and, as such, the right to remarry is forfeited. Under unilateral divorce the value of the exit threat increases for the unsatisfied spouse, as the right to remarry is retained regardless of the position of one’s spouse. Thus, the exit threat model predicts that changes in divorce regimes will have real effects. If the divorce threat is sufficiently credible, it may directly affect intrafamily bargaining outcomes without the option ever being exercised.

By slightly reducing the cash and prizes women receive as a reward for divorcing, UK judges are transferring some of the power in marriages back to the party that wants to honor the marriage vows (the husband).

H/T DR Smith

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Divorce, Threatpoint, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Not enough cash and prizes.

  1. (but mommy is restricted from having sex with other men).
    Not really. She can still do anything she wants, if the man puts enough value on keeping the family “intact”.

  2. Anon says:

    There is a less obvious but socially even more powerful impact of these cash incentives. Cash incentives aren’t just designed to blow up some families, they are designed to destabilize all families.

    This cannot be said enough. Even the minority of happy, stable marriages of today have still lost a lot relative to what could have been.

    If someone’s marital happiness is a 7 out of 10 today, they could have been a 9 out of 10 in a different time. Despite the outward appearance of stability, they lost something that could have been truly amazing. No woman can shut out *every* subliminal message sent by the media.

  3. Anon says:

    By slightly reducing the cash and prizes women receive as a reward for divorcing, UK judges are transferring some of the power in marriages back to the party that wants to honor the marriage vows (the husband).

    It is sad that Sharia Law is what it took to force the official UK courts to have to compete with other alternatives.

  4. earl says:

    by encouraging wives to divorce, feminists are able to give wives power and control over their husbands

    I can’t wait for the AMOG to come in and state his wife would never do that because she’s the magical unicorn of the bunch.

  5. Oscar says:

    I’d been assured that women file 70% of divorces only because men are such bastards.

  6. Pingback: Not enough cash and prizes. | @the_arv

  7. earl says:

    If the government subsidizes divorce….

  8. Yoda says:

    (but mommy is restricted from having sex with other men).

    Not really. She can still do anything she wants, if the man puts enough value on keeping the family “intact”

    Makes it more difficult it does.
    An inconvenience she wants not

  9. Novaseeker says:

    Not really. She can still do anything she wants, if the man puts enough value on keeping the family “intact”.

    Also the norm of expected monogamy, and the expected consequence of divorce as a result of non-monogamy, at least when perpetrated by wives, is going to be steadily eroded in the years and decades ahead of us. The thought pieces and trial balloons are already being tossed around in the media.

    On the OP, few women in the US are awarded lifetime income today. It still happens, but it’s far from the norm. Divorces are still pretty rampant. The main offender is the system of child support in the US, which is calculated as a percentage of income (that is, the same way as alimony was/is), and which goes on longer than most people think (up to 23 in many places now and the trend overall is longer rather than shorter). In the US this provides the main economic incentive for women to divorce in most cases, not lifetime alimony. But it won’t be touched until such time as women become substantial payors under the system — something that won’t happen soon, if ever, I think.

  10. Opus says:

    Executive summary: Law Firms hardest hit.

  11. Anon says:

    In the US this provides the main economic incentive for women to divorce in most cases, not lifetime alimony. But it won’t be touched until such time as women become substantial payors under the system — something that won’t happen soon, if ever, I think.

    Remember that it takes a cuckservative to destroy the family.

    Crazed blue-hairs could never have come up with a system of CS that has imputed income and prison under the Bradley Amendment. The blue-haired feminists are not focused enough, and don’t have enough interactions with actual two-parent families to come up with something so precisely pernicious.

    Instead, cuckservatives did all the heavy-lifting to pass all the CS laws. That is why custody/CS in the US is far more brutal than in Sweden, where joint custody is assumed and massive resource transfer is not mandated by the state. This is the sort of system you would expect secular lefties to create. The hyper-misandric system in the US has a precision could only have been devised by cuckservatives.

  12. rocko says:

    I wonder how much is this going to affect other factors like Welfare. I remember the one case from the UK where a single mom and her 8 (so far) mixed race kids were living off of welfare and mom was complaining now she had to get a job because her bennies got cut. Imagine if less cash and prizes for divorce means more women will be forced to actually look for a caring provider instead of breeding like feral dogs. Of course we can assume feminists will pull their guns and fight this tooth and nail.

  13. Makes it more difficult it does.
    An inconvenience she wants not

    Again, not really, if she doesn’t care and he does. She’s got a built in baby-sitter (“Dad”) for all her girls night outs and “business” trips.

  14. Heidi says:

    Yes, this is unsurprising. Dalrock featured a woman who kicked out her disabled husband and wrote an article on how single parenting is easier than parenting with your husband (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/11/21/a-cold-calculation). Another heroine featured on Dalrock, Jody Allard (the one who wrote about her teenage sons as potential rapists), has seven children and has also written about how much easier it is to parent alone (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/11/07/the-biggest-lie-we-tell-single-moms/?utm_term=.9b706ae5e501). The kicker, of course, is that it’s only easier if there’s enough money siphoned off to take care of Mommy! If the cash flow stops, then you’e got to put up with that horrible, abusive husband to take care of the bills.

  15. American says:

    The divorcing party (person filing for divorce) should walk away with nothing except visitation rights a couple weekends a month. That would normalize the divorce statistics.

  16. Fnu Mnu Lnu says:

    that will never happen. because why hold women accountable when you can just burden men?

  17. feeriker says:

    All that this “revelation” will do is prompt the tyranny to wrest more cash and ptizes away from men. Can’t let vagina feel drprived, now can we?

  18. Dan Horton says:

    No, American, that would just further complicate things and incitivize the wanting-a-divorce person to act awful to force the other to be the one who ‘pulls the trigger.’

    The real change that will never happen short of revolution is for power in marriage to be taken from the government and given back to the Man:

    Women can leave whenever they want but:
    All kids born under marriage remain with the man.
    All assets remain with the man.
    No such thing as alimony/child support or any other government confiscation/redistribution.

    And women can have their freedom as well: women have sole authority over kids born outside of marriage.

  19. Anon says:

    Remember, ‘Patriarchy’ is just what fembeasts refer to a ‘Civilization’. Hence, replace ‘Patriarchy’ with ‘Civilization’ in anything your read that contains the former word.

    The foundations of civilization, such as free markets, due process, enforcement of contracts, meritocracy, the Magna Carta, etc. are all diametrically opposed to inherent aspects of female psychology.

  20. thedeti says:

    rocko:

    the article says the kid is not the STBX husband’s biological child, but he wants the kid anyway, because he was adopted himself, and he wants to “pay it forward”.

    Admirable, but he’s not likely to succeed unless he was listed as the father on the birth certificate. He’s not the kid’s bio-dad. If he’s not on the BC as the dad, then he won’t have any rights to the child. The bio-mom could potentially be ruled an unfit mom, in which case his chances go up. But she’s going to be sentenced on a felony charge of fraud, for which she will probably do no jail time. And she will get the kid back to do with as she pleases, probably to put the kid up for adoption.

  21. Lexet Blog says:

    Lol. Child support til 18

  22. Lovekraft says:

    Too little too late. Those of us who’ve had to navigate this feminist dystopia aren’t about to quickly ‘let bygones be bygones’ and will continue to warn others of the past and the potential for it to return.

    Yet another unintended consequence of misguided social engineering. A whole generation of men discarded as though they are nothing more than bit players in the romcom of the careergrrl’s lives.

  23. Pingback: Not enough cash and prizes. | Reaction Times

  24. Anon says:

    Yet another unintended consequence of misguided social engineering. A whole generation of men discarded as though they are nothing more than bit players in the romcom of the careergrrl’s lives.

    Nature hates a vacuum, and technology hates resource misallocation. VR Sex that dramatically lowers the SMV of the bottom 90% of women is not even ‘years’ away, but more like 24 months.

  25. feeriker says:

    Yet another unintended consequence of misguided social engineering.

    Nothing “unintended” about it whatsoever. NO ONE is so stupid as to not be able to see the obvious fallout from such. This is EXACTLY the outcome that “they” wanted from Day One.

  26. Spacetraveller says:

    Dan Horton:

    “All kids born under marriage remain with the man.
    All assets remain with the man.
    No such thing as alimony/child support or any other government confiscation/redistribution.”

    You describe perfectly the situation in the rare event of a divorce of a traditional-living african couple. It is african law.
    I don’t know the stats, but I think there is a low divorce rate in Africa. (Meaning among Africans living in Africa, and not Afrcans living in the West).

    I find it interesting. The two are likely related. No woman wants to part with her children. So even if she is not haaappy, she will stay put.
    And whatcha know, it does turn out her happiness levels return to normal sometime in the future…

    Maybe we in the West can learn something from this strange phenomenon?

  27. Oh No! This is just terrible.
    Gosh fellas, I hope Princess Meghan Markle is going to be OK.

    https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/prince-harry-meghan-markle-divorce-160144

  28. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Spacetraveller

    It is african law.

    Africa is a huge continent. Which countries in particular have such laws, or is it indeed all of them?
    It is an interesting angle, since most discussions here center on how things are in the West.

  29. American says:

    Good points Dan Horton. I agree with you.

  30. Dave says:

    Africa is a huge continent. Which countries in particular have such laws, or is it indeed all of them?
    It is an interesting angle, since most discussions here center on how things are in the West.

    Most sub-Saharan African countries have such laws as far as I know.
    And it is not uncommon for a man to marry more than one wife–one being the “official” wife, for formal functions. Nigeria’s former president, Obasanjo, South Africa’s former president, Zuma, etc had several wives while in office, and it was not a big deal in those countries.
    And in African countries (e.g. Nigeria), wives are expected to have full time jobs while carrying out the traditional gender roles meant for wives (e.g. cooking from scratch for the home, cleaning, etc).

  31. Spacetraveller says:

    Lost Patrol,

    Ah, yes, you are right. It is indeed a big continent. I refer specifically to West Africa – both the English- and French-speaking countries there.

    But you know, it wouldn’t surprise me if this were also true of East and Southern Africa. African cultures tend to be very very similar to each other, which is why in the West, people from different African countries can and will ‘club’ together (minus the North Africans, Somalians and Ethiopians/Eritreans who are distinctly ethnically ‘different’ from what one would label ‘Black Africa’).

    Interestingly, most or all African cultures are heavily patriarchal, even those that are ‘matrilineal’, (meaning you can only inherit legacy, wealth, tribal identity, etc. only from your mother and not your father – the famous Ashanti Royal Family of Ghana in West Africa operates this way, for instance). The current king is the NEPHEW of the previous king, as the king’s own son does not inherit the throne, it is his SISTER’s son who becomes the next king, because that nephew is inheriting from HIS mother’s side, i.e. his mother’s brother.
    Complicated, but apparently this peculiar rule was instigated to protect against paternity fraud (where have I heard that before, LOL) – the baseline logic here is that at least your sister’s kid is definitely HER kid, therefore you KNOW the kid is somehow related to you. Your kid by your wife? Are you sure it is yours??? LOL.

    Even in these matrilineal cultures, in the event of separation, the child MUST stay with the father/stepmother and not the biological mother.

    I hereby admit I am a total nerd. I have specifically studied this because it fascinates me. And I really think there is something to be learned from these interesting cultures.
    I need to find a ‘geek anonymous’ class to go to… 🙂

  32. Spherical Cube says:

    Not really related to this post, just like reading your stuff.

    Here’s a question to throw out there to the comment section – would getting a wedding ring and wearing it, even if I’m single, would that discourage or attract the whores/carouselers out there? I’m not averse to drawing whores out of the woodwork, the way I see it an obvious whore is a safe whore, as in see and avoid.

  33. Gunner Q says:

    “Interestingly, most or all African cultures are heavily patriarchal”

    Polygamy alone is sufficient to disprove this. It must be said repeatedly, patriarchy is not warlord-fueled tribalism.

  34. Lost Patrol says:

    Spacetraveller and Dave

    Of the countries in Africa where you are aware that divorce laws could be said to favor the man, is this regional by internal boundaries (i.e. states in USA and Mexico may have different laws from one another, or other subdivisions), or is it nationwide?

    Also, how much of this is tribal, and is that honored by whatever version of “federal” government is in place; or does the national/regional level override tribal tradition, such that it could be rightly said the country has divorce laws that discourage divorce for a woman?

    I hadn’t given much thought to how the concept of frivorce plays out on the broader world stage, but I do find it an interesting topic.

  35. Spacetraveller says:

    Lost Patrol,

    From what I know, yes these laws tend to be regional, and to already answer your second question, they are indeed tribal-driven. But, the tribes are really similar, so the differences are almost negligible in terms of execution of the law.

    And this is why I was careful to add ‘traditional-living’ couples in my comment above. Sadly, the federal laws do tend to override the tribal/village laws, such that unless you live in the bush/dirt village, OR you choose to be subject to the village/tribal laws (and some ‘city’ people do this, ESPECIALLY (paradoxically!) the Upper Classes), the federal law applies, but even so, it is not quite as gynocentric as it is in the West. I must say, in most African countries, even the federal laws do try to ‘give a nod to’ or respect, to some extent, the tribal laws.

    I know for instance, that there was a big row regarding marriage amongs Catholics dating back to the 60s. In West Africa, the engagement ceremony is even more important than the wedding itself, always has been. In the old days, people never even bothered with a wedding. You had the ‘betrothal’, usually when the bride is still more or less a child, at which point there is a ‘waiting time’ to ensure she has had at least 3 periods in 3 consecutive months (erm, sorry for the TMI considering this is a male blog) and then she can go and live with her husband at the appointed time, and this appointed time does not have any particular festivity associated with it. The celebration of a ‘wedding’ only became ‘fashionable’ to copy the West. And then, there came a time in the 60s when couples were going straight to ‘wedding’ especially ‘church wedding’ just so the bride could wear the frllly white dress, lol, without having first been engaged in the traditional way.
    The african elders did not like this trend at all, and started to refuse to recognise such marriages as legal, because the traditional laws had been ‘cast aside’. Also, there was a lot of fraud, as a man might engage a woman ‘traditionally’, but then marry another in a Church (because the engagement ‘doesn’t count’, and so on…).
    Apparently the Catholic church had to grovel to regain the respect of the elders. Now, one MUST first do the traditional engagement before applying to wed in church, otherwise your marriage is not valid. This is an example of where they have tried to ‘unify’ the laws to please the elders and also to remain ‘up to date’ with the rest of the world.

    The village elders can be very aggressive in trying to resist federal law. Everyday there are tales of court cases where the government has to take action against chiefs/village elders because the laws are not unified enough – especially where it comes to land law.

    Gunner Q,

    Well, I am not sure Polygamy excludes Patriarchy! What is your definition of Patriarchy?
    In Bibilcal times, Polygamy was also the norm. Can we really argue that Bibical marriages were not patriarchal? Perhaps I am confused as to the term ‘Patriarchy’ itself.
    Enlighten me.
    Please.

  36. Swanny River says:

    Anon,
    Great comparison of Sweden and the US to highlight the church’s role in destroying marriage and headship. It’s why they deserve the greater wrath.

  37. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Spacetraveller

    OK, thanks. Do you have a recommended source document for this information?

  38. What a great example of the fundamental truth that all men – whether single or married – just don’t want to accept or come to terms with. Not with their own wives or fiances.

    And that is that women just don’t love us. Not really love us.
    They really only love what men can potentially provide for them.

    We refuse to accept that any adoration or love she says she “feels” is not genuine. It cannot be, for it is always teetering on a fulcrum of contigencies – incidental, dependent, conditional and provisory terms.

    Her “love” for her man is an illusion that’s only given oxygen and kept alive by the lies the dudes keep feeding themselves over and over again.

    How do you know that she loves you? Because she no longer sees the financial gain in divorcing and catapulting your ass out of her life?

    And to think that her contempt for her husband was high BEFORE jettisoning him from the home! Now she has to sit back and stick with this “pathetic loser” even longer than she deserves.

    And we jeer at this like “Wow! What a victory for marriage and husbands out there!”

    As much as you want it to be true, it’s not true, and it will never be true.

  39. JRob says:

    A seminal moment in TRP was a “conversation” with a single mother I dated for a time (I am TOTALLY reformed of such dangerous brain dead behavior now). She thought she paid taxes and argued about it. She had cash and prizes from a divorce, the usual EGTRSME (Early Gubment Trough Retirement, Single Mom Edition), and bled the local Catholic church benevolence fund dry. During Lent she’d donate ten bucks.

    Seventy grand in student loans, worked part time as a bank teller. Paid 2 or 3 grand federal income tax a year, received 7K plus “refund.” For every free dollar that found its way into her booger hooks 2.5 dollars were spent. Yes, crushing consumer debt too.

    The system will hemorrhage cash and prizes to these skanks no matter what. They’ll find a way and stand in the street and scream it’s their right all day long.

  40. Paul says:

    Does anybody know why the divorce incentives were lowered in the first place?

  41. Spacetraveller says:

    Hello Lost Patrol,

    This list is of course not exhaustive, but gives further insight into what I say above:

    https://www.ghanagrio.com/content/article/86-marriage-in-ghana.html

    https://www.modernghana.com/news/73241/church-marriages-are-in-themselves-not-under-ordinance.html

    http://www.endvawnow.org/en/articles/765-marriages-.html (here, it states that Sierra Leone requires first the ‘customary’ or traditional marriage to be registered before any other subsequnt marriage, to be ‘legal’).

    http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/548edd8f4.pdf (marriage laws if Ghana)

    http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/WEBTEXT/56216/65194/E98GHA01.htm (the official children’s act of Ghana)

    https://mzagams.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/child-custody-proceedings-in-nigeria-i/ (In some Nigerian trraditional communities, the father sees the kids as ‘his property’ if he paid the ‘bride price’ at the engagement ceremony, so he expects to have custody if he asks for it)

    Hope this helps.

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spherical Cube
    Here’s a question to throw out there to the comment section – would getting a wedding ring and wearing it, even if I’m single, would that discourage or attract the whores/carouselers out there?

    Yes. Yes, it would.

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    constrainedlocus
    And that is that women just don’t love us. Not really love us.

    Women cannot love men the way men want them to, it is true. They love men like women. Bear in mind that men are the real romantics, women cannot truly afford to be.

    They really only love what men can potentially provide for them.

    Rollo Tomassi refers to this as the “burden of performance”. It is present no matter what.

  44. Dota says:

    China’s divorce rule dubbed ‘Law that makes men laugh and women cry’

    Since August 13th, when China’s Supreme People’s Court reinterpreted the country’s marriage law, many of the women leaving marriage registry offices like the one in Chaoyang have more than just the end of their marriages to bemoan. According to the new law, residential property is no longer to be regarded as jointly owned and divided equally in the event of a divorce.

    Instead, whoever paid for the apartment or house is the legal owner and gets to keep it in its entirety.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8857708/Chinas-divorce-rule-dubbed-Law-that-makes-men-laugh-and-women-cry.html

  45. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Spacetraveller

    Well, thanks for the links. I have to say, those linked sites appear to me to explain feminist initiatives to circumvent or change whatever African laws there may be that do not favor women in divorce. So some African countries, or particular tribes may be holding a line today that discourages frivolous divorce, but clearly there are efforts underway to change the practices wherever that might be true.

    I don’t want to turn too far from the OP, which has about run its course; but to take one example only, you provided a link to a document from the “United Nations Entity for Gender and the Empowerment of Women”.

    Among the recommendations (to the world? it does not specify though most of the included case studies reference African countries):

    – Drafters should ensure that laws reflect a no-fault divorce regime.
    – Any options for ending a marriage should protect her rights, including those related to property, child custody, immigration status and support.
    – Laws should not grant legal recognition to religious traditions that deny women due process in divorce proceedings.
    – Etc.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    @spacetraveller, Lost Patrol

    19th century US divorce law presumed father-custody of children. That changed sometime between the 1880’s and 1900 or so with the “tender years” doctrine that gave women custody of young children under 7 or so, in their “tender years”. I do not know when default mother-custody came along, it could have been as late as the 1950’s.

    The UN is fully captured by the Female Imperative and for at least 20 years if not 40 there have been various initiatives to push US style divorce law onto the rest of the world. The rate of change in the rest of the world isn’t up to that of the US yet, but that is not for lack of effort.

  47. info says:

    @Lost Patrol
    ”I have to say, those linked sites appear to me to explain feminist initiatives to circumvent or change whatever African laws there may be that do not favor women in divorce.”
    They will leave no tribe untouched by their attempt to destroy the family and Patriarchy. And destroy healthy sex relations in general.

    NGOs have proven to be trojan horses of evil.

  48. don bosch says:

    Reblogged this on ex patre and commented:
    Incentives matter.

  49. Kevin says:

    I once had a female friend talk about how she took the last child support payment and went shopping for some really nice stuff for herself. I asked if she didn’t need the money for the children and just used for self, why did husband need to pay it? He owes it to her. Sure. The system is broken and brings out the worst in already corrupt women.

  50. BillyS says:

    My exwife says that the Spousal Support is fair because of the “years she gave me” Kevin. Nothing about what I did for her or her current unfaithfulness. Logic is weak in them.

  51. Novaseeker says:

    My exwife says that the Spousal Support is fair because of the “years she gave me” Kevin.

    This is how they generally view it. The “logic” is that at younger ages they have the ability to attract a myriad number of men, while at older ages, it is much less so — so the fact that they were married to you at those younger ages represents you imposing an opportunity cost on them which must, from their perspective, be repaid to them.

    Women are always extremely cognizant of their market value at different ages, despite their constant dissembling about it. The spousal support (and also the mentality bleeds into CS for the reasons Kevin mentions) idea they have belies this.

  52. Novaseeker says:

    I asked if she didn’t need the money for the children and just used for self, why did husband need to pay it? He owes it to her. Sure.

    This is fully intended, though. The idea was to make child support more like spousal support when they diminished alimony for women who work outside the home and/or earn comparable (or can) income, but upped the CS amounts to be a portion of ex-H’s income like alimony is. They simply morphed it — it was quite intentional.

  53. Anon says:

    Dota,

    China’s divorce rule dubbed ‘Law that makes men laugh and women cry’

    In a non-democracy, they don’t have to buy female votes (which also leads to fewer manginas being created).

    The two-parent family is the most productive economic unit around, and China knows that destroying it would be folly. They only have to see the 50+ democracies making this mistake.

    Their horrid one-child rule notwithstanding (which they have not belatedly repealed), you are unlikely to see China make the same social mistakes as a democracy makes.

    I say they should take it up a notch and recruit the most talented Western men as expats with a tax holiday, government-provided flat, etc. in order to ensure that the Chinese economy surpasses the West. They should then recruit women from SE Asia and Russia as ‘maintenence women and/or wives’ for these expats.

  54. Anon says:

    *now belatedly repealed.

  55. Spike says:

    Hmmm….Let me get this straight:
    Divorce rates go down when payouts are no longer big enough to keep the ex-wife ”in a style to which she is accustomed”.
    NO!!!! It can’t possibly be true. Women only EVER divorce men because they are abusive bastards!

  56. Jim says:

    Hmmm….Let me get this straight:
    Divorce rates go down when payouts are no longer big enough to keep the ex-wife ”in a style to which she is accustomed”.
    NO!!!! It can’t possibly be true.

    Yeah. Who would have ever thought?

  57. BillyS says:

    That is a major flaw in Texas divorce laws. Why is a spouse eligible to take from her husbands earnings so she can keep her lifestyle? Yet that is the standard. Really evil.

  58. Dota says:

    Anon

    I have visited China and I was struck by how pragmatic they are as a society. They seem to view policies purely in terms of cost/benefit and not ideology. Feminism represents a cost and it’s a cost that the government isn’t willing to bear, and neither is society. The Chinese government doesn’t have the funds for welfare for single moms and their bastards. They don’t have the funds to keep swat teams on standby to arrest husbands who raise their voice at their wives. They are smart enough to realize that it’s men who keep their economy going and thus it makes sense to maximize their happiness.

    The Chinese are petrified of social unrest. They’ve learned from their own history that “Bare branches” (what we call incels today) can cause social unrest and the Chinese government has decided that feminism needs to go because it poses a risk. There is a great deal of discrimination against women in the job market and I’m convinced that this is by design, even though the Chinese would deny this. Smart societies invest in their men. Stupid societies pander to women and their never ending demand for more funding to fix the social problems they cause by running amok.

  59. Novaseeker says:

    That is a major flaw in Texas divorce laws. Why is a spouse eligible to take from her husbands earnings so she can keep her lifestyle? Yet that is the standard. Really evil.

    The standard goes back quite a ways in divorce law i.e., from the fault divorce era) and was basically designed to address the situation where a 50 year old male executive dumps his wife of 25 years for his 25 year old secretary. The reasoning was that in a case like that the man has taken the woman’s opportunity cost in terms of her appearance (relationships), her earnings (if she was a SAHM and didn’t develop career), and her efforts raising his children, only to dump her when she is in her 50s with poor relationship and earnings prospects. That was the situation that the standard was developed to address — it comes from an era when many/most women were SAHMs, and many divorces began when the man wanted to upgrade the wife. And the standard makes sense for that specific situation — why should she suffer a massive drop in lifestyle because her husband wants to upgrade to his young secretary when she hasn’t done anything wrong?

    The problem arises when the divorce landscape shifts to no fault, and a woman can exit the marriage just because she wants to and then get kept in the same lifestyle because of the other reasons (earnings prospects, relationship prospects, child raising labor) even though the husband hasn’t done anything wrong, isn’t leaving/upgrading, etc. That’s where the problem has arisen. We have an old standard for support based on the fault divorce era which has persisted into the era of no fault, elective divorce, and it leads to rather unjust results. Thankfully at the same time support payments have been greatly diminished because there are now relatively few SAHMs and a lot of marriages have situations where the earnings are relatively close between the spouses such that large support payments are not awarded. But the idea that a long-term SAHM can step out on her husband, replace him with her new boyfriend, and have the husband pay to keep her in the same lifestyle as the marriage (provided she doesn’t remarry) is insanely unjust, due to the mismatch between the support standard and no fault divorce.

  60. Swanny River says:

    Dota,
    I’ll be there in a few weeks for a few weeks for my second time, so I’ll keep an eye out for that, but their colleges are full of women, and they ain’t lookin for a Mrs degrees, so I am skeptical of your assertion. The Chinese women that come here are sweet on the outside, but are intemperate and rigid as wives and all, sweet or not, expect a career and kids to be raised by daycare.
    Regarding your other interesting point, I interviewed for a manager’s spot (two) recently, but the female boss gave both spots to women, neither of whom support a home like I do. I told a guy at the gym about it, and he had a very egalitarian response, “whoever is best should get the job.” But as you imply, there is a trade off, one which is largely unexamined, when men are cast aside so women can pull in a lifestyle- income. I was told I was 3rd and the two women that were hired work in that section already, while l left it a few years ago. True, and the boss made a good decision to hire those two in several ways, but I am in the position I hear Blacks always complain about, that is, as a white male, I need to be much better than the competition to advance (in State government).

  61. Swanny River says:

    Thanks for that short but understandable description of the lifestyle payments Novaseeker.

  62. ray says:

    The number of incentives the government of the United Sisterhood has showered on females over the past half-century is vast. But in particular, one set of incentives caused deep, and possibly irreversible, damage to your nation.

    Those are the incentives the U.S. began awarding to the parents of daughters following CRA ’64, which became a flood of extra-benefits by the early-Eighties. It does not matter if Dad, or even Dad and Mom, are both Christians and/or conservatives. When the government places the nation’s daughters above the sons of the nation, en masse — for education, scholarships, employment opportunities, loans, preferential legal standing, and on and on — then the country will decline. The U.S. already should have been destroyed except for its great wealth and global influence; most other nations couldn’t have survived fifty years of Total Feminism.

    Demographically, once the DODOs are willing to backstab the nation, in the interest of advancing their princesses (and thereby themselves), then significant reform cannot occur in a democracy. The votes and ‘national conversation’ will disallow reform, because too many persons in the Empire are personally aggrandized by becoming de-facto feminists, including supposed Conservatives and Christians.

    These parents, numbering in the tens-of-millions, skew the demographic too severely, because Total Feminism ALREADY has on-board most females, all of the Left, many emasculated men, plus the assorted nuts of the Identity Coalition, your LGBTQZX etc. crowd. If the government and intel agencies add great incentives to the daughter-parents to track their princesses into college ‘n career — rather than marry young per tradition — then the demographic deficit cannot be made up; the raw numbers disallow it.

    Thus even if a Trump is elected, it will not impact the hegemony of Total Feminism, as gynarchic policies and agendas are never voted out — they are only increased, even under ‘conservative’ or Repugnicant administrations.

    None of this was even vaguely accidental. It was cunningly done. Incentives matter. A lot.

  63. Dota says:

    Swanny River

    The perception among the Chinese is that the government wants women to return to the home because a plummeting birth rate with an aging population is going to harm long term prosperity. The Chinese government is concerned because any trend that impedes economic growth must be resisted since growth is the primary criterion through which the government maintains its legitimacy. Call it a modern day incarnation of the Mandate of Heaven.

    It should be noted that the Chinese government isn’t against female participation in the workforce (though that’s been declining) but against women squandering their fertile years chasing careers and hedonistic lifestyles. What the government wants is for Chinese women to have kids in their 20s, and then join the workforce alongside with the husband to support the family while the grandparents raise the kids. Incomes in china are still pretty low and most families require both parents to work. This is still infinitely better than the daycare culture of the west.

    Regarding discrimination. I’ve had a feminist tell me that discriminating against men is justified because it is ‘correcting a societal imbalance.’ That is of course horseshit. Since equality is a theoretical state that will never be fully achieved, it stands to reason that men must continue to pay women tribute perpetually until the state of equality (ambiguous by design and intent) can be attained. Quite a racket.

  64. Morgan says:

    The only citizens entitled to keep a certain lifestyle are divorced women. The family court could care less if the man moves into an apartment while the divorced woman keeps the family home.

    Also, when it comes time to divorce, why is the man expected to pay the woman back for her lost “beauty years”, but the woman doesn’t pay the man back for his lost money, what he paid for that lifestyle during marriage that she’s now accustomed to?

  65. American says:

    “Enforced Monogamy” by Onar Åm | May 22, 2018: https://www.libertynation.com/enforced-monogamy/

  66. Dota says:

    Morgan

    Also, when it comes time to divorce, why is the man expected to pay the woman back for her lost “beauty years”, but the woman doesn’t pay the man back for his lost money, what he paid for that lifestyle during marriage that she’s now accustomed to?

    I think the feminist response would be that wealth can be re-earned whereas beauty cannot be regained. At any rate that’s a bad argument because it shifts the risks of marriage failure completely on men.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dota
    I think the feminist response would be that wealth can be re-earned whereas beauty cannot be regained.

    More or less. “She gave you the best years of her life” stuff. Although nowadays it’s not true, YuGoGrrls give the best years of their lives to the cock carousel, then expect to wear a white wedding gown…

    At any rate that’s a bad argument because it shifts the risks of marriage failure completely on men.

    It’s a bad argument in logical terms. In emotional terms it’s just fine…and feministas have zero problem with shifting risk to men and reward to themselves. Because women are risk-averse, but have no problem with being greedy. It’s hindbrain stuff that’s intended to keep babies alive.

  68. Strefanasha says:

    Less divorces because of less money forthcoming from it? I did not know this but I suppose I should have. Of couse the plain meaning of the words makes these women whores for going through with it in the first place

  69. Jason says:

    “By slightly reducing the cash and prizes women receive as a reward for divorcing, UK judges are transferring some of the power in marriages back to the party that wants to honor the marriage vows (the husband).” And so what? All this means is that more men will be trapped in marriage to women that have divorced him in every way but legally. If this is really how women are, why marry at all? Kids? Let somebody else have them…

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.