I appreciate the feedback, I do. What I was pointing about @AttackFormation comment was that there is this narrative where women do the same as men, men always holding women back, blah, blah, blah. It's bogus, it's not real. Men carry society, whether he wants to admit it or not. They carve things out of the wilderness, they tame the wild, they create and invent things.What I meant was the labels can mean a lot of things and have over time. Maybe America started out "conservative" by our standards, but Washington, Jefferson, et. al. were extremely liberal for their times and also in comparison to autocrats today like in Iran, Korea, etc. Most Republicans today are relatively liberal compared with large swaths of the world. And it's a fact that the Republicans courted the votes of racist Southern Democrats (whites); so as you explain maybe they perverted their principles and abandoned their base once already.
Also, just my two cents, but the GOP hasn't been about small government in a long, long time. They're the other big government party. Both are in collusion and they use things like race to distract and anger voters while they laugh all the way to the bank.
Anyway, I'll peace out, I don't want to derail the thread.
No, it's not a good counterargument. It's a terrible one. She will get half of his earnings. Which could be argued is fair. But THEN you have to decide what happens to the kids, which is a far greater problem and much more damage is done.She said the reason she will never give into traditional gender roles of the wife staying at home is because what if the man decides to suddenly leave. The man will leave her with no marketable skills and possibly children to feed. This is a good counterpoint against having a traditional society.
Surprised that you were caught flat footed by such a nonsensical argument. Child support and alimony laws really favor women these days. Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of divorces are initiated by women.I was having dinner with my two females friends. One is a rabid feminist type. The topic of traditional gender roles vs feminist ideology was brought up. Of course I told her my RedPill views. It was a respectful convo and she brought up a good counter point that I had no answer for.
She said the reason she will never give into traditional gender roles of the wife staying at home is because what if the man decides to suddenly leave. The man will leave her with no marketable skills and possibly children to feed. This is a good counterpoint against having a traditional society. I wonder how they regulated men leaving their families in the more traditional era of the United States. Maybe they used social shaming to keep him there? Or maybe it was incredibly rare for the men to leave. Even today I don't know too many men that just abandon their children. Either way it was an interesting point.
So we agree that alimony is necessary to safeguard the woman in case the man leaves? We just don't agree with how lopsided the alimony and child support laws have become right.Surprised that you were caught flat footed by such a nonsensical argument. Child support and alimony laws really favor women these days. Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of divorces are initiated by women.
Were alimony laws put in place back in the 1950s which was the peak of traditional families? How did society safeguard against men leaving before alimony laws? I guess maybe the girls brothers would beat the guy up or something. I doubt that men leaving was a common thing but I am still curious as to how it was regulated back then.No, it's not a good counterargument. It's a terrible one. She will get half of his earnings. Which could be argued is fair. But THEN you have to decide what happens to the kids, which is a far greater problem and much more damage is done.
The problem is when the woman leaves. She still gets half, which is some major BS. But, where it evens out is when she gets married again, that goes away. Problem is a lot of women will delay marriage with their new guy (that they likely cheated with) in order to keep the money flowing.
It's really easy to fix. You take the total income, then divide it when you leave. If you aren't the breadwinner, and you leave, then you get nothing except your own income. If you are the breadwinner, you give up half. It's that simple. That would disincentivize a lot of the nonsense.
Child custody rights are another matter altogether, and much more serious.
So which society is better? The society where women tolerated abuse in order to ensure that the man stays or a society where women are too liberated to the point of self destruction? Is there a middle ground that protects women from crappy men?It wasn't "regulated" except in the sense of "sucks to be you". Women were largely dependent on their men not leaving them and this power dynamic is also why society quieted down and accepted domestic abuse. This is still the case in cultures where women are socially beneath men and made dependent on providers, and one tactic of abusers is to make the woman dependent on them. Fixing this was part of the social democratic movement in countries like mine and connected to the temperance movement, as a subset of general women's lib, that also implemented other things like universal healthcare, tuition-free university, public infrastructure, taxing wealth more than work, and so on (although the limited social democracy began to be dismantled in the 1970s-80s).