Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
If you believe that women are closer to being property than to being full and equal partners in a relationship, you don't want them being able to exit a marriage without a fight.
Some of these idiots actually say that a woman shouldn't be able to divorce without the husband's permission. Crazy and gross.
The irony being that spouse murder rates notably dropped after the majority of the US legalized no-fault divorces. If a woman can't escape a toxic marriage legally, she's more likely to just murder you instead (and before anyone jumps in to patronize, I realize how terrible it used to be for many women and we should fight against any toxic, regressive policies like this).
My understanding is murder dropped on both sides, but it was a bigger drop in the deaths of the wives. Women are more able to get away from abusive husbands with a no fault divorce - they don't have to go to court and prove the abuse. Abusive relationships often escalate over time, and can end in death if the abused doesn't get out.
I believe you're right, it's been awhile since I read an article that discussed the topic. Bottom line: Advocates of rescinding no fault divorces can shut the hell up and keep their draconian ideas to themselves.
Yeah, I wish they would, but they don't. It's the same people who want to abolish abortions and prevent kids from knowing about homosexuality. None of it is based on any actual data or problems, it's all based on their particular cherry-picked interpretation of the bible.
It's so perfectly appropriate that that abusive piece of shit Steven Crowder opposes no-fault divorce. He's just such a vivid example of the sort of emotionally stunted manchild who opposes it and of why they oppose it, and thus of why it has to continue to exist.
Let's be real here. It's not that conservatives, conservative men specifically, want to get rid of no-fault divorce. In Crowder's case, his wife has pretty compelling evidence that Steven emotionally abused his wife.
Conservatives would use no fault divorce to separate from "mouthy" women in a heartbeat if the threat of it would keep them in line.
They hate that a law exists that can be used against them.
They believe they should not be bound by the law of a no fault divorce but would have zero problem using it if it served their interests.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Well that was hard to watch. Already didn’t like this dickhead but now I reeeally don’t like ‘im
If this was the "wifely duties" one, the dog needed some meds which a pregnant woman can't touch. Affects the fetus. He wanted her to put on gloves so she could do it. What a POS. If that stuff could affect my kid I wouldn't want it anywhere near my wife.
That is the gloves thing? I wondered.
Yeah, what a lazy selfish POS. Their first kid I'm guessing? He probably is the type to 'not do diapers' too.
why do conservatives want x?
Because they're cunts. That is the answer. It doesn't matter what the question is, the answer is that conservatives are cunts. It explains the entirety of their behavior.
Well, but that doesn't explain anything. Of course you can always go deeper with "why" questions and at some point you have to be satisfied, but asking "why are they being cunts?" is not going too far. Being a cunt usually has no benefit and is not desirable, so using it as an explanation for human behavior is not sufficient.
The answer should include the supposed reason why conservatives think being a cunt would be advantageous to them, i.e. why they're choosing this over other beneficial behavior.
but asking “why are they being cunts?” is not going too far.
I don't agree with you on this. The phrase "being a cunt" implies that you have some choice in the matter; you normally are not a cunt, but you choose to be one for some reason. I don't think that applies for conservatives. They aren't choosing to be cunts any more than a dog chooses to be a dog. They are cunts. Therefore, they gravitate towards conservatism. Conservatism is the ideology of cunts.
There have been previous conservatives that stopped being cunts, disproving your claim by simple counterexample. It's definitely a choice (as much as anything that we do is "chosen"), it's not some inherent property of their being.
Being a conservative doesn't make them a cunt, being a cunt makes them conservative.
Its too easy? Fuck you. I want to be able to text a number and boom my divorce is filed. Republicans once again proving their the party of piss babies and iron fists. Maybe if you all weren't so completely revolting in your souls you'd find someone that wishes to intertwin with it.
Technically if you don't have any disputed assets or kids to traumatize, you can pretty much get divorced online these days. There a bunch of online legal services websites out there who will send you boilerplate to fill out and then file it for you for under $1000.
Yes. That's how no-fault divorce works. The point is, they don't want that at all, for anyone, regardless of assets or children. They want wives to be the property of men, unable to get a divorce.
Those services are scams. At least in my state, the court's website includes a boilerplate form to fill out free of charge.
Having said that, even if there is no dispute, if you have sizable co-mingled assets/liabilities (such as a house and mortgage, effectively comingled retirement savings, etc), you should probably still get professional help even if you agree in principle how to divide them.
These people who want to keep "traditional family values" alive don't want you to use in-vitro fertilization methods either. Don't believe me? Read this article from the Knights of Columbus. This is the mentality we're up against.
They also don't want to make the economic conditions happen that allowed for the 'traditional family', where there's one bread winner. It's just not possible in this day and age for the average worker to support a wife and kids.
Well of course not. If you can't have kids, it's because their god doesn't want you to.
Maybe just maybe the sanctity of the American family is as an abuse cycle in its most potent form.
And there is no fixing that.
And the besainted Kurt Vonnegut said, “A husband, a wife and some kids is not a family. It's a terribly vulnerable survival unit."
I wonder if the brains of conservatives are structurally different from everyone else's. Like I get that boomers have their lead poisoning, but younger cons are just as terrible and just as stupid while growing up with better education and endless info against their values.
They have higher fear and disgust reactions. That's why they sound fearful and disgusted at nonthreatening things.
There might be "better education", but you also have to remember that we have much worse socialization today. There's no sense of community anymore, no natural places to go to meet people, families are smaller, it's much easier to pick up and move somewhere else ending up in an unfamiliar environment with no friends, and so on and so on.
If you have bad socialisation, you end up with bad social skills, so you end up being rejected everywhere you go, so you end up wanting to control people so they have to stay with you, so you don't end up alone.
Yes. Lack of emotional intelligence, lack of cognitive intelligence (unless they're grifting), and a willingness to engage in sociopathic behavior. You should absolutely be able to see structural differences in people that willfully engage in conservatism.
Because they are terrible people that need to hold someone hostage in order not to be single? Probably something along those lines...
As usual conservatives don't think of the consequences of their actions. Marriage rates are already declining. Eliminating no-fault divorce won't make people stay together. It will make them decide getting married isn't worth it in the first place.
Pretty much every conservative idea is stupid or evil. This is no exception.
I legitimately don't understand why you would want to hold someone hostage if they don't want to be with you. Ignore the whole human rights issue... Unless you are an actual sadistic sociopath why would you want to subject yourself to another person's misery like that, instead of going out and seeking mutual happiness?
For some, women and children are things, not people.
My terrible grandfather was like that. Abusive to everyone in the household, stole my grandmother's income, and when winter rolled around he'd disappear until spring to who knows where leaving my grandmother and kids to fend for themselves. He literally tried to kill one of my uncles just because he could (tried to run him over with a tractor).
Unless you are an actual sadistic sociopath
You answered your own question. To conservatives, a spouse is merely another piece along your way to the "traditional family". And that is explicitly your (the royal you) way. How dare that piece have the audacity to remove itself from your carefully laid plans. Doesn't it know you have a wholesome image to maintain? Though it's nothing a little "discipline" won't fix.
Free labor in the house (cook clean etc), sex (rape at that point), punching bag, etc.
Some of it stems from religious zealotry (marriage is sacred and permanent).
Some of it is a misguided attempt at rectify the 'single parent' problem, believing that two unhappy parents is better than one parent divorced.
Essentially if you make divorce harder, more couples will be forced to work through their disagreements and reconcile.
They don't want to be divorced for being shitty people and shitty partners.
I have no problem with no-fault divorce (on the contrary, it’s a great thing). What I do have a problem with is 50-50 split laws that create the possibility that assets will be automatically equally split in a divorce, which is stupid and enables gold-digging. I would think conservatives would be against that too, which I could actually support. This though…this is just abusive and motivated by either misogyny and/or Christian religious values (although I’m sure some other religions could get behind it too [hard stare at Islam]).
What I do have a problem with is 50-50 split laws that create the possibility that assets will be automatically equally split in a divorce, which is stupid and enables gold-digging.
I have never heard anyone complain about a 50-50 split laws.
You clearly have a strong opinion about it. If you're willing to share, do you believe that "gold-digging" is such a prevalent problem that the default 50-50 split needs to change? What are you proposing as an alternative? If you're worried about "gold-digging" how do prenuptial agreements not mitigate this already?
They want to trap you for life. Allowing them to be horrible people and not allowing you to leave.
Imagine wanting to get out of a bad situation and needing to prove to a court that it's bad enough.
Court: "Not bad enough, you can't leave."
What is no-fault divorce?
Good for women.
Why do conservatives want to get rid of it?
See above.
The Republicans are always looking backwards and asking themselves how they can drag the country there.
I was going to bring up the story of Andrew Jackson's wife, but apperently the story was much more complex then part of the country had no fault, and the other part didn't.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2017/05/05/real-story-andrew-and-rachel-jackson/101194482/