In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation's first no-fault divorce bill.
This is Mister Family Values by the way. I didn't know this until just now. We really fucked things up didn't we.
Considering it was 1969, I wonder if he was doing it for the blacks.
If that's the case, he just helped start the destruction of the black family structure.
Well... consider me even more red pilled on this. I didn't know all this. This whole thing was a bunch of fuckups. Fuck.I thought it was mostly left wing socjus advocacy that ruined the tradcon black family the same way it's ruined the tradcon American family, but now I see.
Progs attacked them with welfare, Republicans with the drug and gun wars. Soon as they got the public on side with the Common Humanity Civil Rights approach, the elites needed new tools.
You don't even need to restore fault. Actually having no fault divorce would improve the situation. What we have now is male fault divorce, and that's the root of the problem. Women have no incentive to behave properly because they get to keep all the benefits of marriage while absolving themselves of the obligations upon divorce. Not being able to keep using her ex as an ATM after the divorce might be enough to disincentive being a ho.
This. I fact restoring fault divorce would have been nder men even more. During seperation, if fault divorce was back in, the man could be attacked with adultery clauses due to technically being married still. Sure this works the other way round too, but since when are divorce laws enforced equally.
That's because there was an imbalance of economic power between men and women.
Well, yeah. Women hold some economic power and men hold responsibility for the consequences of the power that women wield. Men also hold some economic power and also hold the responsibility for the consequences for how they wield it.
Kind of like a lot of other forms of power.
You don't need to.
You just need to restore the concept of fault divorce. Adultery historically was "YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY!" outcome in divorce court.
This is Mister Family Values by the way. I didn't know this until just now. We really fucked things up didn't we.
Also signed some of the first gun control legislation. Reagan was only good in speeches.
Considering it was 1969, I wonder if he was doing it for the blacks.
If that's the case, he just helped start the destruction of the black family structure.
Well... consider me even more red pilled on this. I didn't know all this. This whole thing was a bunch of fuckups. Fuck.I thought it was mostly left wing socjus advocacy that ruined the tradcon black family the same way it's ruined the tradcon American family, but now I see.
Progs attacked them with welfare, Republicans with the drug and gun wars. Soon as they got the public on side with the Common Humanity Civil Rights approach, the elites needed new tools.
Reagan was literally an actor before He got into politics. He had practice at pretending to be what He wasn't.
You don't even need to restore fault. Actually having no fault divorce would improve the situation. What we have now is male fault divorce, and that's the root of the problem. Women have no incentive to behave properly because they get to keep all the benefits of marriage while absolving themselves of the obligations upon divorce. Not being able to keep using her ex as an ATM after the divorce might be enough to disincentive being a ho.
This. I fact restoring fault divorce would have been nder men even more. During seperation, if fault divorce was back in, the man could be attacked with adultery clauses due to technically being married still. Sure this works the other way round too, but since when are divorce laws enforced equally.
No, historically that was enough disincentive to prompt society to stigmatize it.
There used to be. I wonder who ended that?
Well, yeah. Women hold some economic power and men hold responsibility for the consequences of the power that women wield. Men also hold some economic power and also hold the responsibility for the consequences for how they wield it. Kind of like a lot of other forms of power.