Imagine thinking this wasn’t intentional malice. For all imp gets wrong he is not wrong here. We were a massively gynocentric society 40 years ago, everything since then has been intentional subjugation.
Society has been gynocentric since the beginning of time. It's just that women no longer have any social accountability and men are expected to have ever increasing accountability for things they shouldn't. "Date the single mom, bigot"
Completely disagree. Alimony has never made sense because a women is equally as entitled to a man's earnings after divorce as she is burdened with his debt.
It's a very odd framing to say she is "sacrificing" a potential career/earnings. It's not as if only the woman loses something when starting a family and that the majority of a man's pay didn't go to supporting it.
If you spend 15 years in a relationship caring for the household and the kids, that's 15 years you are not spending on developing job skills and developing human capital. It's not really accurate to simply assume that the two are similarly situated after such a period of time.
Doesn't matter. It's a choice- willingly made. Why should anyone else have to pay for your choices? The husband supports the wife already- free food and board + whatever they want to spend money on.
If you have children, the husband is LEGALLY obliged to pay child support and morally obliged to keep them healthy and happy. If you don't have kids together, that's even less reason she should receive money.
Furthermore, if you choose not to improve yourself because you are happy being taken care of, that's also not a justification for receiving money. It's not as if the only way for a woman to increase employability or secure income is through being a career woman. Also, let's not pretend that a woman couldn't find another man to support her and that the previous husband would be off the hook for alimony if she did.
Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?
Not enough to make it remotely fair
Alimony is not fair, and how the hell do you quantify what is "fair" repayment? Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary. It's a union, not employment.
Unless she is a housewife
No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.
We were talking about homemakers, not people who 'choose not to improve themselves'
My point there was you can improve yourself while also being a "homemaker". Wives get degrees, take up hobbies, DIY, whatever- they do have free time within which they can do or learn other things.
There's nothing rational about alimony- it's entirely based on men and women's bias towards women. It's at best a forced "charity" to help women long after they can get back on their own 2 feet.
Besides, you still haven't answered the most important argument: if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings? Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there? Nobody is entitled to comfort or safety at someone else's expense.
So, if a wealthy millionaire accrues massive amounts of debt, the courts would saddle his trophy housewife with millions in debt- equally split?
[X]
I'm sure what you're talking about is the negotiation of splitting assets and finances, not what is legally mandated by courts and judges as "compensation" for being a housewife. We're talking about the unfairness of alimony, which is an extraction of wealth regardless of debt.
And that changed in the 70’s. By the time the 80’s rolled in there the dual income house was established, feminization of men went full swing, and no fault divorce was a communist invention of Russia to take power from the church. California implemented it to take power from the family unit which was the end result of Russias implementation.
This story reminds me of a tactic I've seen some men using. Long story short, no long term dating in addition to everything else we know not to do. Basically this far sighted and very wise "judge" just made sure that any man who values good advice will limit himself to short term pump & dump's.
I'm sure that this dynamic will advance society and be very good for women to. (Yes that is sarcasm) Anyway, when you remove societal elements of equity, don't be surprised when the foundations crumble.
Anyway, when you remove societal elements of equity, don't be surprised when the foundations crumble.
Surprised? A careful observer would assume that's the entire plan. They want complete societal collapse to build their utopia on the ashes, and they've been trying different methods to obtain it for decades.
The artificially-engineered collapse of the family unit.
The complete cultural degenerations of entire societies.
Manufactured energy crises.
Nebulous, eternal wars.
An invasion disguised as compassion for demographic replacement.
Manufactured housing crises.
Rigged market collapses.
Half a dozen dry runs of a manufactured pandemic.
An artificial pandemic, when the actual pandemic failed to materialize because Chi-Coms don't science so good.
They want complete societal collapse to build their utopia on the ashes, and they've been trying different methods to obtain it for decades.
I agree that is what their goal is but it is highly debatable if they can achieve that outcome in the aftermath of a collapse. IE I think they are spit-balling. In fact lets look at the Soviet Union itself. They largely ended up with a right wing society after the collapse with the trouble spots being cronyism. And cronyism is the number one problem with almost all human societies.
Alimony is complete bullshit, and not just because it allows a woman to dump a man and continue to leech off his money. The worst part is that the amount they demand is based off of the man's income at the time it started. Dave Foley had to flee from Canada precisely because of this. He was working a really great paying show when she divorced him, and now he literally can't afford to pay it.
I'm not sure I can take you seriously on mocking me for that when your own conviction was hilariously wrong.
I'll mock you because almost everything you say turns out wrong: from your 6 predictions about Kim Potter, to your claim that 90% of people would die from the vaccine, to the male curfew.
The people who are now TERFs (including JK Rowling) were extensively involved in pushing "coercive control" law that allowed men to be murdered with near impunity.
So you claim that men can be murdered with impunity and that women want to kill men. OK, so why are there so few murders of men by women?
You claimed they were just women who were fed up of trannies
Yes, that is the common denominator.
Also, I strongly believe it will come out one day that she didn't write the fucking book. People like her cannot write male characters without it sounding like how the Jews were described in Mein Kampf.
LOL. You don't need to reach that far back, you can mention how you talk about women yourself.
Let's see, you claimed that Lithuania started the war in Ukraine. So yeah, you were very wrong, and still are. And even if Lithuania declares war on Russia tomorrow, you will still be wrong.
when they blockaded Kaliningrad, an act of war against Russia that would drag NATO into the war if Russia acted to end the blockade.
Quite unlikely. Being a NATO member does not mean you can go around acting aggressively against other countries without consequence.
Physical weakness?
I guess there's no such thing as knives and guns. It's pretty funny that the Oppressor Gender, guilty of 'genocidal hated', kills far fewer men than men kill Oppressor Gender members. But I guess the millions of murders are just covered up like the 90% who died of the vaccine.
But it isn't. Hating men is their common denominator.
Do you have any evidence that JK Rowling hates men?
I'm nowhere near as bad as they are.
You're way worse, also crazier and more obnoxious.
Yes, it's from over a year ago, but I wanted to prove this really does happen and that women see kindness as a weakness to exploit.
What specific kindness do you mean?
Women used the cover of the pandemic to get many laws passed that favored them, including massive changes to Canadian law on private property.
Just out of curiosity: what are those 'massive changes' to Canadian law?
Did anyone come out of 2020 with more wins than them? I guess Moderna shareholders.
Those are all women. The head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology tipped off the womens, so they bought up all the Moderna stock that they could find. They could not allow the gender they despise and want dead to profit from the virus they created to kill men.
Well, if you read the article, she used the extravagant gifts he bought her as a legal argument that she had been allowed his standard of living and this figure was fair.
I'm guessing that this relationship was mostly transactional.
I believe this is it? But it's not the right part of 2020 to what I remember reading. -
Yeah, it's in 2018, and it's not at all clear what it even does - and it's just for Alberta to boot. From what I gather, it specifies equal property division as the default, rather than something that has to be demonstrated.
so they could vilify anyone who rejected their idea that they are entitled to everyone's money by virtue of being women.
Does the law state that only women have a right to half their common law partner's property upon a break-up?
I mean, I wouldn't be so shocked if all the feminist organizations were tipped off by CDC Director Walensky on what would be approved, so they could grow their dirty money.
The man suffered from mental health issues and was unable to work consistently as a result. The woman supported him financially and gave him access to her bank accounts and credit cards.
All relationships with women are transactional. They believe themselves to be your superiors.
I'm guessing that Imp is my age. Outside of actual Christian women this is true for the majority of younger western women. Women in my generation will very casually assert that they are superior based because women are "bosses" and "queens" it's not all women but it's definitely pervasive because of social media and the push of this stupidity in consumable media like movies. I don't think it's willful maliciousness on their part but its definitely a thing
Imagine thinking this wasn’t intentional malice. For all imp gets wrong he is not wrong here. We were a massively gynocentric society 40 years ago, everything since then has been intentional subjugation.
Society has been gynocentric since the beginning of time. It's just that women no longer have any social accountability and men are expected to have ever increasing accountability for things they shouldn't. "Date the single mom, bigot"
Alimony made sense when women had kids and stayed home to take care of them, because they are sacrificing career and higher earnings potential.
Now? The cause having ceased, so should the effect.
Completely disagree. Alimony has never made sense because a women is equally as entitled to a man's earnings after divorce as she is burdened with his debt.
It's a very odd framing to say she is "sacrificing" a potential career/earnings. It's not as if only the woman loses something when starting a family and that the majority of a man's pay didn't go to supporting it.
If you spend 15 years in a relationship caring for the household and the kids, that's 15 years you are not spending on developing job skills and developing human capital. It's not really accurate to simply assume that the two are similarly situated after such a period of time.
Doesn't matter. It's a choice- willingly made. Why should anyone else have to pay for your choices? The husband supports the wife already- free food and board + whatever they want to spend money on.
If you have children, the husband is LEGALLY obliged to pay child support and morally obliged to keep them healthy and happy. If you don't have kids together, that's even less reason she should receive money.
Furthermore, if you choose not to improve yourself because you are happy being taken care of, that's also not a justification for receiving money. It's not as if the only way for a woman to increase employability or secure income is through being a career woman. Also, let's not pretend that a woman couldn't find another man to support her and that the previous husband would be off the hook for alimony if she did.
The choice is a social good.
Not enough to make it remotely fair.
Unless she is a housewife. If she has a career of her own, I agree.
We were talking about homemakers, not people who 'choose not to improve themselves'.
Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?
Alimony is not fair, and how the hell do you quantify what is "fair" repayment? Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary. It's a union, not employment.
No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.
My point there was you can improve yourself while also being a "homemaker". Wives get degrees, take up hobbies, DIY, whatever- they do have free time within which they can do or learn other things.
There's nothing rational about alimony- it's entirely based on men and women's bias towards women. It's at best a forced "charity" to help women long after they can get back on their own 2 feet.
Besides, you still haven't answered the most important argument: if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings? Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there? Nobody is entitled to comfort or safety at someone else's expense.
We should just bring back dowries instead
Her child. There's never any guarantee that it's his too. Although the government will still come for child support regardless of that.
Which gained him work experience and many raises.
How many screws do you have loose?
People do literally split their debts when they get divorced.
So, if a wealthy millionaire accrues massive amounts of debt, the courts would saddle his trophy housewife with millions in debt- equally split?
[X]
I'm sure what you're talking about is the negotiation of splitting assets and finances, not what is legally mandated by courts and judges as "compensation" for being a housewife. We're talking about the unfairness of alimony, which is an extraction of wealth regardless of debt.
And that changed in the 70’s. By the time the 80’s rolled in there the dual income house was established, feminization of men went full swing, and no fault divorce was a communist invention of Russia to take power from the church. California implemented it to take power from the family unit which was the end result of Russias implementation.
let's double the labor force and consumer base to drive down wages and increase consumption and call it liberation! what a fucking scam
I think since the original Trudeau was in office.
How is this legal in anyway?
Canada
This. Look up how Dave Foley of Kids in the Hall/Newsradio fame had a divorce from hell.
Threatened with jail if he didn't pay alimony/child support levels based on the short period of time he had a network sitcom.
Same thing happened to Brendan Frasier shortly after The Mummy.
I thought he was gay.
Anyway he's probably another sjw fascist so let him have his cake.
This story reminds me of a tactic I've seen some men using. Long story short, no long term dating in addition to everything else we know not to do. Basically this far sighted and very wise "judge" just made sure that any man who values good advice will limit himself to short term pump & dump's.
I'm sure that this dynamic will advance society and be very good for women to. (Yes that is sarcasm) Anyway, when you remove societal elements of equity, don't be surprised when the foundations crumble.
Surprised? A careful observer would assume that's the entire plan. They want complete societal collapse to build their utopia on the ashes, and they've been trying different methods to obtain it for decades.
The artificially-engineered collapse of the family unit.
The complete cultural degenerations of entire societies.
Manufactured energy crises.
Nebulous, eternal wars.
An invasion disguised as compassion for demographic replacement.
Manufactured housing crises.
Rigged market collapses.
Half a dozen dry runs of a manufactured pandemic.
An artificial pandemic, when the actual pandemic failed to materialize because Chi-Coms don't science so good.
I agree that is what their goal is but it is highly debatable if they can achieve that outcome in the aftermath of a collapse. IE I think they are spit-balling. In fact lets look at the Soviet Union itself. They largely ended up with a right wing society after the collapse with the trouble spots being cronyism. And cronyism is the number one problem with almost all human societies.
Alimony is complete bullshit, and not just because it allows a woman to dump a man and continue to leech off his money. The worst part is that the amount they demand is based off of the man's income at the time it started. Dave Foley had to flee from Canada precisely because of this. He was working a really great paying show when she divorced him, and now he literally can't afford to pay it.
She deserves to keep the same lifestyle but he doesn't. Simple feminist logic.
Time to sell everything and move to Mexico.
This is bonkers. Am I glad to live in a civil law jurisdiction.
Along with that 'male curfew', I'm sure.
I'll mock you because almost everything you say turns out wrong: from your 6 predictions about Kim Potter, to your claim that 90% of people would die from the vaccine, to the male curfew.
So you claim that men can be murdered with impunity and that women want to kill men. OK, so why are there so few murders of men by women?
Yes, that is the common denominator.
LOL. You don't need to reach that far back, you can mention how you talk about women yourself.
Let's see, you claimed that Lithuania started the war in Ukraine. So yeah, you were very wrong, and still are. And even if Lithuania declares war on Russia tomorrow, you will still be wrong.
Quite unlikely. Being a NATO member does not mean you can go around acting aggressively against other countries without consequence.
I guess there's no such thing as knives and guns. It's pretty funny that the Oppressor Gender, guilty of 'genocidal hated', kills far fewer men than men kill Oppressor Gender members. But I guess the millions of murders are just covered up like the 90% who died of the vaccine.
Do you have any evidence that JK Rowling hates men?
You're way worse, also crazier and more obnoxious.
As if any guy needs yet another reason not to deal with women. Especially if a guy is wealthy.
To be fair - its Canada. They voted for a literally mangina.
What specific kindness do you mean?
Just out of curiosity: what are those 'massive changes' to Canadian law?
Those are all women. The head of the Wuhan Institute of Virology tipped off the womens, so they bought up all the Moderna stock that they could find. They could not allow the gender they despise and want dead to profit from the virus they created to kill men.
I'm guessing that this relationship was mostly transactional.
Yeah, it's in 2018, and it's not at all clear what it even does - and it's just for Alberta to boot. From what I gather, it specifies equal property division as the default, rather than something that has to be demonstrated.
Does the law state that only women have a right to half their common law partner's property upon a break-up?
I like my theory better.
What is the source of this revelation about the inner beliefs of 51% of the world's population?
I like how not just your predictions about the future, but also your claims about the past are completely wrong.
https://familylawyerab.com/family-law/woman-ordered-to-pay-support-to-common-law-spouse-despite-abuse-charge/
The man suffered from mental health issues and was unable to work consistently as a result. The woman supported him financially and gave him access to her bank accounts and credit cards.
Talking about turning kindness into a weapon.
Didn't know realism was a priority for you.
I'm guessing that Imp is my age. Outside of actual Christian women this is true for the majority of younger western women. Women in my generation will very casually assert that they are superior based because women are "bosses" and "queens" it's not all women but it's definitely pervasive because of social media and the push of this stupidity in consumable media like movies. I don't think it's willful maliciousness on their part but its definitely a thing
Until she gets a slap.
It's certainly something that exists among some women. My issue is that Impy takes this and then says that this is true of women in general.
Walensky and the feminist leaders are all from the same tribe, so it would surprise me if she wasn't colluding with them.