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.
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.
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.
People do literally split their debts when they get divorced.
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.