Why is Feminism much worse than Cancer nowadays that is caused by women which keeps most men single?

[Lyfe]

Your a sexist because you constantly throw out “emotional” at women on these forums. Your a sexist because you asked me if I was on my period. Your a sexist because you think women are obligated to put out for their husbands regardless of their own desires. Your a sexist because you believe if a woman is no longer putting out for you it absolves you of the financial responsibility for your own children. Your a sexist because the only statistics ou are willing to acknowledge are those which are pro male (when read without context) and you absolutely refuse to deal with the statistics which show a more nuanced and objective position. Your a sexist because you agree with MGTOW that relationships aren’t worth it for a man because he may have to share custody of and split expenses for children born by a woman who will no longer put out for him. Would you like me to continue?

you’ve made your own lack of experience with women public knowledge. Excuse me for trying to offer you some insight that those difficulties are likely the result of this attitude and the positions you hold.

Actually you are the only woman on this forum I have called emotional and somehow that makes me sexist? You cant even properly represent things I have said or place them in proper context.

 

[Lyfe]

You sound like my father in law who advised my husband not to give our son his last name so I couldn’t attach our child to his inheritance lol. Dumbass forgot to advise him not to sign the birth certificate as well.

Marriages would not fail so often if men were actually investing in their wives to begin with

You sound like a typical feminist who has an obvious disdain for men.

Allot of divorce happens, because of boredom or loss of interest, or just realizing there isnt a compatibility and its hard to live under the same roof But, hey - that's enough reason to initiate divorce and take the kids nowadays...

 

[Drifter]

Your not even understanding that my issue is not even with alimony and child support even existing. Its with what it can all apply to and circumstances in which it still applies, and OFTEN does indeed apply to. Its set up in such a way and exists in such a time with such norms that it ends up favoring women in almost all instances of divorce. MGTOW is just a solution and protection against such.

Why do women mainly get custody and is it acceptable if those reasons are based off of anything other than immediate harm posed to the child or mother? As far as I know there is no real basis other than it is decided by courts that a mother is a better candidate to raise the children when no indications of abuse are present.

Wanna know why I keep asking you this question? Because these laws that you and other MGTOW sympathizers constantly demonize for being unfair towards men, once BENEFITED men under what . . . Under patriarchy. Do you realize that? Women were not allowed to work and were considered the primary caregivers. Your own view that women's primary purpose is being a wife and a mother was the view that created those laws. Women werent workers and breadwinners but they were the sex designed for active and involved parenthood. Not men. Courts give the children to the parent they believe to be the superior caregiver. See how your own beliefs strike men too? Unless they dont care about being less involved in their kids lives because men care more about things rather than people and are wired to want to provide and not nurture. Or so anti-feminists claim. If that's true then men shouldnt care too much about not raising their own kids. You cant have it both ways.

 

[justjess]

You sound like a typical feminist who has an obvious disdain for men.

Allot of divorce happens, because of boredom or loss of interest, or just realizing there isnt a compatibility and its hard to live under the same roof But, hey - that's enough reason to initiate divorce and take the kids nowadays...

No disdain for men. Disdain for sexist assholes and deadbeats. Deal with it.

 

[Lyfe]

No disdain for men. Disdain for sexist assholes and deadbeats. Deal with it.

Well here is how this works. If you can be childish and equate my sentiment to sexism then I will likewise do the same and equate yours to disdain for men. Deal with it.

 

[justjess]

You sound like a typical feminist who has an obvious disdain for men.

Allot of divorce happens, because of boredom or loss of interest, or just realizing there isnt a compatibility and its hard to live under the same roof But, hey - that's enough reason to initiate divorce and take the kids nowadays...

Both genders do that lol. Both genders divorce because they aren’t “in love” anymore. Most couples have JOINT custody btw. One parent gets primary residential because it’s about the kids needs, not the parents. And kids need stability especially for school - routine and one address so they go to one school. The courts award primary residential custody to women more often because it is the woman in the marriage who those responsibilities usually fall to and because of sexist beliefs that those are the woman’s job

 

[justjess]

Well here is how this works. If you can be childish and equate my sentiment to sexism then I will likewise do the same and equate yours to disdain for men. Deal with it.

I’m married to a man, I have a teenage son. Last I checked you are single and in favor of remaining that way due to your ridiculous beliefs about women. My life proves I don’t disdain men. Your life on the other hand...

 

[Lyfe]

Wanna know why I keep asking you this question? Because these laws that you and other MGTOW sympathizers constantly demonize for being unfair towards men, once BENEFITED men under what . . . Under patriarchy. Do you realize that? Women were not allowed to work and were considered the primary caregivers. Your own view that women's primary purpose is being a wife and a mother was the view that created those laws. Women werent workers and breadwinners but they were the sex designed for active and involved parenthood. Not men. Courts give the children to the parent they believe to be the superior caregiver. See how your own beliefs strike men too? Unless they dont care about being less involved in their kids lives because men care more about things rather than people and are wired to want to provide and not nurture. Or so anti-feminists claim. If that's true then men shouldnt care too much about not raising their own kids. You cant have it both ways.

Wow - you actually just acknowledged that evil patriarchy did indeed have laws in place that would have protected women in case this type of dispute ever arose by ensuring women aren't left with nothing if a man left and a women couldn't work. That's ironic, because according to you patriarchy is purely evil with no laws that protected women and yet you now acknowledge laws like alimony would have ensured her survival under a patriarchy system. So is patriarchy purely evil with no laws protecting women, or purely evil with some laws protecting women? Cant have it both ways...

 

[Drifter]

Wow - you actually just acknowledged that evil patriarchy did indeed have laws in place that would have protected women in case this type of dispute ever arose by ensuring women aren't left with nothing if a man left and a women couldn't work. That's ironic, because according to you patriarchy is purely evil with no laws that protected women and yet you now acknowledge laws like alimony would have ensured her survival under a patriarchy system. So is patriarchy purely evil with no laws protecting women, or purely evil with some laws protecting women? Cant have it both ways...

Quote me exactly where I said there were no laws to protect women. Pretty please. Even so, this is a moot point because if women were not made to be financially dependent on men then there would've been no need for laws to potect them in the first place. It's kinda like being both the sickness and the cure. Nice try though.

 

[Lyfe]

I’m married to a man, I have a teenage son. Last I checked you are single and in favor of remaining that way due to your ridiculous beliefs about women. My life proves I don’t disdain men. Your life on the other hand...

My old girlfriends mother would often make negative remarks about men. The same woman lived with her ex husband. If the fact that I have had girlfriends doesnt prove I am not sexist then neither does your marriage.

 

[justjess]

My old girlfriends mother would often make negative remarks about men. The same woman lived with her ex husband. If the fact that I have had girlfriends doesnt prove I am not sexist then neither does your marriage.

Girlfriends. That you didn’t marry or procreate with. And your girlfriends mom lived with an EX. He probably did her dirty hence the negative comments about men. My comments have not been negative about men GENERALLY. They have been negative about a system of government and specific men with specific actions. Not “all men” whatsoever.

 

[Lyfe]

Quote me exactly where I said there were no laws to protect women. Pretty please. Even so, this is a moot point because if women were not made to be financially dependent on men then there would've been no need for laws to potect them in the first place. It's kinda like being both the sickness and the cure. Nice try though.

...again you are equating financial dependence in these times to being intentional for the purpose of subjugation rather than bothering to apply specific culture and context. If children were involved it was necessary for one parent to provide direct caretaker functions for them. Women were better suited do perform that function. What alternative are you suggesting? That there should have been baby sitters where both genders worked or the men should have stayed home while women made the money?

The difference is there weren't any men that took their children and left their wife with nothing under those laws...

 

[Lyfe]

Girlfriends. That you didn’t marry or procreate with. And your girlfriends mom lived with an EX. He probably did her dirty hence the negative comments about men. My comments have not been negative about men GENERALLY. They have been negative about a system of government and specific men with specific actions. Not “all men” whatsoever.

So MGTOW men qualify as scumbags? I gave you precedence for why a man would identify with such.

 

[justjess]

...again you are equating financial dependence in these times to being intentional for the purpose of subjugation rather than bothering to apply specific culture and context. If children were involved it was necessary for one parent to provide direct caretaker functions for them. Women were better suited do perform that function. What alternative are you suggesting? That there should have been baby sitters where both genders worked or the men should have stayed home while women made the money?

The difference is there weren't any men that took their children and left their wife with nothing under those laws...

Guess you’ve never read Anna Karenina...

 

[justjess]

So MGTOW men qualify as scumbags? I gave you precedence for why a man would identify with such.

2% of divorced men having to pay alimony and an average child support award of less than $300/month are not valid reasons for hating women. So yeah, scumbags. Sorry

 

[Lyfe]

2% of men having to pay alimony and an average child support award of less than $300/month are not valid reasons for hating women. So yeah, scumbags. Sorry

Yeah cant say I am surprised by your unwillingness to properly and fairly judge mgtow's grievances even tho alimony is barely part of it. Cant say I am at all surprised either that you are reluctant to label women who deprive kids a proper relationship with their fathers and vice versa as an act equally despicable(at the very least) as not paying paying child support.... In fact I think doing that is worse than the scumbag act of not paying child support, but hey - if cognitive dissonance and self deceit is your cup of tea....

 

[Drifter]

...again you are equating financial dependence in these times to being intentional for the purpose of subjugation rather than bothering to apply specific culture and context.

What else would you call not allowing a woman her own bank account? That colors the laws from being protective to controlling, dont you think?

If children were involved it was necessary for one parent to provide direct caretaker functions for them. Women were better suited do perform that function. What alternative are you suggesting? That there should have been baby sitters where both genders worked or the men should have stayed home while women made the money?

Here I would put the same thought anti-feminist men use: post-Industrial revolution work culture was designed to split the family by enslaving the breadwinner. Do you think men play a less significant role in the upbringing of their children? Even if the men were the ones working, it makes no sense to bar women from the potential for financial freedom. Single women still existed.

The difference is there weren't any men that took their children and left their wife with nothing under those laws...

Based on what? Some men still abandoned their kids or fathered children out of wedlock.

 

[Drifter]

Yeah cant say I am surprised by your unwillingness to properly and fairly judge mgtow's grievances even tho alimony is barely part of it. Cant say I am at all surprised either that you are reluctant to label women who deprive kids a proper relationship with their fathers and vice versa as an act equally despicable(at the very least) as not paying paying child support.... In fact I think doing that is worse than the scumbag act of not paying child support, but hey - if cognitive dissonance and self deceit is your cup of tea....

Dude. Did you forget the part where the court rules in favour of which parent gets custody? Better yet, provide us with some stats of how many women are actively keeping their kids away from their fathers please.

 

[Lyfe]

What else would you call not allowing a woman her own bank account? That colors the laws from being protective to controlling, dont you think?

That example could be another example of being relative. Men were considered the representative of the household and the wife. That was the culture of patriarchy. It could be a problem if your hypothesis that all aspects within the marriage were dominated and dictated by unjust and abusive men was true, but if the whole culture is built off the notion that men were representatives of the wife and the family then it doesn't quite match the reality you are attempting to paint. Its just a system, but it doesnt mean the system is oppressive or unfair by design.

Which law are you referring to exactly in regards to the bank account? Feminists know all these laws like the back of their hand ready to pull them out to paint their picture of male domination and mistreatment of women.

Do you mean single women weren't allowed their own bank account? Look you disagree that such a system heavily emphasized men as a womans sufficiency rather than being in control of their own finances and that is your right to do so, but don't say that method is outright oppressive. You are comparing two very different times together, the nature of the labor was diff from how it is today. By default most of them wanted children and by default a husband is needed for that so by default a caretaker of the home is needed. Many of the laws and customs are going to be built off of this reality. A single woman desiring to be single would have been the minority. Systems of law are always deficient/incomplete in matters dealing with minorities cause cases involving them are usually peculiar and bizarre territory.

Here I would put the same thought anti-feminist men use: post-Industrial revolution work culture was designed to split the family by enslaving the breadwinner. Do you think men play a less significant role in the upbringing of their children? Even if the men were the ones working, it makes no sense to bar women from the potential for financial freedom. Single women still existed.

Umm... Most women sought after children and a husband which again, placed a need for one parent to provide these hands on caretaker responsibilities.

Not to mention given the nature of the work in patriarch times I don't think too many women complained about caretaker functions. I mean there weren't exactly too many secretary and office jobs back then or jobs that accommodate a persons comfortability. There was no AC room to sit in. Do you even think most women if given the choice would have wanted to go out and work allot of these jobs for financial freedom if given the choice between that and raising their own children? Maybe this financial freedom limitation actually saved allot of women who simply could not do allot of the jobs that were needed at the time and there was a shortage of jobs that women could perform so not all women would have been able to work women's jobs. They would have been stuck doing jobs associated with men. Maybe these limitations encouraged them a means of proficiency through a husband though you just dont like that idea.... There is allot of context you just simply wont apply to these discussions. Maybe in allot of these instances a woman being stuck with a man was simply the best way for her proficiency given the nature of the work at some times or a shortage of needed jobs. There are allot of variables... If I set up laws giving financial freedom to a class where jobs are in short supply allot of people wont have jobs, because of short supply.... which means they need another means of proficiency.
If I make laws however that emphasize another means of proficiency like marriage this person can now be proficient and the persons survivability is increased. Maybe that is why these "said" limitations were set on women and work, because it encouraged something unrealistic and an outcome that may not have always favored a women's chance at being sufficient in and of herself.

But, again... Between taking care of their kids and working out in the elements what do you think most women preferred? Between possibly not having a job cause of shortages and having no means to survive to having a chance to survive, but under the house of someone else what are you going to choose? The system may have not been perfect, but maybe it had been better than a bunch of jobless men and women with no means to survive.

Dude. Did you forget the part where the court rules in favour of which parent gets custody? Better yet, provide us with some stats of how many women are actively keeping their kids away from their fathers please.

Yeah 80 percent of the time its women, because its determined they are more fit caretakers. There is no real basis other than this.

Btw, seeking custody isn't considered a means of separating kids from their father? The father should just be grateful he gets weekends? Wow how compassionate

 

[Lyfe]

From most of your posts here you sound like an incel. You believe that women should stay at home taking care of the kids and that every woman who doesn't do that is evil, selfish and has penis envy. First of all, men cry about being providers but yall are the ones who created the gender roles that way and then complain that your contributions aren't appreciated. Women have been doing housework and child rearing for centuries without getting any penny, and their work wasn't even considered real work. So it's kinda dense for men to complain that their contributions aren't appreciated.

I would bet half of married men wish they were incels. Less headaches.... You throw around that word like its somehow a bad thing... Do you know what its like to listen to someone in person talk about themselves for hours?

You guys aren't even trying to have discussion without taking pot shots so I guess I wont either. I suppose its only a matter of time before someone starts mimicking the behavior of the people around them n e ways. Go read a book cause from your posts you sound like someone who needs to read one. Its ok to put the makeup down for a second...