MGTOWrama : A FEMINIZM CONSEQUENCE
Options
Comments
-
Furthermore the reason that lower income women don't get married as much as higher income women is because they use child support and welfare as the resource extraction method. They wouldn't get much in alimony, but cs been the lick. Getting paid by the state per child been the lick. Collecting per special education child you have been the lick.
These women don't have access to the same men higher bracket or degreed women do. Gotta finesse different.
As you can tell there is an inverse correlation between a woman's income bracket, education level and children. -
Honestly who are y'all dating that you have to worry about y'all being stuck for bread in a divorce?
A lot of people make out better in a 50/50 divorce because they were able to aquire arrests that they wouldn't be able to alone. (At least in a shorter time span)
-
2stepz_ahead wrote: »Honestly who are y'all dating that you have to worry about y'all being stuck for bread in a divorce?
A lot of people make out better in a 50/50 divorce because they were able to aquire arrests that they wouldn't be able to alone. (At least in a shorter time span)
i think its coming from a point of why even marry when a woman can take half regardless if she helped or not.
I know of a lot of men who feel that way including myself My ex made a come-up after "I divorced her"...smh. It's a hard pill to swallow. It would take a lot for me to even consider remarrying at this point in my life. -
Who made the divorce laws? -
Always funny when people talk divorce laws being geared towards women when they are that way because its still fairly new in society for women to earn the money they do and be able to support themselves sans the help of a man ie their husband or father. Yes divorce laws need to be updated but to ignore the reason as to why its so heavily skewed towards women creates an intellectually dishonest discussion.
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Who made the divorce laws?
HAPPY WIFE HAPPY LIFE MEN
AKA
MANGINAS
AKA
BLUE PILL MEN
SCARED TO BE DENIED PUSDY THEY SCARCELY GET IF THEY DONT BEHAVE. -
LEMZIMUS_RAMSEY wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Who made the divorce laws?
HAPPY WIFE HAPPY LIFE MEN
AKA
MANGINAS
AKA
BLUE PILL MEN
SCARED TO BE DENIED PUSDY THEY SCARCELY GET IF THEY DONT BEHAVE.
The man doth protest too much, me thinks. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Who made the divorce laws?
A marriage state im sure -
Always funny when people talk divorce laws being geared towards women when they are that way because its still fairly new in society for women to earn the money they do and be able to support themselves sans the help of a man ie their husband or father. Yes divorce laws need to be updated but to ignore the reason as to why its so heavily skewed towards women creates an intellectually dishonest discussion.
The reason that women were included in the work force is because between ww1-vietnam the male population was depleted. The U.S. needed a tax base, "hey gals you know what would be a great sign of independence and stick it to the man? Join the work force"
Hook line and ? sinker.
The divorce laws had everything to do with home destabilization. Before the divorce laws were such that someone had to be at fault, adultery, neglect, abuse, etc etc. No fault divorce suddenly meant that women could leave their husband for no particular reason and take half his ? .
That was over 40 years ago. Even before then women were not this oppressed class feminists like to portray. -
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
cosign
and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts
while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks
men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men
low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well
Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them.
today more times than not men with money and a high earning potential today are marrying a woman with money and a high earning potential as well
men marry down more than women still
and they know the risk. but marriage still is one of the best ways to build and maintain generational wealth
for the rest of society there is really no practical sense to do so nowadays...especially if you can't find someone with whom you believe you can build a family and estate with
the law isn't perfect. and i'd support putting a cap on alimony .... otherwise you don't want to get married don't. this idea you and mgtow choosing not to get married or partake in dating is a lost to any woman is delusional -
Always funny when people talk divorce laws being geared towards women when they are that way because its still fairly new in society for women to earn the money they do and be able to support themselves sans the help of a man ie their husband or father. Yes divorce laws need to be updated but to ignore the reason as to why its so heavily skewed towards women creates an intellectually dishonest discussion.
The reason that women were included in the work force is because between ww1-vietnam the male population was depleted. The U.S. needed a tax base, "hey gals you know what would be a great sign of independence and stick it to the man? Join the work force"
Hook line and ? sinker.
The divorce laws had everything to do with home destabilization. Before the divorce laws were such that someone had to be at fault, adultery, neglect, abuse, etc etc. No fault divorce suddenly meant that women could leave their husband for no particular reason and take half his ? .
That was over 40 years ago. Even before then women were not this oppressed class feminists like to portray.
You can debate whether or not the a
Easier access to get divorced has increased the amount of it, which I do think it has. You can't really debate that women were viewed as 2nd tier, especially black women, and did not have access to certain things to help social mobility. That's a fact -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
Women have more freedoms without any obligations which makes you all in general entitled insufferable ? .
Whatever freedoms men had there were duties that went along with that. The most basic is universal male suffrage which was met with the tacit understanding that along with the right to vote you were expected as a man to serve your country when called upon in war time.
Men are also obliged to take care of their children. There are no opt out clauses or measures for men as with women who have the option of abortion, adoption or legal abandonment.
Men are also expected to be accountable and bear the full weight of reckless or criminal action. Women will often times receive only 60% of or even suspended prison terms for crimes that if a man had committed he would be under the jail. Need we have to recall the onslaught of female teachers committing statutory ? on male students and receiving probation or light sentences.
Women do not fight for equal representation in the down and ? jobs and hazardous careers that undergird the infrastructure of modern civilization. They only want fair treatment in comfortable safe environments air conditioned careers.
That's real ? right there -
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
cosign
and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts
while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks
men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men
low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well
Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them.
today more times than not men with money and a high earning potential today are marrying a woman with money and a high earning potential as well
men marry down more than women still
and they know the risk. but marriage still is one of the best ways to build and maintain generational wealth
for the rest of society there is really no practical sense to do so nowadays...especially if you can't find someone with whom you believe you can build a family and estate with
the law isn't perfect. and i'd support putting a cap on alimony .... otherwise you don't want to get married don't. this idea you and mgtow choosing not to get married or partake in dating is a lost to any woman is delusional
A man marrying a woman of means by no means prevents her from seeking his wealth during a divorce. There are innumerable high profile divorces to illustrate this.
The idea of generational wealth is archaic. The earth is overpopulated and it would do well for the vast majority to not reproduce.
Alimony should be banned. The idea of subsidizing the existence of an individual after you've parted ways is ? .
The idea that women aren't affected by mgtow is asinine. I've already linked reports of women complaining about men deserts across the globe. The men haven't disappeared they just are choosing other forms of fulfillment.
Your ignorance is appalling. Your very existence is reliant upon men who perform labor intensive hazardous jobs daily. You wouldn't even be able to feed your fat face or wipe your ? ass if it weren't for men. You probably would not last more than a couple days outside civilization because your survival skills are less than paltry. -
Women have no honor nor any sense of sacrifice so they cannot appreciate these qualities in men.
-
Always funny when people talk divorce laws being geared towards women when they are that way because its still fairly new in society for women to earn the money they do and be able to support themselves sans the help of a man ie their husband or father. Yes divorce laws need to be updated but to ignore the reason as to why its so heavily skewed towards women creates an intellectually dishonest discussion.
The reason that women were included in the work force is because between ww1-vietnam the male population was depleted. The U.S. needed a tax base, "hey gals you know what would be a great sign of independence and stick it to the man? Join the work force"
Hook line and ? sinker.
The divorce laws had everything to do with home destabilization. Before the divorce laws were such that someone had to be at fault, adultery, neglect, abuse, etc etc. No fault divorce suddenly meant that women could leave their husband for no particular reason and take half his ? .
That was over 40 years ago. Even before then women were not this oppressed class feminists like to portray.
You can debate whether or not the a
Easier access to get divorced has increased the amount of it, which I do think it has. You can't really debate that women were viewed as 2nd tier, especially black women, and did not have access to certain things to help social mobility. That's a fact
Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.
Black women have nothing to do with this argument because a woman cannot possess any more respect or dignity than her man has. Black men are disrespected and denigrated, it is only natural black women will be as well. -
Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.
These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.
These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.
Hmmm
A good counterargument. Hundreds of years of men telling women they can't do something is kind of the reason they have no history of doing it.
Zuko, fight back! -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.
These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.
All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.
Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.
Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.
Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.
So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.
So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.
These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.
All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.
Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.
Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.
Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.
So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.
So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.
Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?
-
Its like you think since women could vote, go to school, and do what ever they wanted they should have taken over the world by now. Women are still fighting to be seen a legitimate in their fields they enter now.
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Women have never had the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society as men. So no they were never on par with men.
These statements are funny because how would women have the same level of obligation or duty to the larger society like men if men were the ones deciding what a woman can/can't do so as to effectively remove those obligations. You're using the subjugation of women as justification in your argument.
All places of employment ban sex discrimination. You can look at a current model of occupations broken down by sex and you will see that women primarily work in white collar professions or blue collar service industry.
Women today aren't trying to work in coal mines or power plants or change the light bulbs on radio towers. Women primarily are not truck drivers garbage men or any of the labor that requires loads of time and physical labor.
Women check out of high end white collar jobs because they want the time to have family.
Women by nature are risk adverse. The only reason you have so many in the armed forces is because in reality we aren't fighting major enemies. Sign up get paid for the contract and get out. Most aren't even in combat roles.
So presently when women have the option to do any of these jobs, they don't. There's no evidence too suggest they would have back then either. Given the fact that much of the labor that comes with infrastructure building is upper body intensive, including women would have been inefficient and detrimental.
So let me clarify. Women had and have neither the ability nor inclination to take on the obligations and duties men are expected to in order to maintain a society.
Okay so are you going back 40-80 years or centuries of subjugation? Cuz you if you go all the way back, unless you're being intentionally ignorant, women never stood a chance. So while all these options are open to women now, and you keep repeating these things like "just because all these doors are open women should be jumping and bounding towards and because they're not is evidence of these couldn't do them". Like what?
Women were never subjugated on the basis of sex.
Women were subjugated right alongside men.
It was called the feudal period and people were tied to the land. That's in Europe. Even then women were not allowed in certain occupations because they physically could not perform the task. The freedoms that You think women should've had, men didn't Even have.
In Africa very different situation. Women had power and influence. Women commonly controlled the markets while the men did the physical tasks.
Even if you go back to the republic days of Rome or the city states of Greece. There were very few routes to power. This is the agrarian age where you were either a soldier, an artisan or a farmer. If you came from a wealthy family you could be a politician. Or if you were a notable general.
Women like men were tied to the land. Women spent most of the day doing the housework because it was all manual labor. It isn't until advancements are made like indoor plumbing, washing machines vacuums sewing machines that women were freed from the housework.
Being a wife was an occupation for women back then. If you weren't married you were more than likely going to be broke because again most jobs were manual labor. Before the industrial revolution most occupations for women were as domestic servants. After the introduction of the textile mills most women went until fabric making. Again soft blue collar positions.
Women advanced in society as men advanced society and made it easier and more convenient for them. Most women didn't even drive until the invention of power steering. Before that it required upper body strength to steer a vehicle. -
You take away all of the advancements men have made to civilization, women are still living in grass huts and hunting berries. You don't even have farms to provide mass food resources because who the ? is digging the irrigation.
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
Women have more freedoms without any obligations which makes you all in general entitled insufferable ? .
Whatever freedoms men had there were duties that went along with that. The most basic is universal male suffrage which was met with the tacit understanding that along with the right to vote you were expected as a man to serve your country when called upon in war time.
Men are also obliged to take care of their children. There are no opt out clauses or measures for men as with women who have the option of abortion, adoption or legal abandonment.
Men are also expected to be accountable and bear the full weight of reckless or criminal action. Women will often times receive only 60% of or even suspended prison terms for crimes that if a man had committed he would be under the jail. Need we have to recall the onslaught of female teachers committing statutory ? on male students and receiving probation or light sentences.
Women do not fight for equal representation in the down and ? jobs and hazardous careers that undergird the infrastructure of modern civilization. They only want fair treatment in comfortable safe environments air conditioned careers.
That's real ? right there
@jono
Don't mean to derail this thread, but what has happened and/or what have you observed over the past few years that caused you to modify your feminist beliefs.
I might be mistaken, but I don't remember you calling this type of foolishness out in the past.
So what changed? -
It just reached critical mass. When something gets the point of not being able to rationalize it or explain it effectively it's time to reconsider.
I noticed that there is a difference between supporting women and supporting "women's" activists.
I support women, not "women's" activists.
"Women's" activists have roped fictional characters and transgenders into their activism.
So it's no longer about womanhood or women's rights but redefining womanhood to mean being anti-male. To that point, there's nothing that can be said or done that will satisfy the activist.
They don't want dialogue and understanding, but ? and control. You cant just agree with them on some issues, you have to be a lemming and go along with everything.
I noticed that for them just being a man is a problem. Everything you do as a male is oppression and "problematic" these are things most normal everyday women don't give a ? about.
*The male gaze
*Women want female superheroes but they can never get beaten up because violence against women is wrong
*Women want equality but only if that means they can do and say whatever they want while you have to "man up" and ignore being offended.
Regular women like my gf and my mom want to deal with domestic abuse, abortion etc not fighting for the rights of trannies and cartoon characters.
It was making the distinction between real women and onery activists that made me turn the corner. I can support women without supporting the ? up worldview of "women's" activists hellbent on policing every facet of life.
-
Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »Madame_CJSkywalker wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
Yes protecting someone from danger automatically makes them incompetent in other facets of life. They shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to school or have jobs cuz they need protection...... *rolls eyes* Men created the problem, men made the rules and now that women are saying ? that 'women CAN go their own way" men are ? .BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Maybe that's what this is about. Humans in general being fed up with the status quo and how things "ought be done". And to say women can't do this or that is short sighted for the fact women have always been under the thumb of men.
you have always been under the thumb of men because women historically were unable to protect yourselves against the dangers of this world which includes other men from different tribes of people therefore men had to take charge and with that comes male authority
The way things " ought be done" did not develop in a vacuum there are reasons why men have for the most part always been better suited to be leaders
In regards to the bolded, it's actually the other way around.
Based on what little bit I can tell about MGTOW, it's basically men saying they're not gonna play the game anymore.
Not necessarily saying that they're gonna leave women alone altogether.........just that they'll only deal with them on their own terms.
Meaning, they're not gonna settle for being some chick's contingency plan or fall victim to a chick "settling" for them.
Granted, it's something that should have been figured out without having to embrace MGTOW philosophy............but some of these cats would be lost without it.
I see it as a result of women having more rights and demands, more freedom, more options and women aren't settling like they used to, put up with ? like they used to, or in general being subservient to men.
cosign
and this argument laws have made marriage too big a risk for men and that is what is driving the marriage rate down does not really jive well with the facts
while there's probably some truth to the idea that certain men avoid marriage because of the financial risks
men with higher incomes, high earning potential and assets to lose in a divorce are getting married at a higher rate then lower income men
low income women with no college education are less likely to marry as well
Yea those men are cannon fodder in ten years when the wife becomes eligible for alimony. These rich men all have the common hubris that their money will shield them away from female shenanigans when it's precisely their money that's painted a bullseye on them.
today more times than not men with money and a high earning potential today are marrying a woman with money and a high earning potential as well
men marry down more than women still
and they know the risk. but marriage still is one of the best ways to build and maintain generational wealth
for the rest of society there is really no practical sense to do so nowadays...especially if you can't find someone with whom you believe you can build a family and estate with
the law isn't perfect. and i'd support putting a cap on alimony .... otherwise you don't want to get married don't. this idea you and mgtow choosing not to get married or partake in dating is a lost to any woman is delusional
A man marrying a woman of means by no means prevents her from seeking his wealth during a divorce. There are innumerable high profile divorces to illustrate this.
The idea of generational wealth is archaic. The earth is overpopulated and it would do well for the vast majority to not reproduce.
Alimony should be banned. The idea of subsidizing the existence of an individual after you've parted ways is ? .
The idea that women aren't affected by mgtow is asinine. I've already linked reports of women complaining about men deserts across the globe. The men haven't disappeared they just are choosing other forms of fulfillment.
Your ignorance is appalling. Your very existence is reliant upon men who perform labor intensive hazardous jobs daily. You wouldn't even be able to feed your fat face or wipe your ? ass if it weren't for men. You probably would not last more than a couple days outside civilization because your survival skills are less than paltry.
lol
you can believe the idea of generational wealth is archaic but that doesn't change the fact the most eligible men on the market are more likely to find a date and marry than their counterparts
the issue for most young women is not the lack of suitors but men their age whose earning ability that meets or exceeds their own ... reason why a lot of young women are marrying, dating down...
and for a woman who is looking to find a partner to build a family and estate with, she is better off without a man whose idea of self actualization is sitting on the couch, he shares with his roommate or whoever, playing 2k for 5,6 hours at a time
if a man views women as being inferior or emotionally manipulative or leeches, a woman looking for romance and companionship she is obviously better off without that individual
so yes go your own way....
i'll also note blk women who are 25 to 54 and not in jail outnumber black men in that category by 1.5 million, according to an Upshot analysis. For every 100 black women in this age group living outside of jail, there are only 83 black men
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men.html
alimony is still a necessity for the stay at home husband and wives who sacrifice the opportunity to develop his or her skills or put their career on hold to raise a family or/and do house work. otherwise you'd have women and men suddenly out on the streets unable to support themselves running to sign up for welfare...
especially in the case of a relationship where a spouse's work significantly helped their partner get into a strongly positive financial situation, such as a wife who helped her husband set up and run a profitable business that he'll own after the divorce, or even having paid for higher education for their spouse which results in a large increase of pay, such as medical school... pay that man or woman
