And you believe likening an inequitable financial settlement to sexual assault accomplishes that?
What's this a case of? Lack of Female Repercussion or just Run of the Mill Prejudice: The Soho Phone Incident
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
So disliking MRAs = finding men committing suicide from despair hilarious?
If you think divorce rape is just about "inequitable financial settlements" you do not understand the issues of male disposability. Huge issue on its own as we get this topic way side tracked.
Sometimes. The amount of hate out there for men and the glee at their suffering is palpable. You have to wonder what kind of minds created this "SCUM" video (Society for Cutting Up Men) at about 9 min.
But, again, we are way off topic. Maybe start a new one.
Presumably it's not to tell us that we should care about financial settlements in divorce just as much as MRAs care about actual sexual assault.
OK. How does likening it to sexual assault "draw attention" to the problem? It communicates precisely nothing about the issue. All it tells me is how willing the speaker is to belittle sexual assault in order to elicit shock.
Quite the opposite. You are belittling men being treated as exploited, disposable utility. Even before I first heard the term divorce rape, people like Warren Farrel were writing that this kind of abuse of men was akin to being raped. But we sympathize with a rape victim. We treat men who object to this abuse with contempt. As you are doing here. That has to stop.
You need to take a look at how you speak to people. Cut out the extreme accusations and abusive rhetoric. Its disgusting.
Your assumption that the only reason people disagree with you is because they hate men is precisely why nobody wants to talk about this shit with you.
A marriage involves people taking "roles". If a man and woman implicitly or explicitly agree that one be a "bread-winner" and the other a "homebuilder", they are deciding upon a division of labour, in which they will specialise.
Raising children is work. If parents agree one brings the child up and the other works, it is done in the clear knowledge that bringing a child up is work. It seems to me odd that upon divorce in custody disputes, child-raising implicitly becomes treated instead as an uplifting privilege, not work. If it was so, why did the career parent decide to let the other one do it in the first place?
Divorce is a point to reconsider division of labour, and that is fine. However, I am willing to bet you what is actually happening with many parents is that they chose career or child-raising in the marriage because they preferred it that way... and unsurprisingly what they chose first time around tends to remain so in divorce, too. I'm sure the career-orientated parent may think about custody, but when they seriously consider the demands of both career work and child-raising work, the fantasy eventually collapses and they concede custody. The other factor is that the parents have by this point developed different expertises. Our breadwinner has been gaining experience, skills, and likely advancement in career, the homebuilder has not. The homebuilder has sacrificed this development - but on the other hand, they have skills developed in child-raising instead.
If men wish to improve their custody chances, one might argue they have an obvious route open to them: put a lot of time into helping raise the children. And maybe they should cut their work hours to make that space. Their wives, with less childcare work, can do more paid labour to make up the difference.
* * *
I am interested in this idea of "disposable utility".
Let's take a situation where a man and woman marry. The man earns, the woman raises the child. At divorce, the man keeps his money and the child. What is the position of the woman in this situation, if not in the most literal sense a disposable utility? She is indistinguishable from a rented incubator / nanny / housemaid, and when the deal is off, well she's got no complaints as she's received her accommodation and rental payments. She just needs to go rent herself out to some other man willing to pay for her.
Can we apply this statement to the majority of people here who are more extreme in their accusations and more abusive in their rhetoric than gorfias?
Are you fucking kidding me, here? Who else has explicitly accused another forum-member of condoning abuse?
I'm not sure there is any abuse in the world I have not been accused of condoning on these forums. Rape, assault, racism, sexism, genocide... you name it, I've been accused of condoning it.
You realize in just a few posts above, when I was trying to write of the extreme devastation some men are experiencing as they become red pilled, I infer from your response that you find I and those like me are belittling rape. Just the opposite. I see rape as a terrible and harmful outrageous crime. I'm trying to get you to be open minded enough to understand some men feel something akin to that level of harm in our society.
A) That presumes a ton that is changing radically. In theory, our societies are supposed to be moving toward not having gender assigned, and even equally shared duties.
B) Part of being an MRA is being vocal. You make good suggestion about how men can improve their lot after a divorce. People need to hear this sort of thing often. Encourage men to take a larger role in raising their kids. I would like to see a number of financial changes, not the least of which: end joint tax filing. I think this might encourage both partners in greater autonomy and help them in maintaining their financial independence. Encourage more men to do the weekly shopping. There is power in this. Accepting earning less money to have more time to do this is dangerous though. I've read when a man makes less $ than the wife, the likelihood of her filing divorce against him, already high, go up some 75%.
C) This would be terrible for that woman. I think it increasingly possible that this could happen. Increasingly, some are flip about stay at home moms thinking they should have known better and know upfront, being a housewife is dangerous to your long term financial wellbeing. Edited to delete a video I think unnecessarily hostile for this forum.
Last edited:
Is that why you complain about not being able to sexually assault your co-workers?
Divorce is rough. It is not rape though. This isn't a competition.
How the fuck do any of you raise children without splitting the labour of doing so? Fucking seriously.
And so, when someone else faces an outrageous personal accusation, your first response is cynical whataboutism? I don't see the logic. The sole thing you've shown is you don't give an iota of a shit if it happens to someone you disagree with.
Divorce proceedings do not elicit the level of psychological and physical trauma associated with rape. That isn't in dispute. The only people who would claim otherwise have zero understanding or recognition of the severity of that trauma.
And you will not encourage "open-mindedness" by hurling extreme personal accusations.
I have on occasion defended people here that I disagree with. I don't think it's cynical to suggest a wide swath of people could tone it down. Frankly, you have been cursing at me for making the suggestion.
Poverty does not cause the same kind of trauma as does war. People aren't getting blown up, mutilated and killed because they live below middle class standards. But when a politician declares a "war on poverty" I know what s/he means. I don't say, "how vulgar, downplaying war." That would just be a bizarre position to take. And it is one you appear to be taking here. I think it betrays your view point on the matter, and it isn't flattering.
Last edited:
In that phrase, the politician is not stating an equivalence between poverty and war. By your own admission, the term "divorce rape" is intended to draw an equivalence.
Probably because you didn't "make the suggestion" in a void, but rather specifically in order to dismiss severity of the personal accusation made against me.
I'm writing that men are stating they can feel similarly violated. Not exact. And a war on poverty is not like D-Day. What you are writing is equivalent to saying a war on poverty downplays what war is. And that a society that treats men as exploitable, disposable utilities is something we should all have a good belly laugh at. We should not.