Still being chill.
Fifer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:04 am
IB, We've all known guys who've been fucked over by women they trusted and their allies in the divorce industry. You can just pray to God it never happens to you.
No there is more you can do. You can be activist about it. I choose to
- try to convince family law attorney's to practice another form of law (do anything else) and
- remind people why no-fault-divorce law became law of the land in the first place (more on that below)
Fifer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:04 amIf you want to rant about it, google in MGTOW and you'll find a Chinese army of guys that are happy to talk about it on every venue of the net.
That is a 3rd thing you can do. If the only winning move is not to play, then MGTOW is the way to go. But as a father of a daughter I don't want all the men of this country to go MGTOW. I don't think you do either.
Bill Maher is (unknowingly) the proto-typical alpha MGTOW. He would never claim to be which proves that he is. The more men that do what Bill Maher does, the more desperate women become to get married. And over the last 20 years, this has gone a bit ridiculous. Fifer, there used to be book stores. Maybe there aren't anymore, but there used to be. And if you or I entered these buildings, they always had a love/sex/relationships section. And in that section you would find 1000 different books (kind of like NLP book
The Rules) on how to "catch a man." I'll bet there are 5000 "catch a man" books on Amazon today. But you and I would never find even one book on what men need to do to find a wife. That book would never sell.
Fifer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:04 amAnd your trashing DS about what he does for a living. We need people who are educated in the process of the legal system. Myself, I've needed a lawyer to do my estate trust and a pre nup before I got married again, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be on trial for my life facing the court system alone.
I like DS. I like all these guys. I just want him to practice another form of law. Or if failing that, I want to see him try and defend his profession if what he does ruins a perfectly good man and destroys his children? He has done neither of these things. He has taken a third option, attack me personally. Maybe his willingness to follow me all around this board on every thread and attack me personally is his way to vindicate what he does for a living? But I think deep down, he is attacking me out of spite and pride because I may have gotten to him. I think maybe he's feeling a little bit of shame for the first time in his life. And if that is the case, then I made a difference. And maybe someday (before he ruins another man) he'll make a change?
You guys know how no-fault-divorce law became law in the first place? Its very dark. I have done quite a bit of research on it.
It appears that long before any of our time, there was a little bit of a suicide epidemic in the United States for married women. For whatever reason, there was a spike of suicides in the mid 1950s to the early 1960s of women who were married. Now, this was the beginning of the second wave of feminism. And in feminism, women (by virtue of the "golden uterus") have value, whereas men are expendable (send them to war to die if they produce no wealth) and have NO value. That one of the pillars of feminism. That is why today, (with all the men who are committing suicide) feminists don't really give a shit because its just men and they have no value.
Well an exhaustive investigation was done as to why married women (just married women) were increasingly committing suicide and the conclusion that was made was that they were not happy. They were not happy married to the men they were married. But these women had no education, no skills, no way to earn a living for themselves to replace the living that their husbands have given them. And since they had no real reason to divorce their husbands (he wasn't beating them, wasn't cheating on them, wasn't an alcoholic or a drug addict and leaving the family in abusive ruin) they had no real grounds for divorce. And without grounds for divorce in 1958 (or even 1965) no judge would grant the divorce, especially if the husband didn't want it. So the woman was free to leave her husband in 1965 but she would leave with the shirt on her back. No money. No children. No house. No alimony. No child support. Since that option is a non-starter for the unhappily married woman, she committed suicide.
Well feminists insisted, someone had to do SOMETHING! Women have value!
So in 1969, a then formerly divorced Governor of California by the name of Ronald Reagan, he did something. He signed the very first no-fault-divorce bill into state law. It became effective on January 1st of 1970. This was mostly to stop the suicide epidemic. So now the unhappily married woman (who had no grounds for divorce) could leave her husband and collect cash and prizes. It took 41 years, but eventually every single state in the country adapted California's infernal law. Feminism wins. No one really did any investigative work into what might happen to marriage in general (or society) as a result of this. They just acted. And what has been done, perhaps now it can't be UNDONE?
In 1977, Stevenson did a report (Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law) made on the study of how this change in the law impacting marriage in general. The findings make perfect sense today, even if they made no sense then. It was determined that no-fault-divorce law gave POWER (within marriage) to the spouse who wants to make the marriage work the least OVER the spouse that wants the marriage to work the most. Presumably, it is the wife who now holds the power within marriages as she is more ready to walk, than the husband. Dalrock does a fantastic job comparing this scenario, this new marriage model, to the Sword of Damocles. Dalrock refers to this as the "threatpoint."
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/
As a result of this power shift due to the "threatpoint", marriage in general no longer offers the kind of benefits to men that is once did. In fact, it may not offer very many benefits AT ALL?!? Is it any wonder Fifer that books like The Rules and their other NLP derivatives have been such big sellers as more and more men "opt out" and go MGTOW?
It was years later that a then POTUS Reagan admits signing that bill into law may have been the worst political decision in his life. He had no idea how much damage he was doing to marriage. He just acting thinking that he knew best. The results are the world we have today.
Fifer our days are drawing to an end. Its not going to be our world anymore. That belongs to our children. And I want my children to be happily married and never divorced. I want grand-children. But I also spend a lot of time studying marriage rates and I watch them drop to record lows year after year. That terrifies me. It terrifies me for my children, your children, all our children. Kathyn Jean Lopez has admitted that she cries every night for unborn children that she will never have because she never married (never one proposal.) Megan McArdle got married so late in life she missed her window of fertility. As a result, no children. She will never be a mother. As a result of that she wrote this:
https://www.newsweek.com/2013/05/29/man ... 37436.html
Sadness Fifer.
I want to try and leave this Earth a better place than where I found it. I was born the year Reagan ended marriage as contract. So I have no memory of what marriage once was. But I know history and I know that our country would be a much better place if we got that world back the way it was. Because I don't see our marriage rates stopping their ever continuous decline if we don't. Marriage was once something that everyone of every class could partake. Today, not so much. It is only a culture for the MC, UMC, and the elite. This divide further exaserbates the growing "inequality" that leftists continuously remind me of even if they refuse to define it. They can't define it, because to define it means to give facts and ammunition to the other side which is a political non-starter. So I define it.
Remaining "chill"
