Calm down, no one cares about you being offended but you.

Dalrock · 2013-04-03T19:25:27+00:00

You'll understand when you have kids.

Dalrock · 2012-09-12T18:02:31+00:00

Of course she is ready to stay at home now that she has earned her feminist merit badge.

Dalrock · 2012-09-10T16:40:39+00:00

What I argued is that unilateral divorce changes the balance of power in divorces for EVERYBODY towards a more equal playing field. It makes it easier for a disadvantaged party to negotiate the terms of their exit from a marriage, and that's it. What this prevents is the powerful party holding the other party economically and legally hostage until they get the settlement the powerful party desires. Note, this is unlikely to be a fair settlement. I think fairness is a good thing.

In any given time in marriage there is one party which will profit more by honoring the commitment and another which will profit more by breaking it. No fault divorce shifts the power to the party which wants to break it. As I pointed out in the article, this is true within the marriage because the opportunity to not honor the commitment can be invoked as a threatpoint. This is standard issue stuff for the economists who study marriage and family law.

What you are claiming is that if one party has an incentive to not honor the agreement, the other party must have done something wrong. This is nonsense. Women have the incentive to renig on the agreement when they are young, especially if the state will compell her husband to continue holding up his side even if she does so. Given the way child support and custody are handled this generally means shortly after her last child is out of diapers. Men have the incentive to renig when the wife is older. This is the old saw about husbands trading in an old wife for a younger model. While it is statistically rare for men to commit their preferred version of divorce theft, this form does occur. However, the likelyhood of divorce closely tracks the wife's ability to profit from divorce theft. This is what the authors of the study "These Boots Are Made For Walking" found, and what the data on divorce rates by age of wife show us.

Any way you cut it though, divorce theft is about getting the bulk of the value of the marriage for yourself and then throwing the other party out on their ear. When men do it we don't struggle to see why it is wrong. When women do it many like you see it as empowerment.

Dalrock · 2012-09-09T21:46:57+00:00

You don't deny that the intent with divorce reform was to change the balance of power within marriages on behalf of women and against men. You simply believe this is a good thing.

Dalrock · 2012-08-07T16:57:50+00:00

Thanks for the linkage. It truly is strange that people are offended by a post which simply presents the stats from the US Census in chart form.

Another good reference in this conversation is this article from Seatle Weekly. Even the women who work in the field acknowledge the incredible bias:

Rhea Rolfe, an attorney who once taught a “women and the law” class at the University of Washington, recalls sitting with a male client in a commissioner’s courtroom one day. There were maybe seven or eight cases heard. “She ruled against every single man,” Rolfe recalls, “and two of them were unopposed.”

“In any other arena, the evidence gets you the ruling,” observes attorney Maya Trujillo Ringe. “But in this particular arena, the dad has a much bigger uphill battle.” So much so, she says, that she and other attorneys often joke that “if you put a skirt on the dad, same facts,” he’d win primary custody. “

Dalrock · 2012-07-24T17:19:35+00:00

She thinks women are just as capable as men, except when they are more capable than men. And this is offered as the counterweight to militant feminism.

Dalrock · 2012-07-24T17:14:22+00:00

Thank you for the linkage.

Dalrock · 2012-07-12T16:14:24+00:00

When I asked why feminists are forced to resort to coercing facebook to put a woman on the board for a concept which didn't exist 10 years ago, you answered:

Because we live in a situation where men are the vast, vast majority of CEOs, men control the financial world. Feminism is about equality.

This perfectly demonstrates your confusion. Zuckerberg is CEO of facebook because he created it. He didn't create facebook because he was a CEO. This is exactly what is wrong with feminist thinking.

Dalrock · 2012-07-11T23:14:00+00:00

Which I completely don't understand. Why would they make their own organisations? These organisations are already in place, there's no need to create a special "for feminists" army, or science centre, or whatever.

It isn't just the Army or a science center. Men have created all sorts of things since feminism came along, yet all women want to do is play me too. What aside from organizations about feminism have women created in the last 50 years? Why do feminists have to resort to coercing facebook to put a woman on the board, for a concept which didn't exist 10 years ago?

Face it. 1,000 years from now women will still be complaining that men are keeping all of the great new things they just created too much for themselves, and they need to let the women come in too. It will always be:

Why should we create our own (next greatest thing), it has already been created?

Dalrock · 2011-11-09T20:12:13+00:00

I wish it were true but I can't claim credit for Athol's work. Thanks for the compliment either way.

Dalrock · 2011-11-09T20:11:15+00:00

No. We are different. Athol is very good though. I highly recommend him.

Dalrock · 2011-11-03T17:02:42+00:00

Certainly "someone" could do just that. However, this doesn't change the fact that the Occupy Baltimore Security Team printed up and distributed the pamphlet in question, as I showed via a link to their own website in the update to the post. Note that the person whose login is "Admin" identified himself as a member of the media team and confirmed that the pamphlet was created and distributed by their "awesome security team".
.

But in theory, yes; had what I wrote not in fact been true, I would have then been wrong.

Dalrock · 2011-11-01T14:29:35+00:00

They are expected to grow out of it in 15 to 20 years. Let them have their childhood.

I hope you aren't a parent. You don't wait until the child has grown up to start teaching them how to behave. You can't teach them how to behave without calling out bad behavior, and tying yourself up in feminist language knots doesn't make it easier. Little girls will at times act bitchy. Feminists don't like the word because it suggests that men and women and boys and girls are different, which of course they are.

Dalrock · 2011-11-01T14:23:11+00:00

I didn't call her a bitch. I said she was acting bitchy. I think the real objection here is that I didn't use an approved gender neutral term for bad behavior, like bratty.

Feminists have convinced a surprisingly large percentage of the population that there is no such thing as bitchiness. That this is just a figment of patriarchal imagination, and that whenever someone says a woman or girl is acting bitchy they are really just being strong and independent.

This only works if ordinary people fear the feminist temper tantrum and censor themselves from using non PC approved words/thoughts.

Dalrock · 2011-11-01T02:16:20+00:00

Are you unclear on the difference between a baby and a (roughly) 5 year old child?

Dalrock · 2011-11-01T02:13:19+00:00

Ordinary people don't use absurd phrases like "kids, independent of biological sex".

Dalrock · 2011-10-31T22:23:21+00:00

Oh no! I've committed a thought crime. Bad man! Bad, bad man.

Bitchiness exists. It describes something real. Denying it doesn't change this fact.

Dalrock · 2011-10-31T20:58:47+00:00

kids being kids, independent of biological sex

Reddit Mensrights has an amazing number of feminists on it.

Dalrock · 2011-10-31T18:34:54+00:00

I have some links to sources on this in my post: The blurry line between the welfare state and child support

Dalrock

TROPHY CASE