"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

IMHO, divorce is the last option for a marriage.

Divorce should only be considered after the couple have genuinely tried to work things out and still failed, or if one of them is fleeing an abusive situation, or if one party commits adultery (which includes paternity fraud, too).

Cheating is and always should be a dealbreaker, since trust is like a crystal vase: One broken, it's never the same.

However, (mostly) women in this day and age see divorce not with the severity they should be seeing it as.

And why wouldn't they? The moment they "get bored", or just want money, or use whatever they come up with as any old excuse to justify why they want out, they get a golden parachute when they pull the trigger, courtesy of the utterly horrific laws which are for them and against men.

It's partially the reason why men are bailing on marriage completely, the overall quality of Western women aside being another factor.

The moment things like alimony or their getting half the man's current and future shit (like 401k) disappear, the better.
DarthOne said:
It's not so much people being in an 'unhappy marriage' that is a problem these days. It's the women getting 'bored', or thinking she can 'do better', or just pure greed. And it is women, due to how the system is set up and biased in favor to them.
Click to expand...
This.

A woman's definition of "unhappy" is arbitrary and up to them: It could mean anything and everything, including "I'm bored with my husband like a pair of shoes, so I want to go fuck a coworker or Chad at the gym because he gives my womanly bits the tingle".

Much like with single mothers in this day and age, there's a chance they're single mothers because of something unfortunate happening to their partners/spouses, but it's typically safe to presume they're single mothers because they just made poor life choices.
 
Last edited:
So perhaps, in terms of legislation, would a tightening of the qualifications for no fault divorce be a good idea? That would make it be used a little less willy nilly, whilst keeping the “escape route” open.

Then again, for a woman effectively fleeing an abusive relationship, is it really “no fault”? If her husband has been thuggishly beating her black and blue, he’s not merely at fault, he’s a fucking felon.
 
Lord Sovereign said:
So perhaps, in terms of legislation, would a tightening of the qualifications for no fault divorce be a good idea? That would make it be used a little less willy nilly, whilst keeping the “escape route” open.

Then again, for a woman effectively fleeing an abusive relationship, is it really “no fault”? If her husband has been thuggishly beating her black and blue, he’s not merely at fault, he’s a fucking felon.
Click to expand...

It would be. Good luck in that happening without some MAJOR cultural shifts first.
 
DarthOne said:
It's not so much people being in an 'unhappy marriage' that is a problem these days. It's the women getting 'bored', or thinking she can 'do better', or just pure greed. And it is women, due to how the system is set up and biased in favor to them.
Click to expand...
Then, if we assume you're correct (I don't), why burden the husbands with such horrible wives?
 
DarthOne said:
Because not everyone wants to be single, or can afford to be a passport bro. Because maybe some women will come to their sense when they aren't being treated like children.
Click to expand...
....so you'd rather everyone live in an unhappy marriage rather than maybe go for a better one?

Jeez, talk about cynicism. You should spend less time on communities that make it a business to make you think the worst of everyone else.
 
The problems with giving an out of an 'unhappy' marriage where no one is 'at fault' are:

1) Unhappy is subjective and nebulous. And real reasons are rarely spoken of. Because those real reasons are some bullshit like 'they don't make me horny anymore.' Which just leads to her not getting most of his shit or alimony so she'll be like 'He raises his voice at me when he's upset! And that makes me scurred!'

And it's definitely women that are the most unhappy with marriage.

Male homosexuals almost never get divorced, female homosexuals have a divorce rate that's iirc staggeringly higher than heterosexuals where the divorce rate is already fucking brutal.

2) The system is so biased against men that even when men file for divorce to get out of an unhappy marriage, women still win half the time. Women still tend to win when they were the ones at fault! Catch her cheating, it's still the man's fault and he still has to be responsible for her via alimony and half his shit is now hers.

Which means an 'easy out' for a man is still going to ruin his life.

Unless you are incredibly lucky, and it is luck going by today's statistics, marriage is a scam.
 
SoliFortissimi said:
Is this a serious question? Why should we inflict an unhappy marriage on anyone?
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding him.

'Happy' as he said, is a transient state. It's basically just an emotion. It is good to be happily married, but more important than that is 'satisfied' or 'joyful' or 'fulfilled,' or even 'meaningful.'

If you're using happy vs unhappy as your defining metric, it will not lead to good places. It's certainly something you'd want, but I'd rather my wife and I be occasionally happy and always faithful, than almost always happy and unfaithful even once.

I'd rather we be able to trust each other, than be happy with each other.

I'd rather we be able to respect each other, than be happy with each other.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
 
LordsFire said:
You're misunderstanding him.

'Happy' as he said, is a transient state. It's basically just an emotion. It is good to be happily married, but more important than that is 'satisfied' or 'joyful' or 'fulfilled,' or even 'meaningful.'

If you're using happy vs unhappy as your defining metric, it will not lead to good places. It's certainly something you'd want, but I'd rather my wife and I be occasionally happy and always faithful, than almost always happy and unfaithful even once.

I'd rather we be able to trust each other, than be happy with each other.

I'd rather we be able to respect each other, than be happy with each other.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
Click to expand...
Once again someone explains my point better than I can. Thank you.
 
Jormungandr said:
And since finding the "perfect woman" is so stacked against you that you might as well hope to shit golden eggs...
Click to expand...
The problem, I think, lies mostly on the women's side of things these days. It it weren't for the high expectations placed on men and the non-existent ones placed on women, as well as a biased system that hugely favors women, one wouldn't need to find a 'perfect woman' to marry.
 
S'task said:
Why should happiness be the defining measure of worth of a marriage?

Happiness is inherently a selfish measure. It is about the amount of pleasure an individual has in a given circumstance, and happiness is ALWAYS a transient matter as people are never happy all the time.

The purpose of a marriage to is create a family, this is a long term commitment that involves self sacrifice on the parts of those involved. "Happiness" is not guaranteed in the long term, and two people WILL have conflicts and have to reach compromise positions that neither one is happy with.
Click to expand...

But see that's the thung though. What's the point of creating a family? for the "Betterment of SOCIETYtm"? It's becoming increasingly obvious to some of us that society is just a pyramid scheme that constantly needs people feeding into it. Keeping your legacy alive? At best your actual legacy will be remembered for a few generations max and you yourself won't be around to acknowledge being remembered. 100 years from now it will be as if you never existed.

Look Happiness may be fickle but at least it's measurable in a quantifiable amount of time, and before it gets mentioned people ARE opping out altogether, it's part of the reason why MGTOW is a thing.
 
KilroywasNOTHere said:
But see that's the thing though. What's the point of creating a family? for the "Betterment of SOCIETYtm"? It's becoming increasingly obvious to some of us that society is just a pyramid scheme that constantly needs people feeding into it. Keeping your legacy alive? At best your actual legacy will be remembered for a few generations max and you yourself won't be around to acknowledge being remembered. 100 years from now it will be as if you never existed.

Look Happiness may be fickle but at least it's measurable in a quantifiable amount of time, and before it gets mentioned people ARE opting out altogether, it's part of the reason why MGTOW is a thing.
Click to expand...
This is sadly true.

I know the names of my grandparents, and I knew what they were like as people first or second hand. I don't know the names of my great-grandparents or their parents, nor anything about them.

If I ever have kids, and that's doubtful so I'm being hypothetical here, unless I become a millionaire or someone who leaves a public legacy e.g. an author or inventor or someone celebrated in a field e.g. game design, my great grandkids in 21XX won't know or remember me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top