Counterpoint to traditional gender roles?

[ImTheDoubleGreatest!]

@AttackFormation @highSpeed

I know this i san old thread, but I'm pointing this out:

AttackFormation, domestic abuse was relatively rare. When it did happen, it wasn't excruciatingly painful for the woman, it was not incapacitating. You aren't from the US if I recall correctly, so you may not know (because most people here in the US don't know this either), but you need to hear this. Back in the day, if a man was found to have beaten his wife, the men of the town would go over to the man's house, beat HIM, and then parade him around town in what was basically a shopping cart or something of the sort, and the women and children would throw rotten food at him. They humiliated him. I'm also not even sure if they took his side (i.e. the woman could be lying, and they would never know). It got so bad to the point where there needed to be laws put in place to protect the men lmao. Teddy Roosevelt actually lobbied to remove those laws and allowing that type of punishment back again. He even went so far as to propose capital punishment (the death penalty) for wifebeating.

The more you know.

 

[Julian]

Sweden is one of the most cucked countries on earth. Who cares about gender roles out there when muzzies are raping your women by the dozen

 

[speed dawg]

She said the reason she will never give into traditional gender roles of the wife staying at home is because what if the man decides to suddenly leave. The man will leave her with no marketable skills and possibly children to feed. This is a good counterpoint against having a traditional society.

No, it's not a good counterargument. It's a terrible one. She will get half of his earnings. Which could be argued is fair. But THEN you have to decide what happens to the kids, which is a far greater problem and much more damage is done.

The problem is when the woman leaves. She still gets half, which is some major BS. But, where it evens out is when she gets married again, that goes away. Problem is a lot of women will delay marriage with their new guy (that they likely cheated with) in order to keep the money flowing.

It's really easy to fix. You take the total income, then divide it when you leave. If you aren't the breadwinner, and you leave, then you get nothing except your own income. If you are the breadwinner, you give up half. It's that simple. That would disincentivize a lot of the nonsense.

Child custody rights are another matter altogether, and much more serious.

 

[Bokanovsky]

I was having dinner with my two females friends. One is a rabid feminist type. The topic of traditional gender roles vs feminist ideology was brought up. Of course I told her my RedPill views. It was a respectful convo and she brought up a good counter point that I had no answer for.

She said the reason she will never give into traditional gender roles of the wife staying at home is because what if the man decides to suddenly leave. The man will leave her with no marketable skills and possibly children to feed. This is a good counterpoint against having a traditional society. I wonder how they regulated men leaving their families in the more traditional era of the United States. Maybe they used social shaming to keep him there? Or maybe it was incredibly rare for the men to leave. Even today I don't know too many men that just abandon their children. Either way it was an interesting point.

Surprised that you were caught flat footed by such a nonsensical argument. Child support and alimony laws really favor women these days. Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of divorces are initiated by women.

 

[Pandora]

Surprised that you were caught flat footed by such a nonsensical argument. Child support and alimony laws really favor women these days. Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of divorces are initiated by women.

So we agree that alimony is necessary to safeguard the woman in case the man leaves? We just don't agree with how lopsided the alimony and child support laws have become right.

 

[Pandora]

No, it's not a good counterargument. It's a terrible one. She will get half of his earnings. Which could be argued is fair. But THEN you have to decide what happens to the kids, which is a far greater problem and much more damage is done.

The problem is when the woman leaves. She still gets half, which is some major BS. But, where it evens out is when she gets married again, that goes away. Problem is a lot of women will delay marriage with their new guy (that they likely cheated with) in order to keep the money flowing.

It's really easy to fix. You take the total income, then divide it when you leave. If you aren't the breadwinner, and you leave, then you get nothing except your own income. If you are the breadwinner, you give up half. It's that simple. That would disincentivize a lot of the nonsense.

Child custody rights are another matter altogether, and much more serious.

Were alimony laws put in place back in the 1950s which was the peak of traditional families? How did society safeguard against men leaving before alimony laws? I guess maybe the girls brothers would beat the guy up or something. I doubt that men leaving was a common thing but I am still curious as to how it was regulated back then.

 

[Pandora]

It wasn't "regulated" except in the sense of "sucks to be you". Women were largely dependent on their men not leaving them and this power dynamic is also why society quieted down and accepted domestic abuse. This is still the case in cultures where women are socially beneath men and made dependent on providers, and one tactic of abusers is to make the woman dependent on them. Fixing this was part of the social democratic movement in countries like mine and connected to the temperance movement, as a subset of general women's lib, that also implemented other things like universal healthcare, tuition-free university, public infrastructure, taxing wealth more than work, and so on (although the limited social democracy began to be dismantled in the 1970s-80s).

So which society is better? The society where women tolerated abuse in order to ensure that the man stays or a society where women are too liberated to the point of self destruction? Is there a middle ground that protects women from crappy men?

I am very aware that the gynocracy that we live in now is horrible. I am just wondering if there is a way we can find a balance. Giving men full power is something that can only work in tribal societies where other men can regulate the behavior of the husband. But giving men full power in the modern world is not a good thing either. What do you think?

 

[Pandora]

I just want to be clear that I am not white knighting for women. I believe them to be inferior in wisdom to men. They are just as valuable as men but they do need our guidance. In contrast I also recognize that many men are not good people. They abuse power and are not very enlightened. My dad was one of these men. I grew up in a nuclear family where my dad was a close minded tyrant. My dad used to kick my moms a**.

On some level I understand when women say that they need marital protection against men that leave or are abusive. Do I think most men are like this...heck no.

Maybe the women should have just picked a better man. This may be the main safeguard against behavior like this.

I think on SoSuave we project our values onto most men. We forgot the we are the cream of the crop as far as introspective men. Many men are not like us and will abuse power. Most are good guys but many are not.