Why did no-fault divorce actually happen?

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5145-mnookin-and-kornhauser—1979—bargaining-in-the

Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. [1]

“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”

Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.

Funny they never mention that.

And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.

A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).

1 https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him

…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.

Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.

If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?

Some simple changes and why:

  1. a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
  2. a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
  3. if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
  4. long engagements only, 6-12 months?
  5. one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
  6. no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
  7. marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
  8. abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
  9. romance must go both ways
  10. if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
  11. 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
  12. if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
  13. real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
  14. complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
  15. no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
  16. adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
  17. all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
  18. no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
  19. a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
  20. earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.

I flatter myself these are common sense.

Where Spencer is wrong

Youtube comments, what do ya know? Tell me your secrets.

My friends read these (and rarely, write in themselves) so you don’t have to!
The little bitches could do the editing for me, though.

He should really study up on Trivers’ Parental Investment theory, that one would count as individualistic-oriented, I think. It also ties into r/K. Spencer is saying up with K-strategy, basically, which is individualistic in comparison to the rest of the world. Look at birth rates!

Try to find national case studies or go by national heroes.

Good find, there is no such thing as an individual in evolutionary or biological terms. There is only the breeding unit (plus surviving spawn) – man and woman, here defined in our culture as the nuclear unit.

Biologically, single humans do not exist because humans are not an asexual species.
Collectivist races tend to have extended family (Asians, genetic-Asian “Native” Americans) or a total breakdown of family but an extended community (The Hood).

For other theories Spencer could stand to use, anything about the amygdala, oxytocin and Terror Management Theory.

I’ve linked this before but it’s a good start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894685/

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002186017002006

It’s ripe for discussion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19864286

There’s no such thing as ‘harmless hedonism’, as libertarians imply.
The state must absorb the cost of their social damage e.g. STDs, abortions, drug resistance.
Is it really a freedom if someone else is paying for its consequences?

I find it ironic the winning ‘strategy’ of the Non-Aggression Principle (a wimp’s Golden Rule) is to either behave or plot murder. The solution to violence is violence. Instead of threat of violence, we have a guarantee. The evil of society will spontaneously and logically agree to stop pursuing a selfish strategy, in their mind.

Can you have a shared society without homogeneity?

Historically, it’s doubtful.

Diversity+Proximity = War

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/07/determined-build-shared-society-everyone/

“But our mission to build a stronger, fairer Britain goes further. For while the obvious injustices often receive a lot of attention – after all, politicians have been talking the language of social justice and social mobility for years – the everyday injustices that ordinary working class families feel are too often overlooked.”
“So when you see others prospering while you are not; when you try to raise your concerns but they fall on deaf ears; when you feel locked out of the political and social discourse and feel no one is on your side, resentments grow, and the divisions that we see around us – between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation; between the wealth of London and the rest of the country; between the rich, the successful and the powerful, and their fellow citizens – become entrenched.”

Wait until you tell them the bad news on retirement and the NHS, in ‘humanitarian crisis‘ because mysteriously, we have too many newcomers using it. In a country with sub-replacement fertility, they aren’t coming from here… and they won’t stay here when the gibs stop flowing. They’ll leave, going ‘home’ as they call it, and take a net loss from this country with them. With remittance, the gap would be vast. These people are leeches on their home nation too, that is why they were forced to leave. Stop caring about being called ‘racist’ by traitors selling us out to NGOs unless you want to become the British Merkel.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/06/nhs-faces-humanitarian-crisis-rising-demand-british-red-cross

The system wasn’t designed for this, and WILL break if the flow of r-types breeding at African levels don’t slow their roll. Children are not cash dispensers from the taxpayer.

We have bigamy laws, we should NOT be paying for multiple ‘wives’ aka breeding sows. Look up Calhoun’s rats, they overbreed and end up like Africa, perma-war mass-rape too many men, not enough war to cull them Africa.

Entitlements only exist for a surplus economy (unlikely with the average national IQs of the people being let in) and many of the takers did not pay into the system, neither did their family because they weren’t here, they are ‘entitled’ to nothing. Such people are chancers, locusts who consume until the seed crop is lost and you can grow no more. Don’t give mansions in London (or any social housing in London, it’s a privilege to live there) to people who deliberately produced 8-10 children they couldn’t afford. Don’t go easy on crime, punishments protect the People and it’ll be seen as a weakness.

Nothing will redpill left-wing Millennial voters to conservatism faster than realizing they won’t get the things upper generations got easily (full NHS coverage, to retire full stop, a good economy where there isn’t foreign competition or factories going overseas, cheap housing to expand into, no terrorism or gang violence or Sharia patrols harassing women).

“From tackling the increasing lack of affordability in housing, fixing broken markets to help with the cost of living, and building a great meritocracy where every child has the opportunity of a good school place, we will act across every layer of society to restore the fairness that is the bedrock of the social solidarity that makes our nation strong.”

Family formation etc are particular generational problems I hope she addresses, it’s important for the economy too, many responsible people are putting it off cos they just can’t afford it.

You can’t have nationalism without national loyalty and it’s a typical conservative error to assume that anyone living in this country and profiting from it, is primarily loyal to this country.

Civic nationalism. The Alt Lite’s tactic of denying biology (HBD differences) and history (war and invasion and colonization). Will it go far enough?

Link: London teachers encouraging teen pregnancy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278061/Schools-start-telling-pupils-children-early-possible.html

It might be to make work for themselves.
It might be demographic.
Maybe they noticed they need more liberals to recruit or push into Higher Ed.

Notice the blame here? Notice the stupidity masquerading as sense?

Logically, let’s backtrack this.

Old enough to support it. Well, as Captain Capitalism has mentioned, the economic system is calculated against fertility, it is anti-natal and has been making women barren, because the time it takes for them to support a child eats into their reproductive window (as does education, which goes unmentioned).

Okay, so a woman needs support.
Gee, whose responsibility is that?
Let’s look to child health. They’re healthier with married parents. Better outcomes all around. Better citizens for society, less crime, better health and happiness.

So the woman needs to be a wife to have children young.

What needs to happen before this is possible?

...Anyone?

Any guesses?

What’s wrong with this picture?

The boys are refusing to become men.

tyra take responsibility

They are acting like men but refusing to man up to the consequences they caused.

Boys need to stop having children they have no intention of supporting out of wedlock, expecting the state to pick up the expense. They should choose a wife and marry young. That is the male choice.

Yet these teachers, they’re foisting the burden on women, despite how older fathers are behind the rise in retarded children (look it up, damaged sperm and probability of psychiatric conditions).
Instead of telling the boys to stop fucking around, they’re pushing the responsibility of commitment on the girls, knowing the girls have no power to influence this outcome (it’s a decision that falls to the male) and knowing full well they’ll end up a burden on the State – and wouldn’t you know it, the State Education System!

p.s. the natural process of reproduction will never be removed from sex, it’s a myth; if you’re old enough for the responsibility of sex, you’re old enough to have a child. On the flipside, if you’re having a child because you’re expected to, or for external gain, abort the poor child and do them a favour, you’d be an awful parent.

p.p.s. I would not want a child with the economy about to tank, but that’s just me. A tiny dependent infant in a low income household with high time preference is practically the worst position I can think of in a zombie apocalypse.

p.p.p.s. We’re all parents, financially speaking. Our taxes are all paying for children. They aren’t our children. We’re tax-pumped cuckolds. That’s why we can’t afford our own children.

Video: How to destroy the world

Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?

wow omg likey

TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.

In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.

You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*

I treat you as a sentient intelligent lifeform. Objections?

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.

n.b.

Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.

p.p.s.

Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#1970s

The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.

What’s missing from Sex Ed?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the-glaring-omission-from-sex-education/16762

Duh. Of course.

Most of the feminists teaching hate marriage.
They think it’s a prison.
They have no idea how to navigate any of it. Not a bit.
It would change the required course e.g. don’t sleep around and lower your value.
It would discuss exchange and responsibility.
Families would become a good thing and the nuclear family health and success evidence assessed.

One place they are not likely to find evidence-based guidance is at school in sexuality education classes. This should give us pause since research shows that teen relationship history is linked to future romantic patterns.

Caused by.
A person is shaped by their personal history.
Cause. Effect.

Sex Ed is founded on the Pleasure Principle.

That’s why it screws kids up. Look at any metrics by age group, more reckless behaviour as time goes on. The classes encourage them. Here in the UK, we now have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe. MORE THAN SWEDEN. Thanks to the most far-left extreme Sex Ed saying that orgies are fine, morally. [I heard this because in principle, this promiscuous gay man said while sucking on a flavoured condom, it’s the same thing as one person at a time but with much shorter time between, don’t ask for more detail, please].

They always say “It’s about LOVE!”

Reject frame. “It’s about LUST!” Obviously.

Sex Ed based on marriage and children would be anti-feminist.

Another thing they’ll never allow is accurate information on fertility (female and male), from sperm quality to ovarian reserves and the obvious importance of epigenetics in a pregnant mother (e.g. no drinking, no smoking, act responsible for the child, you’re an adult).

Centre for Social Justice: Reinstate the importance of marriage

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/its-time-to-back-marriage

I won’t lie, I am surprised.
I didn’t believe this paper existed. Imperfect but…. correct?

Marriage is no panacea, but this paper argues that, combined with real early intervention, reform of the benefits system, and general couple support, it plays a crucial role in tackling social breakdown.

A transferable tax allowance for married couples would have a beneficial impact for the poorest, and reflect the strength of people’s aspirations to marry across the socioeconomic spectrum. These aspirations are currently being thwarted by the cultural and economic barriers faced by the poorest. The greater likelihood of family breakdown when couples have children in less formal relationships is presented as a significant problem.

While we recommend the implementation of a transferable tax allowance for all married couples in the long-term, in the current financial climate this should be staggered and married couples with children aged 0-3 treated as the priority. The costing options for this (given pre-budget 2012-13 basic tax rate/tax threshold) are as follows: married couples with children under three years old, the most important years for a child’s development: £0.8 billion; married couples with children under six years old: £1.15 billion; married couples with dependent children or in receipt of Carers Allowance: £1.9 billion; all married couples: £4 billion.

It misses one crucial fact: welfare queens exist.

You win some…..