I used alimony in the last discussion because the argument for it is that the women that do secure it need the support of the husband's labor that they relied on throughout their marriage. However, focusing on this point alone is kind of missing the bigger picture when it comes to the fact that marriage had formed on the idea that women would rely on the man's labor while he would benefit from her reproductive capability. I'm not saying that it should stay this way, I'm saying that that's why it's formed.
Really? White supremacists?I knew you'd be the type to create some stupid bullshyt false equivalency. Gender != Race. I know that it might be hard to break away from the idea that liberals could be wrong on something, but this adamant denial of science on this board because we're afraid of going against what we may have been taught by our women's studies professors is just ridiculous.
It was a long, long road from homo sapiens' beginnings to what we are today, and to deny how the evolutionary determinism that caused gender relations in societal structures to develop the way that they had would be willfully ignorant. And I always find it curious that you keep bringing up race in this conversation as if to a)try and malign people who disagree with feminists with white supremacists and it seems to indicate b)that you know that this drivel couldn't stand on its own, so of course a false equivalency must be created.
Lastly, every idiot ITT seems to think that I excuse this behavior or that I condone taking away women's rights to vote and keeping them barefooted in the kitchen, when all I did was try and assert that men aren't inherently bad and try to explain very carefully (to no avail apparently) that there was a lot explaining why marriage structure and eventually larger political power structures had formed the way that they had.
But again, all I've seen so far is people trying to paint me as some sort of misogynist or borderline racist because you are offended by what I have to say, even when I point out why these things exist the way that they do.
You need to calm down my man. I feel like you're battling invisible ghosts here, with your defensive posture and language. There is no cause for you to use such insulting rhetoric. You seem to be confusing challenging your positions, with attacking them.
I invoked white supremacy because you are adopting their theoretical position --- its not to say you are, in fact, a white supremacist sympathizer. White supremacist orthodoxy explains power and material imbalances through evolutionary means, and is completely hostile towards societal determinism. Thats the position you are taking, and Im just putting your leanings in their perspective.
I think your defensiveness draws on the fact that you know you are pursuing a highly controversial opinion. I used the political and legislative organization of this country, vis a vis women's lack of contribution in it, as a way to advance the discussion and allow for your reasoning behind it. You took it as an insult, but curiously you want it both ways, by simultaneously defending and being insulted by your own rhetoric.
More importantly, as a matter of disclosure I want to reveal that Daygo and I are very good friends in real life, and have spent the better part of the last few years in each other's constant company. I dont know what is driving you to comport yourself in such a way, but Im very disappointed that you would come at me like that, with Pacspit and the like. I think your response to me lends itself to the idea that people completely inhabit a radically different persona online. This guy is not like this in real life, I can assure you.
