If you believe that women are closer to being property than to being full and equal partners in a relationship, you don’t want them being able to exit a marriage without a fight.
Some of these idiots actually say that a woman shouldn’t be able to divorce without the husband’s permission. Crazy and gross.
The irony being that spouse murder rates notably dropped after the majority of the US legalized no-fault divorces. If a woman can’t escape a toxic marriage legally, she’s more likely to just murder you instead (and before anyone jumps in to patronize, I realize how terrible it used to be for many women and we should fight against any toxic, regressive policies like this).
My understanding is murder dropped on both sides, but it was a bigger drop in the deaths of the wives. Women are more able to get away from abusive husbands with a no fault divorce - they don’t have to go to court and prove the abuse. Abusive relationships often escalate over time, and can end in death if the abused doesn’t get out.
I believe you’re right, it’s been awhile since I read an article that discussed the topic. Bottom line: Advocates of rescinding no fault divorces can shut the hell up and keep their draconian ideas to themselves.
It’s so perfectly appropriate that that abusive piece of shit Steven Crowder opposes no-fault divorce. He’s just such a vivid example of the sort of emotionally stunted manchild who opposes it and of why they oppose it, and thus of why it has to continue to exist.
Let’s be real here. It’s not that conservatives, conservative men specifically, want to get rid of no-fault divorce. In Crowder’s case, his wife has pretty compelling evidence that Steven emotionally abused his wife.
Conservatives would use no fault divorce to separate from “mouthy” women in a heartbeat if the threat of it would keep them in line.
They hate that a law exists that can be used against them.
They believe they should not be bound by the law of a no fault divorce but would have zero problem using it if it served their interests.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
If this was the “wifely duties” one, the dog needed some meds which a pregnant woman can’t touch. Affects the fetus. He wanted her to put on gloves so she could do it. What a POS. If that stuff could affect my kid I wouldn’t want it anywhere near my wife.
why do conservatives want x?
Because they’re cunts. That is the answer. It doesn’t matter what the question is, the answer is that conservatives are cunts. It explains the entirety of their behavior.
Well, but that doesn’t explain anything. Of course you can always go deeper with “why” questions and at some point you have to be satisfied, but asking “why are they being cunts?” is not going too far. Being a cunt usually has no benefit and is not desirable, so using it as an explanation for human behavior is not sufficient.
The answer should include the supposed reason why conservatives think being a cunt would be advantageous to them, i.e. why they’re choosing this over other beneficial behavior.
but asking “why are they being cunts?” is not going too far.
I don’t agree with you on this. The phrase “being a cunt” implies that you have some choice in the matter; you normally are not a cunt, but you choose to be one for some reason. I don’t think that applies for conservatives. They aren’t choosing to be cunts any more than a dog chooses to be a dog. They are cunts. Therefore, they gravitate towards conservatism. Conservatism is the ideology of cunts.
There have been previous conservatives that stopped being cunts, disproving your claim by simple counterexample. It’s definitely a choice (as much as anything that we do is “chosen”), it’s not some inherent property of their being.
Being a conservative doesn’t make them a cunt, being a cunt makes them conservative.
You’re trolling, right? Have you really never met or heard of a cunt that leans politically progressive? I assure you, they exist.
I’m satisfied with the answer “because conservatives are cunts”. If you’re looking for a deeper answer, you won’t find it. Just accept it and treat these people accordingly.
But there is a deeper answer, there always is.
In this case, we have much worse socialization today. There’s no sense of community anymore, no natural places to go to meet people, families are smaller, it’s much easier to pick up and move somewhere else ending up in an unfamiliar environment with no friends, and so on and so on.
If you have bad socialisation, you end up with bad social skills, so you end up being rejected everywhere you go, so you end up wanting to control people so they have to stay with you, so you don’t end up alone.
Thus the fantasy of getting a woman to agree to marriage and not being able to leave is appealing and secures these people voters.
Its too easy? Fuck you. I want to be able to text a number and boom my divorce is filed. Republicans once again proving their the party of piss babies and iron fists. Maybe if you all weren’t so completely revolting in your souls you’d find someone that wishes to intertwin with it.
Technically if you don’t have any disputed assets or kids to traumatize, you can pretty much get divorced online these days. There a bunch of online legal services websites out there who will send you boilerplate to fill out and then file it for you for under $1000.
Those services are scams. At least in my state, the court’s website includes a boilerplate form to fill out free of charge.
Having said that, even if there is no dispute, if you have sizable co-mingled assets/liabilities (such as a house and mortgage, effectively comingled retirement savings, etc), you should probably still get professional help even if you agree in principle how to divide them.
I feel like most things conservatives want can easily be explained by their consistent desire to harm women.
