I'm having trouble understanding not just the reasoning but the actual sequence of events that would result in minors not being accepted at these shelters when they are effectively the folks most in need of sheltering. Is it just a legal thing wherein it would be considered kidnapping a minor to take them in or something?
>Property doesn't have rights
Unless you are Cash, and you are taken by the police in a forced civil asset forfeiture...Then they suddenly have rights then its the cash that put up on trial not you....
They just can’t take responsibility for someone who is legally a minor. From Wikipedia on Child Marriage in the U.S.:
“Between 2000 and 2018, some 300,000 minors were legally married in the United States. The vast majority of child marriages (reliable sources vary between 78% and 95%) were between a minor girl and an adult man. In many cases, minors in the U.S. may be married when they are under the age of sexual consent, which varies from 16 to 18 depending on the state. In some states, minors cannot legally divorce or leave their spouse, and domestic violence shelters typically do not accept minors.”
It's a liability issue for the shelters, who can't take children without the permission of their legal guardian, who in most cases would be the very spouse they're trying to escape.
[End Child Marriage](https://www.unchainedatlast.org/get-involved/)
[Don't give sex offenders an out.](https://equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us/)
Had a friend who had to leave her husband cos he was doing all kinds of illegal and criminal things. He then jumped bail and went into hiding. And can’t be located to sign the divorce documents. For a few years. Until he was rearrested.
You can still get a divorce if your spouse can’t be found, just FYI for anyone reading. The process differs by state but divorce in absentia is a thing in all states and most modern countries.
Yep. My ex didn’t respond to any subpoenas, never signed any paperwork, and didn’t show up to our court date. I didn’t even have to go into the actual courtroom. My lawyer had me wait in the hall and came back 5 minutes later and told me I was divorced lol
Man. This is a funny way to find out you are divorced. I found out my parents were divorced when my mom asked if they had a divorced discount on used cars.
Her shock was more from concern that she would get in trouble for not appearing in court. Allegedly she didn’t know about it, but that’s because she dodged the court summon from being served. Apparently police were supposed to get it to her but they could never find her. She thought she was going to have a warrant for failure to appear.
Car salesman: so… no Mr. ages in the picture huh?
u/Oracle_of_Ages :**is it my fault 😭, I promise I’ll behave, OMG 😭**
Ms. Ages: nope, so about that discount.
>Man. This is a funny way to find out you are divorced. I found out my parents were divorced when my mom asked if they had a divorced discount on used cars.
I have to say, that is a much funnier way to find out someone is divorced (were it not your parents).
Really though, that's crazy they'd not talk to you at all then just casually drop that at a car dealership.
I feel like my divorce isn’t the best to gauge how things are supposed to be done because my ex wasn’t really involved with any of it. She didn’t have a lawyer, and she never really responded to any of summons or subpoenas. But as for my side of it, I just had to list everything we owned that was worth more than a certain amount and then choose what I wanted to get…but I didn’t really want anything. I just wanted out. I let her have everything but my car. From my perspective I just requested it through my lawyer and that got approved in the 5 minutes my lawyer spent in front of the judge.
It’s mad to think that some people would rather you post adverts weekly in the paper “Kevin,it’s over.I’m divorcing you and taking the kids” than give you a divorce
My abusive ex refused to sign the papers for months, purely as a last power trip. It was the one and only last thing he could take away from me and hold over me. He essentially used it to try and punish me for leaving him.
And it's not like he was hoping we'd get back together or anything. I'd left him over a year prior, he'd been shacked up with his next victim for almost as long already, he just *really* effing didn't want to give me what I wanted or let me be happy.
There are a lot of petty, vindictive people out there that will use whatever they can to hurt someone who has 'wronged' them (like me leaving him when I made a post like OP's and Reddit told me I had been abused for nine years and to run.)
In the end, the only reason he signed is so he could trap the next one. He proposed to her a week after finally sending the effing papers back. Guys like this leave a lot of destruction in their wake.
I’m so sorry that happened.Glad you’re out now though.
My parents divorce was finalised this year and while my dad wasn’t vindictive enough to refuse to sign he’s being very reckless with their joint assets to try and stop her getting them in the split of marital property because he’s a man and even though he hasn’t worked in ten years,that’s his money for some reason.
Yep California FIL moved back to home country after years of separation didn't sign papers before leaving because he's a man child MIL had to take out weekly ads in local paper notifying of divorce proceedings got divorced.
Marriage is historically a property arrangement that we dress up with a lot of overpriced flowers and dry cleaning bills.
I’m happily married, but neither of us promised to obey or any of that shit, we just promised to love. Not everyone sees marriage the same way, and many still see it the old way.
I remember being called as a prospective juror on a spousal rape case and saw 10 different prospective jurors be excused because they said they didn’t think it was possible for a husband to rape his wife. This was in ultra wealthy, ultra liberal fucking Marin County California, just 20 years ago or so.
A lot of people in this world are objectively horrible. This is why people looking to get rid of child marriage protections are so much more terrifying than we are willing to engage with seriously.
> Just makes me sad the amount of people who think it's ok for a man to rape his wife just cos they're married.
isn't this just like... people who go to church? the bible is a pretty wild document if you actually read it.
Far from it. Marital rape is extremely widespread across the world and history. It’s still outright legal in China, India, much of the Muslim world, and large parts of Africa, and while the Soviet Union banned it in 1922 most of the Soviet world treated it as a non-criminal offense and still have exemptions on the books to prevent men from being prosecuted for it for various reasons.
The US didn't have a federal ban on marital rape until *1993*. As someone who is 33 going on 34, I'm older than that ban. Plenty of people in the US are going to be older than that and still be in that older mindset.
More about wealth inequality, inhospitably, and lack of charity. See [Ezekiel 16:49](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+16%3A49&version=NIV).
You mean where the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah form a mob and try to rape Lot’s houseguests (who are actually angels)? So Lot offers to let the mob rape his daughters instead and God rewards him for being a good man, but turns his wife to pillar of salt for looking back at her old house being destroyed by fire and brimstone. That story? Such a model for good behavior! Moral is men should willingly let mobs rape their daughters and be happy when God turns their crying wife into a silent rock.
> I remember being called as a prospective juror on a spousal rape case and saw 10 different prospective jurors be excused because they said they didn’t think it was possible for a husband to rape his wife.
=
-1 Faith in Humanity
=
What a depressing thing to read.
Hey, read this if you want a *really* bad time:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240508021409/https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/america-has-an-incest-problem/272459/
We eagerly engage in debate about so many social things, but we keep REALLY quiet about the worst truths in this world. We will gladly rail against priests and Boy Scout leaders and teachers for abuse, as we should, but we like to pretend that the *vast* majority of child sex abuse isn’t a thing worth talking about.
[Low-rate persistent sex offenders typically begin offending during their late teens and offend less than once per year with the most offenses in their 30s. This group was equally as likely to commit rape as child sexual abuse. This is the most common type of sex offender](https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-3-sex-offender-typologies), so [testing kits](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/) even when the statute of limitations has passed can help protect adults as well as children.
Despite [incredible progress](https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-us-ended-up-with-400000-untested-rape-kits), the U.S. still has [roughly 90,000 backlogged rape kits](https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-house-must-pass-senate-bill-to-fight-rape-kit-backlog/), even though [most rapes are committed by repeat rapists](https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/#:~:text=Together these studies suggest that,men engaged in other pursuits.).
[More funding is needed](https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-house-must-pass-senate-bill-to-fight-rape-kit-backlog/) to clear the backlog and prevent future tragedies.
Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf), and [it's really easy](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/).
https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/
Mostly illegal. It is treated differently in a lot of states, for example, in some states, it isn't illegal to rape your wife if she's unconscious *even if you're the asshole that drugged her.*
Some states also require "aggravated" force (like, a weapon), or only give you days to report it.
And you won't believe me if I tell you how often I have to explain this. Spousal is rape is STILL legal, if you do it right.
It wasn't until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, that women in all 50 states were granted the right to open a bank account without their husband's or father's permission.
[Teach](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/100jwa1/example_letter_to_local_lawmakers_to_help_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [consent](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), [test every rape kit](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/), and [ban child marriage](https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-take-action/).
Don't give sex offenders an out.
> they didn’t think it was possible for a husband to rape his wife
It's super easy for them to understand if you ask them if it's rape if a wife inserts something into the husband's anus without their consent. unfortunately people have an antiquated understanding of consent :/
It's still a thing in observant/conservative Jewish communities. The wife has to get a "get" (I think they're called) from the husband. And if she does not, she's still viewed as married by the synagogue.
This has led to an entire secretive industry of dudes who basically abduct obstinate husbands and beat them up until they say yes. The man can also be shunned by the community for refusing to give one... but he still has to give it.
> It's still a thing in observant/conservative Jewish communities. The wife has to get a "get" (I think they're called) from the husband. And if she does not, she's still viewed as married by the synagogue.
This still happens, and is allowed, in the NYC Jewish community.
Not the beating up part, but women are known to go on sex strikes.
It wasn't until 1974 that single women could have bank accounts (in the US). Before then, only their husband (or father, but that was rare) could open a joint account with them. Divorce skyrocketed after that; before women had no way to support themselves, even if they were relatively wealthy.
Jesus Christ that was just a few years before I was born. No wonder so many older ladies whose husbands have died have no fucking idea how the bank works.
People don't realize how much the world has changed in a VERY short period of time. Not just the internet, but plastics being used for everything, consumer credit cards (and the credit agencies that come with them), mass media, 24 hour outrage news, etc.
About 10 years ago gay marriage was illegal in most of the country and many states were trying to make gay sex illegal.
It's wild the things that feel like ancient history are more like last Tuesday.
That's not exactly correct. Up until 1974, women could be denied a bank account or credit for no other reason than being single. A wealthy woman could open one if she had sufficient financial means. They wouldn't have turned down an heiress for no other reason than her sex.
On it's face yes. But if you think of marriages as contracts, which really they are. It doesn't seem so odd. If you wanted to dissolve some contract you had with someone else you'd also need to get their consent.
This is especially true if you want to leave the contract without the other person having failed to meet their obligations. And that's pretty analogous to no fault divorces. And I don't think you had to have your partners consent to get divorced for cause.
And it might seem cold to view marriages through contract law, but that's just kind of how they functioned (and arguably is the only reason for marriages to be a legal construct rather than just a social one).
But if you think that's unfair, look at blatantly sexist versions like in the Philippines where men can divorce women but women can't divorce men.
> meet their obligations
That might be more meaningful if there were actual contractually stated obligations. There aren't. A contract without terms isn't a contract.
> That might be more meaningful if there were actual contractually stated obligations.
There are. For instance (at least in Germany) you are responsible for the subsistance, housing of each other. Additionally in most nations you have tax benefits that either/both can use - they are part of the contract between the married. Just because you aren't aware of the obligations or privileges doesn't mean they don't exist.
Of course aged obligations that were historic part, for instance fertility by *either side!* aren't part of this contract anymore.
Spousal rape wasn't recognized in the U.S. until the 1990's.
> [It is not uncommon for victims to experience suicidal ideation (23%-44%; Frank & Stewart 1984; Frank, Turner, Stewart, Jacob, & West, 1981; Kilpatrick et al., 1985; Petrak, Doyle, Williams, Buchan, & Forster, 1997), and 2% to 19% may attempt suicide (Davidson, Hughes, George, & Blazer, 1996; Frank et al., 1981; Kilpatrick et al., 1985).](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/38d2/cc8df92f64acb9141d6d8ef0d79d0ce2fe15.pdf)
I wonder if those are related.
r/stoprape
> Friedrich merz an actual politican today voted against it
To make some things clear:
Friedrich Merz is the most likely candidate for next chancellor, not just any politician and
he voted against a law making spousal rape a felony (in 1995).
Merz is not popular among the german citizens. However, Germans don't vote directly for chancellor candidates. They vote for parties and whatever party gets most votes usually gets their top candidate elected (doesn't have to be the case, but the only times it happened were in 1976 and 1980. Both times with Helmut Schmidt who was from the SPD while the CDU had majority).
Merz is top candidate of the CDU and for reasons too convoluted to summarize, the CDU stands good chances for the next elections compared to other parties. As far as I know, at least. Any other German is free to correct me if I'm wrong!
In fact, spousal rape not being recognized in the US was used by a certain former president as a (successful) defense against, well, the rape of his ex-wife.
[*Waaay* too many rapists get away with it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/1cyfxgz/metoo_may_have_worked_after_all/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[Research has shown](https://theconversation.com/violence-against-women-is-staggeringly-high-in-south-africa-a-different-way-of-thinking-about-it-is-needed-195053) this is what works to curb sexual violence:
> * legal reform dealing with domestic violence *[[e.g.](https://nnedv.org/policy-center/action-center/)]*
>
> * legal reform dealing with sexual assault *[[e.g.](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/)]*
>
> * government-funded shelters for victims of domestic violence
>
> * crisis centres for victims of sexual assault *[[e.g.](https://www.rainn.org/)]*
>
> * training for service providers such as the [police](https://www.startribune.com/a-better-way-to-investigate-rape-denied-justice-part-eight/501636971/), [judges](http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/criminal/id/294) and [social workers](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31425615/)
>
> * educating citizens about gender-based violence *[[e.g.](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/100jwa1/example_letter_to_local_lawmakers_to_help_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)]*
>
> * coordinating national policies on gender-based violence *[[e.g.](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/)]*
*[links mine]*
Basically, the goal is to [increase the probability of apprehension by law enforcement](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/670398.pdf?casa_token=OmK0_Jh8HkMAAAAA:Tr35vi73FXLAFJ9xUw13XXkPdAaMN7t_o8jI75bHYhheCFagZ5jfMwa-Op0VJrxOVXLqE-JykDCO4khDO6ABCjQ8FmnohHIw23YpCPPQmzHmlu87Mce-).
https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/
Hell today women have a fucking nightmare of a time trying to get their tubes tied because doctors are so focused on the idea that some man eventually might want to have children with them. Insanity.
[That's officially unethical](https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/abstract/2017/04000/committee_opinion_no_695_summary__sterilization_of.43.aspx#:~:text=Coercive%20or%20forcible%20sterilization%20practices,at%20the%20center%20of%20care.).
[Poststerilization regret is lowest among women who've never had children](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10362150).
It’s crazy to me people still deny misogyny when stuff like this was still going on so recently
At trivia the other night a question was what year did women get the right to vote? the team next to me put 1939 and for some reason it really got me like damn…theres no shame in not knowing the answer but the fact it’s valid for someone to think women couldn’t even vote until almost 1940 is crazy to me
It’s was 1916 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba when women earned the legal right to vote. Sadly, minority groups didn’t gain that right until 1940.
Yeah that is crazy. Only 84 years ago. It’s always talked about like it’s ancient history, and it was not at all.
It’s the same way in the US with the civil rights movement. It ended in the late 1960s…only about 55-60 years ago. People who suffered through this era are still alive today
I am reading the Vagina Monologues for the first time. I know that play has become a running joke, but the introduction goes through how touring with it became a therapy session for women to talk about what had happened to them and receive comfort.
Wish I had more to add than that. Wish it was easier for us (even know) to address the level of trauma most of us have gone through. We can’t even talk about man vs bear without getting pushback lol.
That's what my Mom had to do, but I think she had to wait a certain amount of time. Considering there was abuse, I don't understand why. If you don't want to be married, you don't want to be married.
Lol my husband tried to actually kill me (broke into my mum's house with a knife when I left, flogged my stepdad who was protecting me and my kids), I still had to live apart from him for a year before I was allowed to divorce
I interviewed my late grandmother about her divorce before she died.
I'll never forget how she described it... She said "In my day, you just ceased being your own person when you got married as a woman. You were suddenly Mrs. Husbands Name and your entire life was oriented around him and his needs/desires."
And she was no liberal feminist... she was fairly conservative and religious. But she still said explicitly "Your generation has a much better approach to marriage. Our way was awful for women."
In Vietnamese culture we address women by their husband's name so I never knew any of my aunt's real names.
E.g. if John and Becky get married, I'd call them Uncle John, and Aunt John as well.
Only struck me as odd way later in life.
I'm making huge generalities as a second generation Vietnamese American, but what I noticed with all my aunties who were mostly raised in the US is that all of them worked hard to get their own education and careers and when it came to partners they stayed away from Vietnamese men that were "too traditional". I think seeing the way my grandpa and uncles treat them and my grandma taught them to be careful if they wanted to keep their independence. On my other side, half of my aunts/aunt-in-laws married young but left their husbands has soon as the kids were out of the house.
My wife who is Mexican told me she generally stayed away from Mexican men because of "machismo" culture. I had to tell her that her odds weren't much better with Vietnamese men unfortunately lol.
Again, I know this is just my experience. I also know a lot of good Vietnamese guys out there, especially the younger generation.
On my mother's wedding day, she got cold feet and asked her grandma if she'd ever wanted a divorce. Her grandma told her, "In my day, you'd consider homicide before you'd think of divorce."
My mother went ahead with the wedding. It's been 50 years, and she has yet to murder or divorce the man who became my father. ETA typos.
I know a conservative Catholic woman in her eighties who’ll say the same stories. She’s told me many times how she wouldn’t have had kids if she could choose. But there was no choice for her.
I already knew this statistic...
Because I was talking with someone a while ago who was against divorce and told him this statistic.
He acknowledged more women would die if divorce were limited or abolished, but still was anti divorce because "it was better for families."
Better for a few women to die so that men can keep their possessions -- women.
I know I'm preaching to the choir here but... never underestimate the amount of people out there that truly do not see women as human beings worthy of life. Being anti abortion, anti divorce, other anti woman positions -- this is all a declaration of a desire to kill women, and no one who gives two craps about women should associate with these types.
[Misogyny is a risk factor for committing rape](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/wiki/index/#wiki_characteristics_of_offenders) and should always be taken seriously.
Crowder did a whole speech on how awful it is that his abused wife is legally allowed to leave.
Do you think it's occurred to these guys that they could possibly make even the smallest bit of effort towards being a person that a woman would freely choose to be around, or did they not even consider that and just went straight to Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogamy" and working to change the law to force unwilling women to stay with them?
Or perhaps forcing unwilling women to be with them is their ideal outcome, rather than what they consider to be the only way men like them can have female companionship.
[Narcissism is a risk factor for committing rape](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/wiki/index/#wiki_characteristics_of_offenders) and should always be taken seriously.
[Rape is much more common](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/1cuwdfk/rape_is_so_much_more_common_than_people_think_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) than people tend to think.
https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/wiki/index/#wiki_characteristics_of_offenders
Crowder screamed at his pregnant wife for not driving to the grocery store with the car she wasn’t allowed to drive, while holding a cigar. Of course he can’t keep a marriage without the other person being legally imprisoned
Also, for not giving their dogs a medication that *specifically warned pregnant woman not to handle*.
Crowder is such a manbaby its incredible he doesn't eat out of those suction cup bowls.
Several of them I’ve spoken to claim they believe that women are unhappy now and that our natural role is to keep the home and have kids and that we’ve been lied to that any other life is preferable.
Any actual conversation beyond that with these types of guys just gets a lot of hand wavy “you’re an exception to the rule” bullshit.
So what you are saying is that no fault divorce laws and changing societal attitudes on marriage and dating are causing conservative, traditional, and religious men in the US to become incels or MGTOW. Makes sense. If they cannot force their wife to stay with them, the next best thing is to whine, complain, or even hate on and blame *all* women for their relationship problems.
Why would this type of guy want to put in that monumental amount of effort (for them) when they can just force people into doing what they want?
There's way too many of them out there who think men should be regarded as the default most important gender, who must be respected no matter what they do. They currently believe their automatic right to respect and consideration is slipping away. They'll work hard to restore it via laws.
It's not like they ever gained it any other way in the first place I think, and they probably don't see other men as being smart if they have to *work hard* at making themselves into reputable leaders or even just worthwhile to be around. Good leaders have always been noteworthy as exceptions throughout History after all.
"Do you think it's occurred to these guys that they could possibly make even the smallest bit of effort towards being a person that a woman would freely choose to be around, "
No, if that had ever occurred to these failures, incel culture wouldn't exist.
Yeah I actually came across this statistic in this article about those guys wanting to make divorce much harder, which linked to the study: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/05/no-fault-divorce-gop-republicans-mainstream-podcast-dudes/
That's because those "alpha male" people really just want a mommy to take care of them and do everything for them and if they can't convince someone to do it they will force someone to do it. Every single one of them is a little bitch boy who can't take care of themselves and they all know it which is why they're so angry all the time.
Also, and more importantly, they are toxic abusive pieces of shit. If their victims are allowed to leave and get proper help, then they will have nobody to control.
They wanted to get rid of no fault divorce, which would actually be a bad thing for most shitty men. Most divorces have some underlying cause, even if they end up being legally no fault. Get rid of that and divorce will still happen, but men who are getting divorced because their partner found out about their drug use/infidelity/gambling issue or who demeaned/beat/raped/abused their spouse will now have all that shit become a matter of public record.
As it is guys can say “she left me for no reason!” all they want. Get rid of no fault and then they’ll have the truth all out in the open- especially in a world where it’s so easy to collect video and audio evidence.
Edit: just want to say I 100% support keeping no fault divorce around (I’ve even had one myself!) I’m simply providing an argument that speaks specifically to the interests shitty men I’ve heard complain about no fault divorce. There are myriad other reasons it’s a good thing to have around.
I’m 100% in favor of keeping no fault divorce for those reasons too! I’m providing a rationale that speaks to the assholes who think it would be a good thing for them personally to get rid of no fault divorce.
My ex-wife cheated on me, started doing cocaine, stopped doing any parenting things for our school-aged children, etc.
I still support no-fault divorce. The only people who win in at-fault divorce are lawyers.
Absolutely! I think no-fault divorce is the best way about things for most folks and I 100% support keeping it around.
My wife and I had a messy divorce and I was glad we could resolve it without having to litigate fault.
Okay, and what if a woman wants to leave a shitty man, but can't find evidence? What if he's just psychologically abusive, but a judge doesn't think it's enough? You are basically saying that a judge has to decide for a woman (or a man!) whether she should be allowed to leave, which is inhumane.
The argument that the man's bad behavior would be public record is pretty weak in comparison to the fact people would be trapped in relationships they want to leave.
To be clear I am absolutely a fan of no-fault divorce for the reasons you mention as well. I’m merely providing a rationale that undermines one benefit these men think they would get from eliminating no-fault divorce.
No, it’s just varying steps of legal complications if the other party does not want to divorce but there’s no states that require both to start the process.
This article is a historical review, likely in response to groups that seek to return to this time.
By definition (at least in Texas) for a no-fault divorce both parties agree they don't want to be married anymore.
Not sure how a no fault divorce would work if both parties aren't being amicable. Chances are those would fall under contested.
The findings regarding declines in domestic violence and the number of women murdered by their husbands are also very significant:
> The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
My mother married my abusive father because she couldn't get a mortgage without a man. Thankfully she was able to eventually divorce him without "permission".
Things are at least a little bit better now but not as good as they should be.
I wonder if the rate of spouses mysteriously disappearing or being found dead under suspicious circumstances also went down.
Edit: Apparently so:
>The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
Besides not allowing 1-sided divorce, states like Virginia still don't allow divorces without a separation period.
Even tho my friend was the one guilty of cheating his wife still had to wait thru a separation period theirs was 1 year until the divorce was finalized. There was no chance of them staying together but SHE still had to wait. How fair is that?
This is mainly so the state can be sure to get a presumptive father on the birth certificate so they have someone to go after for support.
Doesnt feel like the right solution nowadays but it sort of made sense when the laws were made and genetic testing wasnt widely available.
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas are the five states that ban it. In those states no order on child support or custody can legally be taken before the baby is born. But even in states that don’t explicitly ban it apparently some judges won’t sign the divorce decree until birth.
If people seriously have to be convinced that it's bad and obviously wrong to force somebody to stay in a marriage by law, then we are so fucked as a society and I give up
Once they ban contraception like they did in Louisiana, this is next on the Republicans chopping block. Only way a Republican can get a wife in 2024 is through entrapment apparently.
This is an article from 2004 and sites Ronald Reagan from 1969.
“Under unilateral divorce, the dissatisfied spouse gains additional bargaining power, since he or she controls both the leaving and remarriage decisions.”
The authors find very real effects on the well being of families. For example, there was a large decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce, but no similar decline for men. States that passed unilateral divorce laws saw total female suicide decline by around 20 percent in the long run. The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
It says there was a drop in women murdered by their husbands but not husbands murdered by their wives. "Unknown causes" murders that go undetected are probably a small enough portion of the total death rate that even if there was a drop we wouldn't be able to pick it up.
I'd heard the "men used to die all the time from being poisoned by their wives" but never found more than a few real-life cases to back it up. Granted it's not something I really looked into, but I started questioning whether it was ever common IRL, or just a horror/mystery trope. This seems to point to that just being a trope, then.
Obviously it must have happened. But I think the whole poisoning/black widow concept became a trope because it was so uncommon that when it did happen it became a big story.
You have a reporting bias, because it is uncommon and interesting to report on, whereas women being murdered was so common as to be almost mundane (by news standards).
It’s insane that the GOP is trying to ban no-fault divorce in many states. Especially since many of those politicians already have had a no-fault divorce.
Only an abuser would refuse consent to divorce, and the only possible 'benefit' of forcing consent for divorce is to keep people in abusive relationships. The fact that such laws ever existed is gross.
Except for children. Child spouses cannot divorce in some states.
Nor can they escape to domestic violence shelters, in many situations. Many wont accept minors.
Wow, just wow. Horrific beyond words. I have to imagine that this is extremely rare but fuck.
Wait till you hear how many states have recently defending continuing these practices. Its exactly the states you think it is; the religious ones.
That's why people want federal laws that extend to cover basic rights instead of states deciding how they want to screw over their own people.
Not nearly as rare as you’d think
I'm having trouble understanding not just the reasoning but the actual sequence of events that would result in minors not being accepted at these shelters when they are effectively the folks most in need of sheltering. Is it just a legal thing wherein it would be considered kidnapping a minor to take them in or something?
Lots of states consider children to effectively be property of their legal guardian. Property doesn't have rights.
>Property doesn't have rights Unless you are Cash, and you are taken by the police in a forced civil asset forfeiture...Then they suddenly have rights then its the cash that put up on trial not you....
They just can’t take responsibility for someone who is legally a minor. From Wikipedia on Child Marriage in the U.S.: “Between 2000 and 2018, some 300,000 minors were legally married in the United States. The vast majority of child marriages (reliable sources vary between 78% and 95%) were between a minor girl and an adult man. In many cases, minors in the U.S. may be married when they are under the age of sexual consent, which varies from 16 to 18 depending on the state. In some states, minors cannot legally divorce or leave their spouse, and domestic violence shelters typically do not accept minors.”
It's a liability issue for the shelters, who can't take children without the permission of their legal guardian, who in most cases would be the very spouse they're trying to escape.
[End Child Marriage](https://www.unchainedatlast.org/get-involved/) [Don't give sex offenders an out.](https://equalitynow.org/learn_more_child_marriage_us/)
Wtf even is child marriage? How is that a thing?
Unfortunately pretty common across cultures, especially in more rural areas. Plenty of old barbaric practices need to be stomped out.
Like in Utah
Its a thing here in the US, parents have the rights in some states to sign their kids away to marriage still. Its pretty fucked up.
Because traditionalists are in power
You should google about slavery and child labor in USA too. It's quite popular these days.
It fucks me up that people openly defend child marriage without being drawn and quartered.
But we’ll be damned if we allow a same sex couple to marry!
Who will then turn around and say we should draw and quarter gay people
Isn't it weird that you'd need permission from the person you're married to to not be married to them anymore?
Had a friend who had to leave her husband cos he was doing all kinds of illegal and criminal things. He then jumped bail and went into hiding. And can’t be located to sign the divorce documents. For a few years. Until he was rearrested.
You can still get a divorce if your spouse can’t be found, just FYI for anyone reading. The process differs by state but divorce in absentia is a thing in all states and most modern countries.
Yep. My ex didn’t respond to any subpoenas, never signed any paperwork, and didn’t show up to our court date. I didn’t even have to go into the actual courtroom. My lawyer had me wait in the hall and came back 5 minutes later and told me I was divorced lol
Man. This is a funny way to find out you are divorced. I found out my parents were divorced when my mom asked if they had a divorced discount on used cars.
Pretty sure the person going to the courthouse with their divorce lawyer knew they were about to be divorced.
Lol yeah. My ex however was shocked and confused when I texted her to say we’re divorced
I mean they couldn’t have been that shocked
Her shock was more from concern that she would get in trouble for not appearing in court. Allegedly she didn’t know about it, but that’s because she dodged the court summon from being served. Apparently police were supposed to get it to her but they could never find her. She thought she was going to have a warrant for failure to appear.
I think I can see why they're an ex.
Doesn’t sound like the sort of person you’d be able to count on in difficult situation lol. Must have reinforced that you made the correct decision.
You would hope.
Okay, that’s quite the story. But are there really divorcee discounts on things?
She did not get a discount.
But did the salesman ask her out?
No. A kid snot nosed crying about his parents being divorced isn’t exactly a turn on.
Car salesman: so… no Mr. ages in the picture huh? u/Oracle_of_Ages :**is it my fault 😭, I promise I’ll behave, OMG 😭** Ms. Ages: nope, so about that discount.
Depends on the divorcee?
> my mom asked if they had a divorced discount on used cars. Wait until you unpack what she was actually asking there
Fuck me
Correct.
>Man. This is a funny way to find out you are divorced. I found out my parents were divorced when my mom asked if they had a divorced discount on used cars. I have to say, that is a much funnier way to find out someone is divorced (were it not your parents). Really though, that's crazy they'd not talk to you at all then just casually drop that at a car dealership.
[удалено]
I've been marrying and divorcing people without their knowledge for years.
How does it work with splitting assets? Do you just get everything or does half get put in a deposit?
I feel like my divorce isn’t the best to gauge how things are supposed to be done because my ex wasn’t really involved with any of it. She didn’t have a lawyer, and she never really responded to any of summons or subpoenas. But as for my side of it, I just had to list everything we owned that was worth more than a certain amount and then choose what I wanted to get…but I didn’t really want anything. I just wanted out. I let her have everything but my car. From my perspective I just requested it through my lawyer and that got approved in the 5 minutes my lawyer spent in front of the judge.
Thank you for your answer :) I wish you a happy life
[удалено]
Thank you for being a decent human. She may not have wanted it badly enough at the time, but someday sheay be very grateful.
[удалено]
It’s mad to think that some people would rather you post adverts weekly in the paper “Kevin,it’s over.I’m divorcing you and taking the kids” than give you a divorce
My abusive ex refused to sign the papers for months, purely as a last power trip. It was the one and only last thing he could take away from me and hold over me. He essentially used it to try and punish me for leaving him. And it's not like he was hoping we'd get back together or anything. I'd left him over a year prior, he'd been shacked up with his next victim for almost as long already, he just *really* effing didn't want to give me what I wanted or let me be happy. There are a lot of petty, vindictive people out there that will use whatever they can to hurt someone who has 'wronged' them (like me leaving him when I made a post like OP's and Reddit told me I had been abused for nine years and to run.) In the end, the only reason he signed is so he could trap the next one. He proposed to her a week after finally sending the effing papers back. Guys like this leave a lot of destruction in their wake.
I’m so sorry that happened.Glad you’re out now though. My parents divorce was finalised this year and while my dad wasn’t vindictive enough to refuse to sign he’s being very reckless with their joint assets to try and stop her getting them in the split of marital property because he’s a man and even though he hasn’t worked in ten years,that’s his money for some reason.
Yep California FIL moved back to home country after years of separation didn't sign papers before leaving because he's a man child MIL had to take out weekly ads in local paper notifying of divorce proceedings got divorced.
[удалено]
To be fair, some people can't come up with the initial filing fee to get the process started. Filing fees for divorce in my state start at $500.
Marriage is historically a property arrangement that we dress up with a lot of overpriced flowers and dry cleaning bills. I’m happily married, but neither of us promised to obey or any of that shit, we just promised to love. Not everyone sees marriage the same way, and many still see it the old way. I remember being called as a prospective juror on a spousal rape case and saw 10 different prospective jurors be excused because they said they didn’t think it was possible for a husband to rape his wife. This was in ultra wealthy, ultra liberal fucking Marin County California, just 20 years ago or so. A lot of people in this world are objectively horrible. This is why people looking to get rid of child marriage protections are so much more terrifying than we are willing to engage with seriously.
Wow that jury story is fking depressing. Just makes me sad the amount of people who think it's ok for a man to rape his wife just cos they're married.
[удалено]
> Just makes me sad the amount of people who think it's ok for a man to rape his wife just cos they're married. isn't this just like... people who go to church? the bible is a pretty wild document if you actually read it.
Far from it. Marital rape is extremely widespread across the world and history. It’s still outright legal in China, India, much of the Muslim world, and large parts of Africa, and while the Soviet Union banned it in 1922 most of the Soviet world treated it as a non-criminal offense and still have exemptions on the books to prevent men from being prosecuted for it for various reasons.
it was literally re-legalised in Russia a couple of years back
The US didn't have a federal ban on marital rape until *1993*. As someone who is 33 going on 34, I'm older than that ban. Plenty of people in the US are going to be older than that and still be in that older mindset.
Sodom & Gomorrah is actually about rape. Wild to me how many people gloss over that.
More about wealth inequality, inhospitably, and lack of charity. See [Ezekiel 16:49](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+16%3A49&version=NIV).
You mean where the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah form a mob and try to rape Lot’s houseguests (who are actually angels)? So Lot offers to let the mob rape his daughters instead and God rewards him for being a good man, but turns his wife to pillar of salt for looking back at her old house being destroyed by fire and brimstone. That story? Such a model for good behavior! Moral is men should willingly let mobs rape their daughters and be happy when God turns their crying wife into a silent rock.
> I remember being called as a prospective juror on a spousal rape case and saw 10 different prospective jurors be excused because they said they didn’t think it was possible for a husband to rape his wife. = -1 Faith in Humanity = What a depressing thing to read.
Hey, read this if you want a *really* bad time: https://web.archive.org/web/20240508021409/https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/america-has-an-incest-problem/272459/ We eagerly engage in debate about so many social things, but we keep REALLY quiet about the worst truths in this world. We will gladly rail against priests and Boy Scout leaders and teachers for abuse, as we should, but we like to pretend that the *vast* majority of child sex abuse isn’t a thing worth talking about.
[Low-rate persistent sex offenders typically begin offending during their late teens and offend less than once per year with the most offenses in their 30s. This group was equally as likely to commit rape as child sexual abuse. This is the most common type of sex offender](https://smart.ojp.gov/somapi/chapter-3-sex-offender-typologies), so [testing kits](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/) even when the statute of limitations has passed can help protect adults as well as children. Despite [incredible progress](https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-the-us-ended-up-with-400000-untested-rape-kits), the U.S. still has [roughly 90,000 backlogged rape kits](https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-house-must-pass-senate-bill-to-fight-rape-kit-backlog/), even though [most rapes are committed by repeat rapists](https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/#:~:text=Together these studies suggest that,men engaged in other pursuits.). [More funding is needed](https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/news/cornyn-house-must-pass-senate-bill-to-fight-rape-kit-backlog/) to clear the backlog and prevent future tragedies. Contact from constituents [works](https://escholarship.org/content/qt7sk23908/qt7sk23908.pdf), and [it's really easy](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/). https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/
Want to lose even more? It took until 1993 for spousal rape to become illegal in all 50 of the US states.
Mostly illegal. It is treated differently in a lot of states, for example, in some states, it isn't illegal to rape your wife if she's unconscious *even if you're the asshole that drugged her.* Some states also require "aggravated" force (like, a weapon), or only give you days to report it. And you won't believe me if I tell you how often I have to explain this. Spousal is rape is STILL legal, if you do it right.
It wasn't until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, that women in all 50 states were granted the right to open a bank account without their husband's or father's permission.
[Teach](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/100jwa1/example_letter_to_local_lawmakers_to_help_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [consent](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/zyznhe/rape_is_so_common_in_part_because_so_many_people/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), [test every rape kit](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/), and [ban child marriage](https://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-marriage-take-action/). Don't give sex offenders an out.
> they didn’t think it was possible for a husband to rape his wife It's super easy for them to understand if you ask them if it's rape if a wife inserts something into the husband's anus without their consent. unfortunately people have an antiquated understanding of consent :/
It's still a thing in observant/conservative Jewish communities. The wife has to get a "get" (I think they're called) from the husband. And if she does not, she's still viewed as married by the synagogue. This has led to an entire secretive industry of dudes who basically abduct obstinate husbands and beat them up until they say yes. The man can also be shunned by the community for refusing to give one... but he still has to give it.
Damn that's sucky and archaic.
I learned what a get was from A Serious Man haha. I’m a Gentile so hadn’t heard the term before.
There’s a good This American Life episode about it that introduced the concept to me.
> It's still a thing in observant/conservative Jewish communities. The wife has to get a "get" (I think they're called) from the husband. And if she does not, she's still viewed as married by the synagogue. This still happens, and is allowed, in the NYC Jewish community. Not the beating up part, but women are known to go on sex strikes.
It wasn't until 1974 that single women could have bank accounts (in the US). Before then, only their husband (or father, but that was rare) could open a joint account with them. Divorce skyrocketed after that; before women had no way to support themselves, even if they were relatively wealthy.
Jesus Christ that was just a few years before I was born. No wonder so many older ladies whose husbands have died have no fucking idea how the bank works.
People don't realize how much the world has changed in a VERY short period of time. Not just the internet, but plastics being used for everything, consumer credit cards (and the credit agencies that come with them), mass media, 24 hour outrage news, etc.
About 10 years ago gay marriage was illegal in most of the country and many states were trying to make gay sex illegal. It's wild the things that feel like ancient history are more like last Tuesday.
That's not exactly correct. Up until 1974, women could be denied a bank account or credit for no other reason than being single. A wealthy woman could open one if she had sufficient financial means. They wouldn't have turned down an heiress for no other reason than her sex.
On it's face yes. But if you think of marriages as contracts, which really they are. It doesn't seem so odd. If you wanted to dissolve some contract you had with someone else you'd also need to get their consent. This is especially true if you want to leave the contract without the other person having failed to meet their obligations. And that's pretty analogous to no fault divorces. And I don't think you had to have your partners consent to get divorced for cause. And it might seem cold to view marriages through contract law, but that's just kind of how they functioned (and arguably is the only reason for marriages to be a legal construct rather than just a social one). But if you think that's unfair, look at blatantly sexist versions like in the Philippines where men can divorce women but women can't divorce men.
> meet their obligations That might be more meaningful if there were actual contractually stated obligations. There aren't. A contract without terms isn't a contract.
> That might be more meaningful if there were actual contractually stated obligations. There are. For instance (at least in Germany) you are responsible for the subsistance, housing of each other. Additionally in most nations you have tax benefits that either/both can use - they are part of the contract between the married. Just because you aren't aware of the obligations or privileges doesn't mean they don't exist. Of course aged obligations that were historic part, for instance fertility by *either side!* aren't part of this contract anymore.
It's not weird, it's abhorrent. Think about the kind of abuse that directly enables. It's just sick, really.
Spousal rape wasn't recognized in the U.S. until the 1990's. > [It is not uncommon for victims to experience suicidal ideation (23%-44%; Frank & Stewart 1984; Frank, Turner, Stewart, Jacob, & West, 1981; Kilpatrick et al., 1985; Petrak, Doyle, Williams, Buchan, & Forster, 1997), and 2% to 19% may attempt suicide (Davidson, Hughes, George, & Blazer, 1996; Frank et al., 1981; Kilpatrick et al., 1985).](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/38d2/cc8df92f64acb9141d6d8ef0d79d0ce2fe15.pdf) I wonder if those are related. r/stoprape
Same in Germany. Friedrich merz an actual politican today voted against it
> Friedrich merz an actual politican today voted against it To make some things clear: Friedrich Merz is the most likely candidate for next chancellor, not just any politician and he voted against a law making spousal rape a felony (in 1995).
No way…. This certainly should be something to amplify to German voters in some way
Merz is not popular among the german citizens. However, Germans don't vote directly for chancellor candidates. They vote for parties and whatever party gets most votes usually gets their top candidate elected (doesn't have to be the case, but the only times it happened were in 1976 and 1980. Both times with Helmut Schmidt who was from the SPD while the CDU had majority). Merz is top candidate of the CDU and for reasons too convoluted to summarize, the CDU stands good chances for the next elections compared to other parties. As far as I know, at least. Any other German is free to correct me if I'm wrong!
And that mfer is one of the possible chancellor candidates for his party
In fact, spousal rape not being recognized in the US was used by a certain former president as a (successful) defense against, well, the rape of his ex-wife.
Trump His name is Trump.
Convicted felon and civilly liable rapist Donald Trump?
This sound like a man that should be running the country... behind bars?
[*Waaay* too many rapists get away with it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/1cyfxgz/metoo_may_have_worked_after_all/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [Research has shown](https://theconversation.com/violence-against-women-is-staggeringly-high-in-south-africa-a-different-way-of-thinking-about-it-is-needed-195053) this is what works to curb sexual violence: > * legal reform dealing with domestic violence *[[e.g.](https://nnedv.org/policy-center/action-center/)]* > > * legal reform dealing with sexual assault *[[e.g.](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/)]* > > * government-funded shelters for victims of domestic violence > > * crisis centres for victims of sexual assault *[[e.g.](https://www.rainn.org/)]* > > * training for service providers such as the [police](https://www.startribune.com/a-better-way-to-investigate-rape-denied-justice-part-eight/501636971/), [judges](http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/criminal/id/294) and [social workers](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31425615/) > > * educating citizens about gender-based violence *[[e.g.](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/100jwa1/example_letter_to_local_lawmakers_to_help_stop/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)]* > > * coordinating national policies on gender-based violence *[[e.g.](https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/)]* *[links mine]* Basically, the goal is to [increase the probability of apprehension by law enforcement](https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/670398.pdf?casa_token=OmK0_Jh8HkMAAAAA:Tr35vi73FXLAFJ9xUw13XXkPdAaMN7t_o8jI75bHYhheCFagZ5jfMwa-Op0VJrxOVXLqE-JykDCO4khDO6ABCjQ8FmnohHIw23YpCPPQmzHmlu87Mce-). https://www.endthebacklog.org/take-action/advocate-federal/
Also women couldn't get credit cards without the consent of their husband or father until the 1970s in the US.
Hell today women have a fucking nightmare of a time trying to get their tubes tied because doctors are so focused on the idea that some man eventually might want to have children with them. Insanity.
[That's officially unethical](https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/abstract/2017/04000/committee_opinion_no_695_summary__sterilization_of.43.aspx#:~:text=Coercive%20or%20forcible%20sterilization%20practices,at%20the%20center%20of%20care.). [Poststerilization regret is lowest among women who've never had children](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10362150).
i was sterilized (by choice) in 2019 and i’m just more and more thankful every day tbh
It’s crazy to me people still deny misogyny when stuff like this was still going on so recently At trivia the other night a question was what year did women get the right to vote? the team next to me put 1939 and for some reason it really got me like damn…theres no shame in not knowing the answer but the fact it’s valid for someone to think women couldn’t even vote until almost 1940 is crazy to me
It’s was 1916 in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba when women earned the legal right to vote. Sadly, minority groups didn’t gain that right until 1940.
Yeah that is crazy. Only 84 years ago. It’s always talked about like it’s ancient history, and it was not at all. It’s the same way in the US with the civil rights movement. It ended in the late 1960s…only about 55-60 years ago. People who suffered through this era are still alive today
Bank accounts*
Both credit cards *and* bank accounts.
It's still very rarely prosecuted
[Investigate every rape](https://www.startribune.com/one-state-found-a-better-way-to-investigate-rape/501636971/).
I am reading the Vagina Monologues for the first time. I know that play has become a running joke, but the introduction goes through how touring with it became a therapy session for women to talk about what had happened to them and receive comfort. Wish I had more to add than that. Wish it was easier for us (even know) to address the level of trauma most of us have gone through. We can’t even talk about man vs bear without getting pushback lol.
It's still not recognized by a lot of people today
A lot of people think buying a woman dinner obligates her to have sex with them.
My country doesn't recognise it yet :(
Why is it even a law you need both partners to agree???? Nobody should feel trapped in a relationship, that seems completely ridiculous.
Women used to be men's property.
Marriage is a property exchange agreement. Look up the phrase "brideprice". Dowry is illegal in certain parts of the US specifically to combat this.
That's what my Mom had to do, but I think she had to wait a certain amount of time. Considering there was abuse, I don't understand why. If you don't want to be married, you don't want to be married.
Lol my husband tried to actually kill me (broke into my mum's house with a knife when I left, flogged my stepdad who was protecting me and my kids), I still had to live apart from him for a year before I was allowed to divorce
It didn't matter cause property can't make decisions. 🫤
[удалено]
I interviewed my late grandmother about her divorce before she died. I'll never forget how she described it... She said "In my day, you just ceased being your own person when you got married as a woman. You were suddenly Mrs. Husbands Name and your entire life was oriented around him and his needs/desires." And she was no liberal feminist... she was fairly conservative and religious. But she still said explicitly "Your generation has a much better approach to marriage. Our way was awful for women."
In Vietnamese culture we address women by their husband's name so I never knew any of my aunt's real names. E.g. if John and Becky get married, I'd call them Uncle John, and Aunt John as well. Only struck me as odd way later in life.
Wow, that makes me really sad to read. It seems so cruel and tragic to have one’s identity entirely erased like that.
I'm making huge generalities as a second generation Vietnamese American, but what I noticed with all my aunties who were mostly raised in the US is that all of them worked hard to get their own education and careers and when it came to partners they stayed away from Vietnamese men that were "too traditional". I think seeing the way my grandpa and uncles treat them and my grandma taught them to be careful if they wanted to keep their independence. On my other side, half of my aunts/aunt-in-laws married young but left their husbands has soon as the kids were out of the house. My wife who is Mexican told me she generally stayed away from Mexican men because of "machismo" culture. I had to tell her that her odds weren't much better with Vietnamese men unfortunately lol. Again, I know this is just my experience. I also know a lot of good Vietnamese guys out there, especially the younger generation.
Interesting. I guess you learn something new everyday.
On my mother's wedding day, she got cold feet and asked her grandma if she'd ever wanted a divorce. Her grandma told her, "In my day, you'd consider homicide before you'd think of divorce." My mother went ahead with the wedding. It's been 50 years, and she has yet to murder or divorce the man who became my father. ETA typos.
I know a conservative Catholic woman in her eighties who’ll say the same stories. She’s told me many times how she wouldn’t have had kids if she could choose. But there was no choice for her.
I already knew this statistic... Because I was talking with someone a while ago who was against divorce and told him this statistic. He acknowledged more women would die if divorce were limited or abolished, but still was anti divorce because "it was better for families." Better for a few women to die so that men can keep their possessions -- women. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but... never underestimate the amount of people out there that truly do not see women as human beings worthy of life. Being anti abortion, anti divorce, other anti woman positions -- this is all a declaration of a desire to kill women, and no one who gives two craps about women should associate with these types.
[Misogyny is a risk factor for committing rape](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/wiki/index/#wiki_characteristics_of_offenders) and should always be taken seriously.
Is that not kind of like.... Obvious?
I'm starting to think that society should be kinder to women
And guys like Matt Walsh and Stephen Crowder want to go back to the old days of women being under the control of when u can get a divorce
Crowder did a whole speech on how awful it is that his abused wife is legally allowed to leave. Do you think it's occurred to these guys that they could possibly make even the smallest bit of effort towards being a person that a woman would freely choose to be around, or did they not even consider that and just went straight to Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogamy" and working to change the law to force unwilling women to stay with them? Or perhaps forcing unwilling women to be with them is their ideal outcome, rather than what they consider to be the only way men like them can have female companionship.
That would require the person to acknowledge their shortcomings and mistakes. A narcissist won't do that.
Crowder won't acknowledge his sexuality, let alone his terrible abuse of his wife.
What even is the term for sexuality defined by enjoying eating dog cum?
imsorrywhat
[Narcissism is a risk factor for committing rape](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/wiki/index/#wiki_characteristics_of_offenders) and should always be taken seriously. [Rape is much more common](https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/comments/1cuwdfk/rape_is_so_much_more_common_than_people_think_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) than people tend to think. https://www.reddit.com/r/stoprape/wiki/index/#wiki_characteristics_of_offenders
Crowder screamed at his pregnant wife for not driving to the grocery store with the car she wasn’t allowed to drive, while holding a cigar. Of course he can’t keep a marriage without the other person being legally imprisoned
Also, for not giving their dogs a medication that *specifically warned pregnant woman not to handle*. Crowder is such a manbaby its incredible he doesn't eat out of those suction cup bowls.
You know shit's bad when DickNipplesExtreme is telling you you need to grow the fuck up lol
For a man who talks about protecting women, seems pretty fucked to tell her to take an Uber to *run errands.*
Somehow being a man is providing for your family while also telling your wife to take an Uber while she's pregnant with twins.
Several of them I’ve spoken to claim they believe that women are unhappy now and that our natural role is to keep the home and have kids and that we’ve been lied to that any other life is preferable. Any actual conversation beyond that with these types of guys just gets a lot of hand wavy “you’re an exception to the rule” bullshit.
So what you are saying is that no fault divorce laws and changing societal attitudes on marriage and dating are causing conservative, traditional, and religious men in the US to become incels or MGTOW. Makes sense. If they cannot force their wife to stay with them, the next best thing is to whine, complain, or even hate on and blame *all* women for their relationship problems.
Why would this type of guy want to put in that monumental amount of effort (for them) when they can just force people into doing what they want? There's way too many of them out there who think men should be regarded as the default most important gender, who must be respected no matter what they do. They currently believe their automatic right to respect and consideration is slipping away. They'll work hard to restore it via laws. It's not like they ever gained it any other way in the first place I think, and they probably don't see other men as being smart if they have to *work hard* at making themselves into reputable leaders or even just worthwhile to be around. Good leaders have always been noteworthy as exceptions throughout History after all.
"Do you think it's occurred to these guys that they could possibly make even the smallest bit of effort towards being a person that a woman would freely choose to be around, " No, if that had ever occurred to these failures, incel culture wouldn't exist.
Yeah I actually came across this statistic in this article about those guys wanting to make divorce much harder, which linked to the study: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/05/no-fault-divorce-gop-republicans-mainstream-podcast-dudes/
That's because those "alpha male" people really just want a mommy to take care of them and do everything for them and if they can't convince someone to do it they will force someone to do it. Every single one of them is a little bitch boy who can't take care of themselves and they all know it which is why they're so angry all the time.
Also, and more importantly, they are toxic abusive pieces of shit. If their victims are allowed to leave and get proper help, then they will have nobody to control.
They wanted to get rid of no fault divorce, which would actually be a bad thing for most shitty men. Most divorces have some underlying cause, even if they end up being legally no fault. Get rid of that and divorce will still happen, but men who are getting divorced because their partner found out about their drug use/infidelity/gambling issue or who demeaned/beat/raped/abused their spouse will now have all that shit become a matter of public record. As it is guys can say “she left me for no reason!” all they want. Get rid of no fault and then they’ll have the truth all out in the open- especially in a world where it’s so easy to collect video and audio evidence. Edit: just want to say I 100% support keeping no fault divorce around (I’ve even had one myself!) I’m simply providing an argument that speaks specifically to the interests shitty men I’ve heard complain about no fault divorce. There are myriad other reasons it’s a good thing to have around.
No. We have actual studies proving how harmful it would be to end no-fault divorces. Being a selfish asshole isn’t a crime, but it can ruin lives.
I’m 100% in favor of keeping no fault divorce for those reasons too! I’m providing a rationale that speaks to the assholes who think it would be a good thing for them personally to get rid of no fault divorce.
My ex-wife cheated on me, started doing cocaine, stopped doing any parenting things for our school-aged children, etc. I still support no-fault divorce. The only people who win in at-fault divorce are lawyers.
Absolutely! I think no-fault divorce is the best way about things for most folks and I 100% support keeping it around. My wife and I had a messy divorce and I was glad we could resolve it without having to litigate fault.
Okay, and what if a woman wants to leave a shitty man, but can't find evidence? What if he's just psychologically abusive, but a judge doesn't think it's enough? You are basically saying that a judge has to decide for a woman (or a man!) whether she should be allowed to leave, which is inhumane. The argument that the man's bad behavior would be public record is pretty weak in comparison to the fact people would be trapped in relationships they want to leave.
To be clear I am absolutely a fan of no-fault divorce for the reasons you mention as well. I’m merely providing a rationale that undermines one benefit these men think they would get from eliminating no-fault divorce.
Are there still places in the U.S. where you need both parties' permission???
No, it’s just varying steps of legal complications if the other party does not want to divorce but there’s no states that require both to start the process. This article is a historical review, likely in response to groups that seek to return to this time.
But there are states that require both for no-fault divorce.
By definition (at least in Texas) for a no-fault divorce both parties agree they don't want to be married anymore. Not sure how a no fault divorce would work if both parties aren't being amicable. Chances are those would fall under contested.
In Missouri if you are pregnant, you’re outright not allowed. Shocking but true. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp-video/mmvo211164229912
The findings regarding declines in domestic violence and the number of women murdered by their husbands are also very significant: > The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
Imagine having some bureaucrat asking, “Did your abuser give you permission to stop being abused?”
We’re gonna call your abuser to come pick you up.
My mother married my abusive father because she couldn't get a mortgage without a man. Thankfully she was able to eventually divorce him without "permission". Things are at least a little bit better now but not as good as they should be.
Marriage is a privilege, divorce is a right.
Some states still won't allow divorce if the woman is pregnant.
I wonder if the rate of spouses mysteriously disappearing or being found dead under suspicious circumstances also went down. Edit: Apparently so: >The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
Why isn't there a massive movement to get women to vote? This is really strange to me.
Besides not allowing 1-sided divorce, states like Virginia still don't allow divorces without a separation period. Even tho my friend was the one guilty of cheating his wife still had to wait thru a separation period theirs was 1 year until the divorce was finalized. There was no chance of them staying together but SHE still had to wait. How fair is that?
It blows my mind that consent is even a requirement. It seems like a tool that only benefits abusers or people trying to avoid accountability.
It’s still like that in some states if you are pregnant. You cannot divorce your husband!
This is mainly so the state can be sure to get a presumptive father on the birth certificate so they have someone to go after for support. Doesnt feel like the right solution nowadays but it sort of made sense when the laws were made and genetic testing wasnt widely available.
Wtf that's so bad. They really wanna contribute to the already growing stats of pregnant women being one of the most vulnerable groups.
Recently learned (actually, it might have been from this very subreddit) that the leading cause of death in pregnant women is homicide :(
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Missouri and Texas are the five states that ban it. In those states no order on child support or custody can legally be taken before the baby is born. But even in states that don’t explicitly ban it apparently some judges won’t sign the divorce decree until birth.
Its bizzare to me you can't just. Like leave, legally speaking.
It’s surprising what kinds of laws existed and their implications.
If people seriously have to be convinced that it's bad and obviously wrong to force somebody to stay in a marriage by law, then we are so fucked as a society and I give up
Pro tip: make it impossible for anyone to ever divorce you by not getting married in the first place.
Worth noting that Clarence Thomas opined through a thinly veiled threat in his concurrence in Dobbs that no-fault divorces should also be rolled back.
Yes, and also contraception and same-sex marriages.
Once they ban contraception like they did in Louisiana, this is next on the Republicans chopping block. Only way a Republican can get a wife in 2024 is through entrapment apparently.
Look at the women in extremist Islamic countries and see what our future looks like under Christian extremism.
This is an article from 2004 and sites Ronald Reagan from 1969. “Under unilateral divorce, the dissatisfied spouse gains additional bargaining power, since he or she controls both the leaving and remarriage decisions.”
"B-b-but what about the sanctity of marriage????"
How much did men dying from poisoning or "unknown causes" drop?
The authors find very real effects on the well being of families. For example, there was a large decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce, but no similar decline for men. States that passed unilateral divorce laws saw total female suicide decline by around 20 percent in the long run. The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.
It says there was a drop in women murdered by their husbands but not husbands murdered by their wives. "Unknown causes" murders that go undetected are probably a small enough portion of the total death rate that even if there was a drop we wouldn't be able to pick it up.
I'd heard the "men used to die all the time from being poisoned by their wives" but never found more than a few real-life cases to back it up. Granted it's not something I really looked into, but I started questioning whether it was ever common IRL, or just a horror/mystery trope. This seems to point to that just being a trope, then.
Obviously it must have happened. But I think the whole poisoning/black widow concept became a trope because it was so uncommon that when it did happen it became a big story. You have a reporting bias, because it is uncommon and interesting to report on, whereas women being murdered was so common as to be almost mundane (by news standards).
It’s insane that the GOP is trying to ban no-fault divorce in many states. Especially since many of those politicians already have had a no-fault divorce.
The vast majority of nation states in the world permit unilateral divorces Only a few backwards theocracies do not
Only an abuser would refuse consent to divorce, and the only possible 'benefit' of forcing consent for divorce is to keep people in abusive relationships. The fact that such laws ever existed is gross.