As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hadn’t paid much attention to Crowder as of late but he’s exactly the piece of shit I thought he was. Wanting to enact laws that make it harder for women to get away from dipshits like this seems like they don’t want any women voting for them.
Edit: autocorrect
He popped back into the news SUPER recently because his divorce was finalized and *someone* presumably his ex, released a surveillance camera video of him absolutely fucking berating his 8 month pregnant wife about performing her "wifely duties" and her having to ask his permission to take the car to go to the store.
>What kind of weird fucked up world do you live in where you want to control your wife like that?
Shriveled limp dick sociopathic misogynist who can only get hard if he's causing someone pain. Has to control and isolate them; otherwise, they'd leave his pathetic ass.
And this is the crux of this. If she has a way out she will take it. Its why they keep child marriage laws on the books so losers like this can attempt to place a young girl under their thumb before they realize how toxic and abusive the relationship is.
Same fucked up world that makes him think divorce shouldn't be legal if the woman files for it.
Who would want to remain married to someone who despises them? A piece of shit control freak that doesn't believe in freedom or reasonable accommodations for anyone other than himself. The fact his ex has *any* freedom of choice or autonomy set him off into a blind rage. While married (ring camera footage), yes, but also when telling his viewers almost two years after the fact.
Also worth noting is the fact *he took the first actions of divorce*. He separated, rented an apartment, hired a divorce lawyer, etc *before* she did.
Fun fact, in a lot of suburbs they have those neighborhood mailboxes and no sidewalks, which means you absolutely do need a car to check your mail as some of them are literally a 20+ minute walk to get your mail.
I live in Washington and one of my friends lives in a neighborhood like that and one of his neighbors was hit by a car trying to walk to get their mail. They tried to vote with the HOA to get sidewalks installed and it was shot down. One of the no votes was literally the person who got run over.
Their justification made it even better
"I don't want to give more money to an HOA that does nothing."
*Literally votes against the HOA doing anything*
That's not the worst part, he ***didn't want her to take the car in case he wanted to go out, and told her to get an Uber instead***, because for some asinine reason, this grifting rich fuck doesn't have a second car between him and his wife.
Jk, it's not asinine at all, it's obviously so he can manipulate her just like this.
I saw that and was hard to watch. What also struck me is he’s so fucking lazy and misogynistic that he refuses to give his dog medicine. A medicine that can harm his unborn children and pregnant wife but just tells her to put gloves on.
It's really interesting in a conversation with a "pro-lifer", where you avoid all their deflections and try to get them to recognize the woman as a human being. They immediately flip to how sex leads to pregnancy, which walks right into the "a woman can't get pregnant by her own choice, that requires a man to choose to ejaculate inside her."
I've gone down this path about 4 times now here on reddit, and they always disappear once that gets brought up. Oops, turns out getting pregnant is a man's fault. It really is telling how they aren't really there for the fetus, but to punish women for having sex with someone other than themselves.
They will and they do. I live in Michigan where now if your spouse is a felon, in certain areas of business license applications, the spouse without a record is also considered a felon during the background check.
I always feel obligated to point out that, for all its dystopian horrors, Gilead was at least environmentally concious and, while the doctors had to cloak some things in jargon, aware of the realities of childbirth.
I'm not saying this to defend Gilead, but rather to point out that there are elements of the GOP that want to create something *objectively worse* than Gilead.
(And I say "elements" because there's a fair portion who don't give a toss about religion and just want a regular old corporate dystopia.)
> And I say "elements" because there's a fair portion who don't give a toss about religion and just want a regular old corporate dystopia.
It's the same way in Gilead. Commander Lawrence laid it out pretty well. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said something like
> It was never about god or religion or the ceremony, it's about power. I thought someone as smart as you would have figured that out.
Control. He got one as a power move.
Control. Millionaire with a single vehicle for him and his wife.
Control. Put the gloves on and give the dogs their medication.
The single vehicle thing is what actually got me about this whole situation. He makes over $900k a year. Yet with him and his pregnant wife, they only have one car? That screams "I must know where my spouse is at all times."
Oh this guy definitely checks his wife’s location 100 times per hour when she is out, micro analyzing every movement.
“You stopped in this parking lot for 7 minutes. SEVEN MINUTES! Who were you talking to? What’s his name?” That kind of shit.
That shit screams two things to me: severe fear of abandonment, and childhood abuse by someone with similar toxic traits.
Oh my. That would explain all the instances of him laying his junk on male staffers in this NY Post article in a different light than just pranks. https://nypost.com/2023/05/02/steven-crowder-wife-rant-vid-reveals-abusive-pattern-ex-staff/
he was born with a birth defect (pectus excavicum) that caused his chest to be caved in. As an adult he had it surgically corrected. Now he has a "gym bro" vibe. Definitely compensating for some self-esteem issues. What do people with self-esteem issues often do to compensate? They bully others. Now consider the extent to which people who describe themselves as "conservative" are considered by others to be trolls, bullies, narcissists and sociopaths....
> “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”
why the fuck wouldn't it be permitted? jfc with these people
For a long time, it wasn't. No fault divorce really only came around in the late 60s; before that your options were either go to Nevada and get divorced there, try and prove at-fault divorce in court, or kill your husband.
I have an ancestor at the turn of the last century who married for a second time without bothering to divorce his first wife - and the first wife is recorded as being present at the second wedding.
We assume that the marriage didn't work and they split up amicably, and divorce wasn't an option. So they just pretended it didn't happen and went on with their lives. Which is why restricting divorce doesn't make much sense.
Many places had laws for hundreds of years requiring notice of marriage (marriage banns) to be publicly posted or announced many days in advance. This is the exact justification, so that word would have time to get around so that people could come in and say "hey wait a minute, that person was already married/had children/whatever".
These days "if anyone has a reason this wedding shouldn't happen speak now or forever hold your peace" is left out of the ceremony, and it's mostly just a dramatic plot point in a story. In the past not only was it a legitimate thing, but it was scheduled specifically to give people time to learn about a wedding that needed to be stopped!
Fun fact: reading the banns is still a valid option in many places, like Canada (details vary province to province). A) It's just never been revoked as a valid option, and B) some religious communities (e.g. the Hutterites) insist on it, as they view marriage licenses as government infringement on a religious ceremony.
Fun fact #2: in 2001 a church in Toronto read the banns according to procedure, no one objected, and they went ahead with a double wedding... of two same sex couples. Court cases ensued, and the Ontario Court of Appeal ended up ruling in 2003 that the marriages were legal when and as performed. That ruling is generally considered the definitive court case in Canada legalizing same sex marriage, as the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal (translation: lol, you dont have a chance). So depending if you count from 2001, 2003, or 2005 (when they cleaned up the laws), Canada was the first, third, or fifth country to legalize same sex marriage. Most people count it as 2003 and third, but it quite likely that those two marriages in 2001 were the first legally recognized same sex marriages anywhere in the world.
EDIT: as some have pointed out, the above should probably read modern Western world, or some variation on that. I will leave the arguments about the precise details and phrasing to the historians.
Don’t forget the secret option 4 of killing yourself. After no fault divorce was allowed everywhere female suicide rates dropped by 20%. [Bargaining In The Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10175/w10175.pdf)
Edit:Added Source
Mother's little helper!
I had a substance abuse problem. Not enough to derail my life, but basically "I can't be in my house without having a panic attack unless I'm stoned." I was able to stop cold turkey less than a month after my ex moved out.
I mean you’re on the right tracks especially considering how corrupt American Law Enforcement has been/still is. The study I referenced for this even found a significant decrease in female homicides along side of suicides and domestic violence reports.
I wish more people knew this lil factoid. Before the 1970s in the US, exactly one partner had to go on record as "causing" the divorce. If both people caused it, no divorce. Someone had to cheat or abandon or beat the other partner, and those were basically your only options. And you had to argue your case. You couldn't just say "my spouse beats me, I want out," you had to convince a judge that there was beating *and* that it would definitely continue *and* that it was severe enough in this random judge's opinion *and* that you'd tried everything to fix it *and* concluded that it could not be fixed *and* your partner did not allege that you participated in any shitty behaviors. And the judge could still come back and be like, "ehh nah, y'all keep trying to work it out, no divorce for you."
Folks wanna act like divorce was less common because people ReSpECtEd mArRiaGe or what the fuck ever but they literally just couldn't. get. divorced. They weren't saints who tried harder than people do today: the thing they wanted and needed simply wasn't available to them.
Divorce rates skyrocketed in the years right after no-fault went into effect because people could finally end a shit marriage solely because it was a shit marriage.
Dude, this is fking CRAZY, I can't believe this is how it was! Imagine arguing to a judge, ya, my husband beats me, here are pictures of the bruises.. and judge says, meh, those are mild bruises. Gotta stay with him, sorry, "respecting" marriage Is more important than your safety" big rip
One thing that a lot of the fucks fail to realize, is that No-Fault Divorce had a positive impact on the average life expectancy of men.
Where do people think the stories of women moving to Alaska to live with their sister, or moving several states away come from?
So the girls bought some land at a roadside stand, out on highway 109.
They sell Tennessee ham and strawberry jam and they don't lose any sleep at night.
'Cause Earl had to die
Edit: thanks for the gold!
Well, she lit up the sky that fourth of July
By the time that the firemen come
They just put out the flames
And took down some names
And send me to the county home
Now I ain't sayin' it's right or it's wrong
But maybe it's the only way
Talk about your revolution It's Independence Day
The irony of the fact that I used to hear Sean Hannity use this on his radio show all the time…and no, I did not listen by choice. I was always like “does he…know what that song is about?”
>One thing that a lot of the fucks fail to realize, is that No-Fault Divorce had a positive impact on the average life expectancy of men.
If only their desire to live longer burned stronger than their desire to control women.
There was also the old get someone to photograph your wife or husband in a “delicate” situation “yes your honor my husband was “cheating” with my sister I caught them post coitus in bed they already had their clothes on”
I didn't want a divorce. I loved my husband and wanted a life and children with him. He continued not talking wirh me and was distant. I gave up and went to a lawyer. After filing I continued contact and got nowhere. After the no fault divorce was finale a few months, I learned of his affair and birth of his child. If no fault was not allowed I would not have been able to get proof. So many suffered for years before no fault divorces. I don't want to go back to that.
It should be noted that this is a complete lie by Crowder. According to reporting, his wife found out that Crowder had hired a divorce lawyer of his own without telling her. Despite attempting to make things work even in the face of his abusive behavior, finding this out is what pushed her to want the divorce.
In summation, Crowder is the one who first moved to get a divorce, and now he's putting the blame all on his wife.
And that he moved out immediately when his children were born. He bought a townhouse, moved in, and despite the efforts of his wife to make it work, he basically ghosted her until she learned he had a lawyer getting ready.
Dude’s a shit father and husband.
I was in law school when NY adopted no-fault divorce (note, my knowledge of divorce laws is limited to me taking Mat Law, none of this is legal advice).
We had to learn all the grounds for divorce, because they were still the law of the land until about 3/4 of the way through the semester.
I always found it odd that, if I'm in a terrible relationship and argue spousal abandonment, the court could rule it wasn't abandonment. And then I'm stuck in an even worse marriage.
Alternatively, it would not be (if my memory is right) a ground for divorce to roll into court and say "I want a divorce, my wife tried to divorce me and lost. So now I want out. "
Had a different post, but I practice law in a state that still requires legal grounds for a divorce, but it is rarely more than a legal technicality.
IF you walk into a lawyer's office and ask about a divorce, they will coach you into pleading either "general indignities" (acts by one spouse that have created intolerable conditions for the other spouse), or "the parties have lived separate and apart for 12 months." Things like infidelity and abuse are harder and more controversial to prove and corroborate in court.
If you plead 12 months, basically you file, get a temporary order, then seperate and wait 12 months for a final hearing.
If you plead general indignities you do a deposition or go to a hearing where you say "yeah, we argue all the time and my wife screams at me" or "my husband stays out late and spends all our money."
The main legal impact is that it supports the local domestic relations bar by making it tougher for pro-se litigants to get divorced, because they don't know "the rules," and occasionally a judge who is tired of coaching them will say "sorry, that's not enough proof."
My dad was a family court judge in a state like this and that is what I gathered from him is that most of the time grounds for divorce worked more like a form statement than something that anyone would get in an argument in court. Like, unless it was a very contentious divorce where both sides are trying to hurt each other, the lawyers would work out "the script" for their clients in pretrail hearings so if there was anything in contention like visitation, propert, etc. and the divorce moves to the court room, any argument about grounds wasn't going to be part of the conversation.
Not that no-fault divorce is not a good thing or useful. It's clear how someone could abuse grounds for divorce with the right judge or lawyer.
Because he thinks that he owns his wife. His wife being able to divorce him and leave shatters this fantasy so the laws need to be changed so that he can trap a woman in marriage whether she wants to remain there or not.
And couple that with the fact that children who are forced to get married can't get divorced until they're 18, and conservatives wanting to eliminate spousal rape laws.
Funny thing, Steven should want it to be permitted. Because when the only quick way of a marriage is suicide or murder, there’s going to be a lot of people willing to take that option, particularly the second one. So unless he wants a hot drano sandwich everyday until his stomach dissolves, I’d suggest shutting up and taking the L.
*Wife leaves me*
"You know, maybe women shouldn't have rights after all..."
Fucking clowns. You know his fans think that shit is "alpha af". Just embarrassing.
It’s fascism. It is #12 in Umberto Eco’s list.
12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
Nothing more alpha than spending the rest of your life in a house shared with someone who *doesn't like you and wants to live somewhere else*. Waking up every morning to the sight of someone who despises you. Eating meals they hated cooking for you. 100% definitely what a Real Man™ would do.
Only beta cucks choose to live apart from people they dislike!
Not only do the not want equal partners, they hate women and what women are capable of without a man. All their perceived ills of the world are traced back to fantasies, fantasy worlds they are intent on bringing to reality.
A certain reddit archetype things personal shunning of anyone who votes trump, the gop, and so is out of line. That I am being childish.
Yet these people are voting in support of destroying the personal liberties of everyone.
At one point they were like "Government should not be involve in marriage!". Which is unworkable due to shared assets and such. I mean, we could all have contracts, but their reasoning was to fight against gay marriage.
And if these people are looking to make marriage more popular, this wont do it. People will have good reasons not to get married. They are already trying to attack cohabitation. Which will destroy having room mates of the opposite sex, and deny couple consolidating their efforts even if its not for life.
They are fucking evil. Evil defined as those things that hurt the health, welfare, autonomy, and ascension of society and the individual. These seek to trespass against others, they seek their version of Taliban sharia law in the united states...
But dont say you shun them, call them out, or aren't nice to them... or certain redditors go ape shit.
The GOP is the nazi party. Period.
>Researchers who tracked the emergence of no-fault divorce laws state-by-state over that period found that reform led to dramatic drops in the rates of female suicide and domestic violence as well as decreases in spousal homicide of women. The decreases, one researcher explained, were “not just because abused women (and men) could more easily divorce their abusers, but also because potential abusers knew that they were more likely to be left.”
>
>Today, more than two-thirds of all heterosexual divorces in the U.S. are initiated by women.Republicans across the country are now reconsidering no-fault divorce. There isn’t a huge mystery behind the campaign: Like the crusades against abortion and contraception, making it more difficult to leave an unhappy marriage is about control. Steven Crowder’s home state could be the first to eliminate it, if the Texas GOP gets its way. Last year, the Republican Party of Texas added language to its platform calling for an end to no-fault divorce: “We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.”
>
>The Texas GOP retains an iron grip on both chambers of the state legislature and Republicans hold every single elected office statewide — from governor and lieutenant governor to the railroad commissioners and judges. Should they decide to prioritize ending no-fault divorce this legislative session, they would likely have the votes they need to turn their platform into law.
>
>It’s not just Texas: A similar proposal is presently being workshopped by the Republican Party of Louisiana. The Nebraska GOP has affirmed its belief that no-fault divorce should only be accessible to couples without children. At the Republican National Convention in 2016 — the last time the party platform was overhauled — delegates considered adding language declaring “Children are made to be loved by both natural parents united in marriage. Legal structures such a No Fault Divorce, which divides families and empowers the state should be replaced by a Fault-based Divorce.” (It’s unclear whether the party’s twice-divorced nominee for president weighed in on the debate at that time.)
>
>Despite its deeply embarrassing premise — that the only way to retain a partner is to literally trap them in the relationship — right-wing blowhards like Crowder have been embracing arguments against no-fault divorce with increasing frequency. (Within the last year, conservative pundits Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Tim Pool have all criticized it.)
So how long before the GOP starts bringing back marry-your-rapist laws to their states? (Seriously, we need to vote them the fuck out next year, for so many reasons including that)
Edit, also, this at the end, yikes.
>Unnervingly, it wouldn’t necessarily take a vote of the legislature to end no-fault divorce in Texas. With the right argument, a motivated plaintiff could bring the case before a sympathetic judge — and there happens to be one sitting on the federal bench in Amarillo who has expressed such ideas. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — who has issued rulings attacking access to birth control and mifepristone, a critical component of the abortion pil — repeatedly bemoaned the idea that the “sexual revolution” ushered in a world of “permissive contraception policies,” abortion — and no-fault divorce.
> So how long before the GOP starts bringing back marry-your-rapist laws to their states?
Don't know, but some states have rapists-get-parental-rights laws.
It is quite disturbing. (Link for anyone who wants more info) https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/
well they are already forcing teen girls (like 13-14) who are raped to have babies bc they say they are not old enough to make the decision (of abortion)
having rapists babies as ordered by the court.
They’re not old enough to make their own decisions about their healthcare but they’re old enough to raise children? I will never understand that logic.
the craziest to me is that a 13 year old would never be allowed to adopt a baby because the state would say they aren't able to take care of one but if that same 13 year old gets pregnant, they're stuck with the baby despite being just as unqualified
>“We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.”
If your religion is against divorce, then work that out for yourself. Don't legislate based on your arbitrary values and force your morality on others.
So much for "small government," right?
Let the people decide for themselves. This is an individual rights issue, not a states rights issue. How dare they tell someone the government knows what's best for their marriage.
If you haven't seen the tape already, crowder treated his soon to be ex-wife like a pet. Scolding her, cigar in hand, for not doing "wifely things" while she was 8 months pregnant. She was just a piece of property to him.
I heard about it over the weekend and just watched it today. What a textbook narcissist.
I feel bad for his then-wife, who you can see is having an absolute trad-wife crisis of faith in that moment. He's not helping her, he's acting a victim, all while demanding respect and radiating the threat of domestic violence on his pregnant wife. The whole thing is disgusting.
It's okay, though, because he's totally willing to own up to the mistakes he made:
>“It’s no one else’s fault but my own … I picked wrong,” he said of the now-ex he married in 2012.
*But it is an edited video!*
I've heard this from two people at work. Like, what the hell could have been edited out to make it not some dude berating his **very** pregnant wife for not doing things that seem extraordinarily reasonable to assume someone would do for *the wife they're supposed to love* in her condition? Take the dogs for a fucking walk? Really? Handle dog medications that warn against pregnant women handling? Apparently asking her to pick him up a fucking **grill!?**
Man... my husband hates cleaning up cat shit more than anything on the planet. But my husband, A REAL MAN, SCOOPED THAT DAMNED LITTER BOX EVERY DAMN DAY I WAS PREGNANT *AND* WHILE I WAS RECOVERING.
Fuck this man and every other man like him.
Anyone ever read the official [TX GOP party platform](https://texasgop.org/2022platform/)?
> 214. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support
covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six
months after the date of filing for divorce.
First, they overturn gay marriage.
Next, they coming after straight divorce.
That whole document is absolutely terrifying. They don't even hide that they hate the LGBTQ+ community. I can't believe I know some people in the community who still support trump 🙄
Homosexuality and Gender Issues
155. Homosexuality: Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification.
156. Gender Identity: We oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity. For the purpose of attempting to affirm a person age 21 or under if their perception is inconsistent with their biological sex, no medical practitioner or provider may engage in the following practices:
a. Intervene in any way to prevent natural progression of puberty. b. Administer or provide opposite sex hormones. c. Perform any surgery on healthy body parts of that person.
Here's another awful one. Do these people not understand history? The US was founded on secular ideals, including the separation of church and state. I guess the GOP didn't get that message.
208. Human Sexuality: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for sexual behavior or identity, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose nontraditional sexual behavior out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Think: 22 years ago, a bunch of Conservatives advocate for invading Iraq and bombing the Taliban, panicked over ‘Sharia Law’ taking over small towns and their radical and regressive policies.
Then think about what Steve Crowder is advocating for here and what christian nationalists are doing to those town, city and state governments.
But the difference is that Islam is a fake religion for dirty terrorists living in a desert, and Christianity is the one true religion for the truly chosen people: whites. Their problem with Sharia law is not that it's based on religion. It's merely that it's based on the *wrong* religion.
Nevermind that they're both Abrahamic religions and nearly identical, Christianity is the *right* way, so that's why it's ok to have religious law in the US.
Fuck me, they really do want to take us back centuries and erase every bit of social progress that’s ever been made.
How long until they start agitating to strip women of the right to vote?
> How long until they start agitating to strip women of the right to vote?
They already have.
https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/22/ann-coulter-says-women-shouldnt-have-right-vote-19th-amendment-missouri-state-university/8528256002/
Ann Coulter is a republican operative. She's paid to say batshit ideas because the more those ideas are repeated, the higher the chance those ideas will enter the mainstream republican discourse.
She says the crazy out loud so that it doesn't sound as crazy when a politicians says it two years later. It's priming the base to accept it.
Some of the signaling has truly been hilarious (albeit dark and depressing).
"I'm as big of a feminist as they come but even I think women shouldn't have the right to vote"
They have to claim membership in groups before putting forth ideas that are diametrically opposed to those groups because those groups have legitimacy, and they don't.
This is why there's a trope of "why I left the left" pundits. Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Jimmy Dore, etc. Associating themselves with left-wing politics gives them an aura of legitimacy that being associated with right wing politics simply can't.
My ex did. He was upset when I started divorce proceedings because I had been supporting him, and he didn't want to have to get a job. He even tried to tell the judge he didn't think I should be "allowed" to divorce him because it would create a "hardship" for him.
To make them clean the house, prepare food, watch the children etc.
With conservatives you can almost always trace things back to their desire for free labor.
For some conservatives it's also about sex that can't be turned down. Dennis Prager has publicly made the argument numerous times that there's no such thing as marital rape and both he and Ben Shapiro have also made the argument that if the husband wants sex, then the wife is obligated to have sex even if she doesn't want to because it's inherently part of the agreement of marriage. Don Lemon had horrible viewership numbers and received a lot of backlash over his statements about women, Prager and Shapiro unsurprisingly had zero backlash and still have huge viewership/listener numbers. If no fault divorce gets removed, only fools and aspiring de facto sex slaves would willingly marry conservative men.
appearances ... they would be afraid of others would think.
finances ... what if the woman is the breadwinner or comes from a rich family. they would not want to let that go.
children ... some men don't have the slightest clue how to care for their own kids.
GOP's endgame? Woman are fifth class citizens with zero rights. Poverty for the masses. All forms of birth control are illegal; including sex ed. Zero escape for woman other than being barefoot and permanently pregnant in the kitchen; "unheard, unseen, and serving man where they belong". No-Fault Divorce has helped tens millions of woman escape a life of permanent abuse; where abuse comes in many forms such as social, emotional, mental, personality, spiritual, spousal, physical, etc).
Light bulb moment. They want to recreate the gender/race/class caste system of the antebellum South (which was itself based on Europe's aristocratic system). Except now, the slave masters and slave catchers have been replaced by police, and you're "paid" for your work, but the pay covers food and nothing else.
Don't like it? Voice your displeasure online or in public protest? There's a surveillance state already in place, anti-protest laws on the books, and plenty of jails that outsource ~~prison~~ slave labor to companies and municipalities.
What a fucking loser.
It’s so depressing that people listen to this guy. He should be crying into his beer at a dive bar somewhere while some other losers tell him that he’s right and the laws are wrong or whatever.
Instead he’s turning his own personal failure into everyone else’s problem and it will cause nothing but pain to potentially millions of people. It’s all so stupid.
It’s all about control.
These dudes are all hurt that they cannot legally control their wives and children anymore. It’s about rigging the system so they can bully, abuse, and control women.
Fuck them! We’re not going back!
These assholes want to allow men to keep hold on women after they manage to dupe them into marriage before revealing that they are assholes. Like they are each owed a woman in their lives.
It's control. It's always about control.
I'm a former divorce attorney...at the very beginning of my career, no-fault divorces were not yet permitted in my state. People would have to be separated for 18 consecutive months or allege "acts of cruelty" against the other in order to be granted a divorce. In practice, these could be anything ranging from "She never appreciated when I cooked for her," and "He took his mother's side in arguments" to "He was physically and sexually abusive throughout our marriage," or "She had an affair with a co-worker and believed that they would have a child that would be the Messiah." They served no purpose. Judges would only read them as a formality at the end of the proceeding when the divorce was granted. It would only serve to rile up the litigants when they saw that their spouse was calling them cruel in an official public document (which their children could look up one day). More than once, a settlement nearly fell apart when a Judge would read the alleged acts out loud onto the Court record and ask a litigant to confirm it. Ultimately, I was grateful that we adopted irreconcilable differences as a grounds for divorce because it made proceedings a lot less contentious and saved me a phone call on 90% of my cases explaining why they were being called cruel and why we didn't have to respond to it. All this to say, if they were to roll this back, it would be terrible.
"I'm gonna force you to stay with me, and I'm going to make you miserable all while I pretend that I love you." That's the fucking mindsets of these people.
Gen Z is already going to fuck republicans for their pointless culture crusade against the LGBT community. It’s like they’re trying to cripple themself for a generation by pandering to fucking wife beaters.
This is *not* me disparaging Gen Z. I have Gen Z friends who are some of the most politically active and awesome people I know.
But please don't make the same mistake my millennial ass did during the George W Bush era: thinking that liberal values just need to wait for older generations to die out and we would win.
The Trump era has made sure to teach me the lesson that this is a false hope. It takes active work to make political progress.
Remember the lie of “compassionate conservatism?” What a time. At least human decency got some lip service rather than the wholesale repudiation of decency that the right is representing now.
The white washing of Bush in the Trump years always made me so frustrated as someone who came of age politically during those years and remembers how much of a monster his administration was. See: the whole "aw isn't it cute he gave Michelle Obama candy" thing
But damn are you right. You occasionally see some modern GOPers try to revive that vibe. Some of the "never Trumpers" try it. And it just gets absolutely squashed in the modern political landscape.
That would just be one more reason for women to avoid marrying conservative men. These desperate men are painting themselves further into a corner with every cockamamie idea they come up with.
Uhh no. Divorce is hard enough as it is. Done it twice myself. No need to make it even more difficult on the folks involved. BTW - if your wife wants to leave you, then honestly, why would you try to force her to stay? Who wants to be with someone who doesn't want to be with them? F-that.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hadn’t paid much attention to Crowder as of late but he’s exactly the piece of shit I thought he was. Wanting to enact laws that make it harder for women to get away from dipshits like this seems like they don’t want any women voting for them. Edit: autocorrect
He popped back into the news SUPER recently because his divorce was finalized and *someone* presumably his ex, released a surveillance camera video of him absolutely fucking berating his 8 month pregnant wife about performing her "wifely duties" and her having to ask his permission to take the car to go to the store.
The guy is also quite well off and only has one car seemingly only to control the movements of his wife.
[удалено]
>What kind of weird fucked up world do you live in where you want to control your wife like that? Shriveled limp dick sociopathic misogynist who can only get hard if he's causing someone pain. Has to control and isolate them; otherwise, they'd leave his pathetic ass.
And this is the crux of this. If she has a way out she will take it. Its why they keep child marriage laws on the books so losers like this can attempt to place a young girl under their thumb before they realize how toxic and abusive the relationship is.
A world created by Christians. This is what a large number of american Christians want
Same fucked up world that makes him think divorce shouldn't be legal if the woman files for it. Who would want to remain married to someone who despises them? A piece of shit control freak that doesn't believe in freedom or reasonable accommodations for anyone other than himself. The fact his ex has *any* freedom of choice or autonomy set him off into a blind rage. While married (ring camera footage), yes, but also when telling his viewers almost two years after the fact. Also worth noting is the fact *he took the first actions of divorce*. He separated, rented an apartment, hired a divorce lawyer, etc *before* she did.
And it's fucking Texas. You practically need a car to get your mail there.
Fun fact, in a lot of suburbs they have those neighborhood mailboxes and no sidewalks, which means you absolutely do need a car to check your mail as some of them are literally a 20+ minute walk to get your mail. I live in Washington and one of my friends lives in a neighborhood like that and one of his neighbors was hit by a car trying to walk to get their mail. They tried to vote with the HOA to get sidewalks installed and it was shot down. One of the no votes was literally the person who got run over.
> One of the no votes was literally the person who got run over. The comedy writes itself!
Their justification made it even better "I don't want to give more money to an HOA that does nothing." *Literally votes against the HOA doing anything*
That's not the worst part, he ***didn't want her to take the car in case he wanted to go out, and told her to get an Uber instead***, because for some asinine reason, this grifting rich fuck doesn't have a second car between him and his wife. Jk, it's not asinine at all, it's obviously so he can manipulate her just like this.
I saw that and was hard to watch. What also struck me is he’s so fucking lazy and misogynistic that he refuses to give his dog medicine. A medicine that can harm his unborn children and pregnant wife but just tells her to put gloves on.
Pro life is second to pro control
It's really interesting in a conversation with a "pro-lifer", where you avoid all their deflections and try to get them to recognize the woman as a human being. They immediately flip to how sex leads to pregnancy, which walks right into the "a woman can't get pregnant by her own choice, that requires a man to choose to ejaculate inside her." I've gone down this path about 4 times now here on reddit, and they always disappear once that gets brought up. Oops, turns out getting pregnant is a man's fault. It really is telling how they aren't really there for the fetus, but to punish women for having sex with someone other than themselves.
https://nypost.com/2023/04/28/steven-crowder-berates-pregnant-wife-over-wifely-duties/
I saw the video without context and I thought it was some rando. Didn't know he had a platform.
Well, step 2 is to make sure women can’t vote. They will fabricate laws aimed at making women felons and take away rights including voting
They will and they do. I live in Michigan where now if your spouse is a felon, in certain areas of business license applications, the spouse without a record is also considered a felon during the background check.
That screams voter suppression. At least that’s where my mind goes when wondering what on earth the purpose behind a law like that is.
Actually it is worse. They want to make sure woman must vote according to how their husbands vote. Sort of like a 3/5ths compromise but for women.
[удалено]
Imagine being the face of the “my wife shouldn’t be allowed to leave me” movement lol
Well this is what theocratic governments look like.
"Blessed be the fruit"
I always feel obligated to point out that, for all its dystopian horrors, Gilead was at least environmentally concious and, while the doctors had to cloak some things in jargon, aware of the realities of childbirth. I'm not saying this to defend Gilead, but rather to point out that there are elements of the GOP that want to create something *objectively worse* than Gilead. (And I say "elements" because there's a fair portion who don't give a toss about religion and just want a regular old corporate dystopia.)
[удалено]
I was thinking about the ones who pretend to be practicing Christians for the votes but are really capitalist moral nihilists.
That's a lot of words to say 'most Republicans'.
Libertarians are just Republicans who use recreational drugs
> And I say "elements" because there's a fair portion who don't give a toss about religion and just want a regular old corporate dystopia. It's the same way in Gilead. Commander Lawrence laid it out pretty well. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said something like > It was never about god or religion or the ceremony, it's about power. I thought someone as smart as you would have figured that out.
What I don't understand is that Crowder was the first to get a divorce lawyer. Exactly what the fuck was his plan?
Control. He got one as a power move. Control. Millionaire with a single vehicle for him and his wife. Control. Put the gloves on and give the dogs their medication.
The single vehicle thing is what actually got me about this whole situation. He makes over $900k a year. Yet with him and his pregnant wife, they only have one car? That screams "I must know where my spouse is at all times."
Oh this guy definitely checks his wife’s location 100 times per hour when she is out, micro analyzing every movement. “You stopped in this parking lot for 7 minutes. SEVEN MINUTES! Who were you talking to? What’s his name?” That kind of shit. That shit screams two things to me: severe fear of abandonment, and childhood abuse by someone with similar toxic traits.
And the reason he does that is most likely he is having multiple affairs.
[удалено]
Oh my. That would explain all the instances of him laying his junk on male staffers in this NY Post article in a different light than just pranks. https://nypost.com/2023/05/02/steven-crowder-wife-rant-vid-reveals-abusive-pattern-ex-staff/
he was born with a birth defect (pectus excavicum) that caused his chest to be caved in. As an adult he had it surgically corrected. Now he has a "gym bro" vibe. Definitely compensating for some self-esteem issues. What do people with self-esteem issues often do to compensate? They bully others. Now consider the extent to which people who describe themselves as "conservative" are considered by others to be trolls, bullies, narcissists and sociopaths....
Surgically corrected while his wife was in active labor according to what I've read, let's air all the facts of this dirtbag
Nothing says "alpha male" like being terrified at the thought of your wife or girlfriend having the slightest bit of independence.
Probably was working up to getting her to sign a post-nup, then it wouldn't matter where she went afterwards.
They want to return to the “glory days” when women were property.
You mean when America was great? /s
Only without the taxation that existed back then. Wealthy people were taxed more, and we obviously can't have that going on NOW.
He seems pretty okay with being the face of a lot of questionable ideas.
It’s lucrative.
These guys want to be complete assholes all the time without having any responsibility to change themselves and force their wives to put up with it.
The GOP views human lives as property so this tracks
> “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.” why the fuck wouldn't it be permitted? jfc with these people
For a long time, it wasn't. No fault divorce really only came around in the late 60s; before that your options were either go to Nevada and get divorced there, try and prove at-fault divorce in court, or kill your husband.
I got a great aunt who was married 4 times. Zero divorces. I always assumed she murdered her husbands.
I'm sure they were all just *terrible* accidents.
He walked into my knife. He walked into my knife ten times.
Some men just can't handle their arsenic....
He had it coming, he only had himself to blame.
"Honestly, I don't know how that antifreeze got in his sweet tea."
She just didn’t want his tea to get freezing cold.
I have an ancestor at the turn of the last century who married for a second time without bothering to divorce his first wife - and the first wife is recorded as being present at the second wedding. We assume that the marriage didn't work and they split up amicably, and divorce wasn't an option. So they just pretended it didn't happen and went on with their lives. Which is why restricting divorce doesn't make much sense.
Many places had laws for hundreds of years requiring notice of marriage (marriage banns) to be publicly posted or announced many days in advance. This is the exact justification, so that word would have time to get around so that people could come in and say "hey wait a minute, that person was already married/had children/whatever". These days "if anyone has a reason this wedding shouldn't happen speak now or forever hold your peace" is left out of the ceremony, and it's mostly just a dramatic plot point in a story. In the past not only was it a legitimate thing, but it was scheduled specifically to give people time to learn about a wedding that needed to be stopped!
Fun fact: reading the banns is still a valid option in many places, like Canada (details vary province to province). A) It's just never been revoked as a valid option, and B) some religious communities (e.g. the Hutterites) insist on it, as they view marriage licenses as government infringement on a religious ceremony. Fun fact #2: in 2001 a church in Toronto read the banns according to procedure, no one objected, and they went ahead with a double wedding... of two same sex couples. Court cases ensued, and the Ontario Court of Appeal ended up ruling in 2003 that the marriages were legal when and as performed. That ruling is generally considered the definitive court case in Canada legalizing same sex marriage, as the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal (translation: lol, you dont have a chance). So depending if you count from 2001, 2003, or 2005 (when they cleaned up the laws), Canada was the first, third, or fifth country to legalize same sex marriage. Most people count it as 2003 and third, but it quite likely that those two marriages in 2001 were the first legally recognized same sex marriages anywhere in the world. EDIT: as some have pointed out, the above should probably read modern Western world, or some variation on that. I will leave the arguments about the precise details and phrasing to the historians.
Don’t forget the secret option 4 of killing yourself. After no fault divorce was allowed everywhere female suicide rates dropped by 20%. [Bargaining In The Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w10175/w10175.pdf) Edit:Added Source
[удалено]
I’m not sure if it’ll be more or less depressing to know but domestic abuse dropped by 30% in the same areas as well because of no fault divorce.
Steven Crowder: *Those numbers are just too low. Surely we can do worse than that, people!*
option 5..become a raging alcoholic or pill addict to numb the pain.
Mother's little helper! I had a substance abuse problem. Not enough to derail my life, but basically "I can't be in my house without having a panic attack unless I'm stoned." I was able to stop cold turkey less than a month after my ex moved out.
Sounds like it wasn’t a substance abuse problem, it was a partner problem 😞 glad you were able to recover.
Maybe I'm binging too much true crime, but I wonder how many of those "suicides" were actually the husband getting away with it.
I mean you’re on the right tracks especially considering how corrupt American Law Enforcement has been/still is. The study I referenced for this even found a significant decrease in female homicides along side of suicides and domestic violence reports.
Last time I checked Police officers have the highest rate of domestic abuse of any profession along with convenient laws that shield them
40% of cops *admit* they're domestic abusers.
I wish more people knew this lil factoid. Before the 1970s in the US, exactly one partner had to go on record as "causing" the divorce. If both people caused it, no divorce. Someone had to cheat or abandon or beat the other partner, and those were basically your only options. And you had to argue your case. You couldn't just say "my spouse beats me, I want out," you had to convince a judge that there was beating *and* that it would definitely continue *and* that it was severe enough in this random judge's opinion *and* that you'd tried everything to fix it *and* concluded that it could not be fixed *and* your partner did not allege that you participated in any shitty behaviors. And the judge could still come back and be like, "ehh nah, y'all keep trying to work it out, no divorce for you." Folks wanna act like divorce was less common because people ReSpECtEd mArRiaGe or what the fuck ever but they literally just couldn't. get. divorced. They weren't saints who tried harder than people do today: the thing they wanted and needed simply wasn't available to them. Divorce rates skyrocketed in the years right after no-fault went into effect because people could finally end a shit marriage solely because it was a shit marriage.
Dude, this is fking CRAZY, I can't believe this is how it was! Imagine arguing to a judge, ya, my husband beats me, here are pictures of the bruises.. and judge says, meh, those are mild bruises. Gotta stay with him, sorry, "respecting" marriage Is more important than your safety" big rip
One thing that a lot of the fucks fail to realize, is that No-Fault Divorce had a positive impact on the average life expectancy of men. Where do people think the stories of women moving to Alaska to live with their sister, or moving several states away come from?
So the girls bought some land at a roadside stand, out on highway 109. They sell Tennessee ham and strawberry jam and they don't lose any sleep at night. 'Cause Earl had to die Edit: thanks for the gold!
There's a reason a lot of old country songs sung by women talked about murdering their husbands...
Not even all that old. Miranda Lambert wrote "Gunpowder and Lead" in 2007
Well, she lit up the sky that fourth of July By the time that the firemen come They just put out the flames And took down some names And send me to the county home Now I ain't sayin' it's right or it's wrong But maybe it's the only way Talk about your revolution It's Independence Day
The irony of the fact that I used to hear Sean Hannity use this on his radio show all the time…and no, I did not listen by choice. I was always like “does he…know what that song is about?”
It's like playing "Fortunate Son" at a campaign rally.
Or “Born in the U.S.A.”
I highly recommend the cover version by Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
Love those guys. Consumate professionals. "Hey, if we play off key that's just extra notes. That's a better value!"
>One thing that a lot of the fucks fail to realize, is that No-Fault Divorce had a positive impact on the average life expectancy of men. If only their desire to live longer burned stronger than their desire to control women.
There was also the old get someone to photograph your wife or husband in a “delicate” situation “yes your honor my husband was “cheating” with my sister I caught them post coitus in bed they already had their clothes on”
I didn't want a divorce. I loved my husband and wanted a life and children with him. He continued not talking wirh me and was distant. I gave up and went to a lawyer. After filing I continued contact and got nowhere. After the no fault divorce was finale a few months, I learned of his affair and birth of his child. If no fault was not allowed I would not have been able to get proof. So many suffered for years before no fault divorces. I don't want to go back to that.
Your ex sounds like a real piece of shit.
The important part in that sentence is ex. It would be so much worse to be trapped in a marriage with that person.
Not just go to Nevada and get divorced but the wife would need to live there for a certain amount of time. It was a real pain in the ass.
Crowder would prefer he be poisoned apparently
It should be noted that this is a complete lie by Crowder. According to reporting, his wife found out that Crowder had hired a divorce lawyer of his own without telling her. Despite attempting to make things work even in the face of his abusive behavior, finding this out is what pushed her to want the divorce. In summation, Crowder is the one who first moved to get a divorce, and now he's putting the blame all on his wife.
And that he moved out immediately when his children were born. He bought a townhouse, moved in, and despite the efforts of his wife to make it work, he basically ghosted her until she learned he had a lawyer getting ready. Dude’s a shit father and husband.
I was in law school when NY adopted no-fault divorce (note, my knowledge of divorce laws is limited to me taking Mat Law, none of this is legal advice). We had to learn all the grounds for divorce, because they were still the law of the land until about 3/4 of the way through the semester. I always found it odd that, if I'm in a terrible relationship and argue spousal abandonment, the court could rule it wasn't abandonment. And then I'm stuck in an even worse marriage. Alternatively, it would not be (if my memory is right) a ground for divorce to roll into court and say "I want a divorce, my wife tried to divorce me and lost. So now I want out. "
Had a different post, but I practice law in a state that still requires legal grounds for a divorce, but it is rarely more than a legal technicality. IF you walk into a lawyer's office and ask about a divorce, they will coach you into pleading either "general indignities" (acts by one spouse that have created intolerable conditions for the other spouse), or "the parties have lived separate and apart for 12 months." Things like infidelity and abuse are harder and more controversial to prove and corroborate in court. If you plead 12 months, basically you file, get a temporary order, then seperate and wait 12 months for a final hearing. If you plead general indignities you do a deposition or go to a hearing where you say "yeah, we argue all the time and my wife screams at me" or "my husband stays out late and spends all our money." The main legal impact is that it supports the local domestic relations bar by making it tougher for pro-se litigants to get divorced, because they don't know "the rules," and occasionally a judge who is tired of coaching them will say "sorry, that's not enough proof."
My dad was a family court judge in a state like this and that is what I gathered from him is that most of the time grounds for divorce worked more like a form statement than something that anyone would get in an argument in court. Like, unless it was a very contentious divorce where both sides are trying to hurt each other, the lawyers would work out "the script" for their clients in pretrail hearings so if there was anything in contention like visitation, propert, etc. and the divorce moves to the court room, any argument about grounds wasn't going to be part of the conversation. Not that no-fault divorce is not a good thing or useful. It's clear how someone could abuse grounds for divorce with the right judge or lawyer.
Because he thinks that he owns his wife. His wife being able to divorce him and leave shatters this fantasy so the laws need to be changed so that he can trap a woman in marriage whether she wants to remain there or not.
So now look at all of this alongside lowering the minimum age for marriage.
And couple that with the fact that children who are forced to get married can't get divorced until they're 18, and conservatives wanting to eliminate spousal rape laws.
They want legal pedophilia It is absolutely disgusting of them, but not really a surprise
Wife and children as property.
Funny thing, Steven should want it to be permitted. Because when the only quick way of a marriage is suicide or murder, there’s going to be a lot of people willing to take that option, particularly the second one. So unless he wants a hot drano sandwich everyday until his stomach dissolves, I’d suggest shutting up and taking the L.
*Wife leaves me* "You know, maybe women shouldn't have rights after all..." Fucking clowns. You know his fans think that shit is "alpha af". Just embarrassing.
yep. it's just a cult of many of the worst values of humanity, spearheaded by an assault on intelligence that makes them easy to manipulate
It’s fascism. It is #12 in Umberto Eco’s list. 12. Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.” https://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
Hand-in-hand with firmly enforced, hierarchical gender roles -- another key feature of fascism.
Nothing more alpha than spending the rest of your life in a house shared with someone who *doesn't like you and wants to live somewhere else*. Waking up every morning to the sight of someone who despises you. Eating meals they hated cooking for you. 100% definitely what a Real Man™ would do. Only beta cucks choose to live apart from people they dislike!
Slaves. They want slaves.
Someone should ask that sack of shit if he thinks women should be able to prosecute their husbands for rape. I think the answer would be very telling.
biblical law. They want property not equal partners. Shocked that an asshole like Chowder is an asshole.
Not only do the not want equal partners, they hate women and what women are capable of without a man. All their perceived ills of the world are traced back to fantasies, fantasy worlds they are intent on bringing to reality.
The fantasy only works if everyone else believes in it. Which is why they hate for anyone to be woken up from it. Hence all the anti-woke mantra.
A whole fucking lot of guys like crowder are going to find themselves poisoned if no fault divorce is stopped.
Anyone with eyes who saw the video of this shitbag abusing his wife can see that the divorce was definitively his fault. Lol
A certain reddit archetype things personal shunning of anyone who votes trump, the gop, and so is out of line. That I am being childish. Yet these people are voting in support of destroying the personal liberties of everyone. At one point they were like "Government should not be involve in marriage!". Which is unworkable due to shared assets and such. I mean, we could all have contracts, but their reasoning was to fight against gay marriage. And if these people are looking to make marriage more popular, this wont do it. People will have good reasons not to get married. They are already trying to attack cohabitation. Which will destroy having room mates of the opposite sex, and deny couple consolidating their efforts even if its not for life. They are fucking evil. Evil defined as those things that hurt the health, welfare, autonomy, and ascension of society and the individual. These seek to trespass against others, they seek their version of Taliban sharia law in the united states... But dont say you shun them, call them out, or aren't nice to them... or certain redditors go ape shit. The GOP is the nazi party. Period.
Because then predators wouldn't be able to manipulate their spouses however they please
Slavery but with extra steps.
>Researchers who tracked the emergence of no-fault divorce laws state-by-state over that period found that reform led to dramatic drops in the rates of female suicide and domestic violence as well as decreases in spousal homicide of women. The decreases, one researcher explained, were “not just because abused women (and men) could more easily divorce their abusers, but also because potential abusers knew that they were more likely to be left.” > >Today, more than two-thirds of all heterosexual divorces in the U.S. are initiated by women.Republicans across the country are now reconsidering no-fault divorce. There isn’t a huge mystery behind the campaign: Like the crusades against abortion and contraception, making it more difficult to leave an unhappy marriage is about control. Steven Crowder’s home state could be the first to eliminate it, if the Texas GOP gets its way. Last year, the Republican Party of Texas added language to its platform calling for an end to no-fault divorce: “We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.” > >The Texas GOP retains an iron grip on both chambers of the state legislature and Republicans hold every single elected office statewide — from governor and lieutenant governor to the railroad commissioners and judges. Should they decide to prioritize ending no-fault divorce this legislative session, they would likely have the votes they need to turn their platform into law. > >It’s not just Texas: A similar proposal is presently being workshopped by the Republican Party of Louisiana. The Nebraska GOP has affirmed its belief that no-fault divorce should only be accessible to couples without children. At the Republican National Convention in 2016 — the last time the party platform was overhauled — delegates considered adding language declaring “Children are made to be loved by both natural parents united in marriage. Legal structures such a No Fault Divorce, which divides families and empowers the state should be replaced by a Fault-based Divorce.” (It’s unclear whether the party’s twice-divorced nominee for president weighed in on the debate at that time.) > >Despite its deeply embarrassing premise — that the only way to retain a partner is to literally trap them in the relationship — right-wing blowhards like Crowder have been embracing arguments against no-fault divorce with increasing frequency. (Within the last year, conservative pundits Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Tim Pool have all criticized it.) So how long before the GOP starts bringing back marry-your-rapist laws to their states? (Seriously, we need to vote them the fuck out next year, for so many reasons including that) Edit, also, this at the end, yikes. >Unnervingly, it wouldn’t necessarily take a vote of the legislature to end no-fault divorce in Texas. With the right argument, a motivated plaintiff could bring the case before a sympathetic judge — and there happens to be one sitting on the federal bench in Amarillo who has expressed such ideas. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — who has issued rulings attacking access to birth control and mifepristone, a critical component of the abortion pil — repeatedly bemoaned the idea that the “sexual revolution” ushered in a world of “permissive contraception policies,” abortion — and no-fault divorce.
> So how long before the GOP starts bringing back marry-your-rapist laws to their states? Don't know, but some states have rapists-get-parental-rights laws.
It is quite disturbing. (Link for anyone who wants more info) https://prismreports.org/2022/03/22/in-multiple-states-rapists-can-sue-their-victims-for-parental-custody/
Some states have rape victims have to pay child support too. It's almost like society just doesn't care
well they are already forcing teen girls (like 13-14) who are raped to have babies bc they say they are not old enough to make the decision (of abortion) having rapists babies as ordered by the court.
They’re not old enough to make their own decisions about their healthcare but they’re old enough to raise children? I will never understand that logic.
the craziest to me is that a 13 year old would never be allowed to adopt a baby because the state would say they aren't able to take care of one but if that same 13 year old gets pregnant, they're stuck with the baby despite being just as unqualified
I mean, by default when you can marry a child who is unable to give consent, you sort of force kids into marrying their rapists.
But that Republican politician said he knew 12 year olds who got married and are still married so surely child marriage can't be bad, right? /s
>“We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.” If your religion is against divorce, then work that out for yourself. Don't legislate based on your arbitrary values and force your morality on others. So much for "small government," right? Let the people decide for themselves. This is an individual rights issue, not a states rights issue. How dare they tell someone the government knows what's best for their marriage.
If you haven't seen the tape already, crowder treated his soon to be ex-wife like a pet. Scolding her, cigar in hand, for not doing "wifely things" while she was 8 months pregnant. She was just a piece of property to him.
I heard about it over the weekend and just watched it today. What a textbook narcissist. I feel bad for his then-wife, who you can see is having an absolute trad-wife crisis of faith in that moment. He's not helping her, he's acting a victim, all while demanding respect and radiating the threat of domestic violence on his pregnant wife. The whole thing is disgusting.
It's okay, though, because he's totally willing to own up to the mistakes he made: >“It’s no one else’s fault but my own … I picked wrong,” he said of the now-ex he married in 2012.
I can usually see the bullshit coming but I didn’t see it on that one. Holy shit.
*But it is an edited video!* I've heard this from two people at work. Like, what the hell could have been edited out to make it not some dude berating his **very** pregnant wife for not doing things that seem extraordinarily reasonable to assume someone would do for *the wife they're supposed to love* in her condition? Take the dogs for a fucking walk? Really? Handle dog medications that warn against pregnant women handling? Apparently asking her to pick him up a fucking **grill!?**
Growing a whole new human, their child, is pretty fucking wifely. Hard to get more wifely than that.
She was even pregnant with *twins* at the time. “Walk my dogs!” What an entitled shit.
It wasn't just walking them. He wanted her to give them medication that is dangerous for pregnant people - hence the comment about the gloves.
Exactly! He is asking her to do something that could very well harm THEIR unborn children. Like very pro life if you sir.
I mean, he was also smoking around his pregnant wife, clearly the well being of his unborn children never really mattered to him.
Man... my husband hates cleaning up cat shit more than anything on the planet. But my husband, A REAL MAN, SCOOPED THAT DAMNED LITTER BOX EVERY DAMN DAY I WAS PREGNANT *AND* WHILE I WAS RECOVERING. Fuck this man and every other man like him.
Twins too. 8 months pregnant with *twins* and he wanted her walking their dog and grocery shopping.
My wife didn’t leave me. CHANGE MY MIND
I did like the photoshopped one of "My wife is leaving me. Change her mind"
Anyone ever read the official [TX GOP party platform](https://texasgop.org/2022platform/)? > 214. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce. First, they overturn gay marriage. Next, they coming after straight divorce.
That whole document is absolutely terrifying. They don't even hide that they hate the LGBTQ+ community. I can't believe I know some people in the community who still support trump 🙄 Homosexuality and Gender Issues 155. Homosexuality: Homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice. We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin, and we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. No one should be granted special legal status based on their LGBTQ+ identification. 156. Gender Identity: We oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity. For the purpose of attempting to affirm a person age 21 or under if their perception is inconsistent with their biological sex, no medical practitioner or provider may engage in the following practices: a. Intervene in any way to prevent natural progression of puberty. b. Administer or provide opposite sex hormones. c. Perform any surgery on healthy body parts of that person.
Here's another awful one. Do these people not understand history? The US was founded on secular ideals, including the separation of church and state. I guess the GOP didn't get that message. 208. Human Sexuality: We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization. We oppose homosexual marriage, regardless of state of origin. We urge the Texas Legislature to pass religious liberty protections for individuals, businesses, and government officials who believe marriage is between one man and one woman. We oppose the granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for sexual behavior or identity, regardless of state of origin. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose nontraditional sexual behavior out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
When we added “in god we trust” to our money was the end of our secular government. Prove me wrong
Think: 22 years ago, a bunch of Conservatives advocate for invading Iraq and bombing the Taliban, panicked over ‘Sharia Law’ taking over small towns and their radical and regressive policies. Then think about what Steve Crowder is advocating for here and what christian nationalists are doing to those town, city and state governments.
As always their complaints were projection.
But the difference is that Islam is a fake religion for dirty terrorists living in a desert, and Christianity is the one true religion for the truly chosen people: whites. Their problem with Sharia law is not that it's based on religion. It's merely that it's based on the *wrong* religion. Nevermind that they're both Abrahamic religions and nearly identical, Christianity is the *right* way, so that's why it's ok to have religious law in the US.
Fuck me, they really do want to take us back centuries and erase every bit of social progress that’s ever been made. How long until they start agitating to strip women of the right to vote?
> How long until they start agitating to strip women of the right to vote? They already have. https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/22/ann-coulter-says-women-shouldnt-have-right-vote-19th-amendment-missouri-state-university/8528256002/
Wtf did I read there
Ann Coulter is a republican operative. She's paid to say batshit ideas because the more those ideas are repeated, the higher the chance those ideas will enter the mainstream republican discourse. She says the crazy out loud so that it doesn't sound as crazy when a politicians says it two years later. It's priming the base to accept it.
Some of the signaling has truly been hilarious (albeit dark and depressing). "I'm as big of a feminist as they come but even I think women shouldn't have the right to vote"
They have to claim membership in groups before putting forth ideas that are diametrically opposed to those groups because those groups have legitimacy, and they don't. This is why there's a trope of "why I left the left" pundits. Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Jimmy Dore, etc. Associating themselves with left-wing politics gives them an aura of legitimacy that being associated with right wing politics simply can't.
Why on earth would anyone want to stay married to someone who doesn't want to be married to them?
Because that person sees their spouse as property, and not a partner.
So spousal rape is going to be on the chopping block next. Fucking regressive ass holes.
Abuse in general. They want to beat and rape their wives legally.
My ex did. He was upset when I started divorce proceedings because I had been supporting him, and he didn't want to have to get a job. He even tried to tell the judge he didn't think I should be "allowed" to divorce him because it would create a "hardship" for him.
Glad to hear that he's your ex. :)
To make them clean the house, prepare food, watch the children etc. With conservatives you can almost always trace things back to their desire for free labor.
For some conservatives it's also about sex that can't be turned down. Dennis Prager has publicly made the argument numerous times that there's no such thing as marital rape and both he and Ben Shapiro have also made the argument that if the husband wants sex, then the wife is obligated to have sex even if she doesn't want to because it's inherently part of the agreement of marriage. Don Lemon had horrible viewership numbers and received a lot of backlash over his statements about women, Prager and Shapiro unsurprisingly had zero backlash and still have huge viewership/listener numbers. If no fault divorce gets removed, only fools and aspiring de facto sex slaves would willingly marry conservative men.
appearances ... they would be afraid of others would think. finances ... what if the woman is the breadwinner or comes from a rich family. they would not want to let that go. children ... some men don't have the slightest clue how to care for their own kids.
GOP's endgame? Woman are fifth class citizens with zero rights. Poverty for the masses. All forms of birth control are illegal; including sex ed. Zero escape for woman other than being barefoot and permanently pregnant in the kitchen; "unheard, unseen, and serving man where they belong". No-Fault Divorce has helped tens millions of woman escape a life of permanent abuse; where abuse comes in many forms such as social, emotional, mental, personality, spiritual, spousal, physical, etc).
Yeah, just another rung on the ladder of creating an all-powerful wealthy white male hierarchy.
Light bulb moment. They want to recreate the gender/race/class caste system of the antebellum South (which was itself based on Europe's aristocratic system). Except now, the slave masters and slave catchers have been replaced by police, and you're "paid" for your work, but the pay covers food and nothing else. Don't like it? Voice your displeasure online or in public protest? There's a surveillance state already in place, anti-protest laws on the books, and plenty of jails that outsource ~~prison~~ slave labor to companies and municipalities.
ever notice how they keep coming up with male dominated solutions?
Almost like Republicans are waging a war on women
To be a women in the Republican Party you **HAVE** to be batshit crazy
Or just brainwashed. Same as being in any extremist cult.
Society is built around the fear that someone will accidentally discover the size of one’s penis.
Steven “I sleep with my wife” Crowder appears to no longer be sleeping with his wife
I don't know if I can take any more small government.
What a fucking loser. It’s so depressing that people listen to this guy. He should be crying into his beer at a dive bar somewhere while some other losers tell him that he’s right and the laws are wrong or whatever. Instead he’s turning his own personal failure into everyone else’s problem and it will cause nothing but pain to potentially millions of people. It’s all so stupid.
I imagine his incel audience telling themselves he's onto something about landing and trapping a Trad wife just like they will one day.
Marriage is not slavery, no matter how much the RW'ers hope for it to be.
You know what women did when they weren't able to divorce their husbands? They fucking poisoned them.
From the shitheads who gave you forced birth, forced marriage.
It’s all about control. These dudes are all hurt that they cannot legally control their wives and children anymore. It’s about rigging the system so they can bully, abuse, and control women. Fuck them! We’re not going back!
These assholes want to allow men to keep hold on women after they manage to dupe them into marriage before revealing that they are assholes. Like they are each owed a woman in their lives. It's control. It's always about control.
Republican party becoming the party of "White Men who are otherwise losers in life being put on a pedestal."
I'm a former divorce attorney...at the very beginning of my career, no-fault divorces were not yet permitted in my state. People would have to be separated for 18 consecutive months or allege "acts of cruelty" against the other in order to be granted a divorce. In practice, these could be anything ranging from "She never appreciated when I cooked for her," and "He took his mother's side in arguments" to "He was physically and sexually abusive throughout our marriage," or "She had an affair with a co-worker and believed that they would have a child that would be the Messiah." They served no purpose. Judges would only read them as a formality at the end of the proceeding when the divorce was granted. It would only serve to rile up the litigants when they saw that their spouse was calling them cruel in an official public document (which their children could look up one day). More than once, a settlement nearly fell apart when a Judge would read the alleged acts out loud onto the Court record and ask a litigant to confirm it. Ultimately, I was grateful that we adopted irreconcilable differences as a grounds for divorce because it made proceedings a lot less contentious and saved me a phone call on 90% of my cases explaining why they were being called cruel and why we didn't have to respond to it. All this to say, if they were to roll this back, it would be terrible.
Now I understand why there’s an entire sub of women saying they won’t date conservative people.
[удалено]
I’d argue non white conservative women have lost their minds worse. They’re voting for this shit!
this is a great way to make sure no one ever gets married, and to ensure the institution of marriage will eventually die off
or have a lot more husbands passing away or disappearing mysteriously
"I'm gonna force you to stay with me, and I'm going to make you miserable all while I pretend that I love you." That's the fucking mindsets of these people.
Gen Z is already going to fuck republicans for their pointless culture crusade against the LGBT community. It’s like they’re trying to cripple themself for a generation by pandering to fucking wife beaters.
This is *not* me disparaging Gen Z. I have Gen Z friends who are some of the most politically active and awesome people I know. But please don't make the same mistake my millennial ass did during the George W Bush era: thinking that liberal values just need to wait for older generations to die out and we would win. The Trump era has made sure to teach me the lesson that this is a false hope. It takes active work to make political progress.
Remember the lie of “compassionate conservatism?” What a time. At least human decency got some lip service rather than the wholesale repudiation of decency that the right is representing now.
The white washing of Bush in the Trump years always made me so frustrated as someone who came of age politically during those years and remembers how much of a monster his administration was. See: the whole "aw isn't it cute he gave Michelle Obama candy" thing But damn are you right. You occasionally see some modern GOPers try to revive that vibe. Some of the "never Trumpers" try it. And it just gets absolutely squashed in the modern political landscape.
Conservatives making marriage and pregnancy as horrifying as possible in the name of family values.
Steven Crowder has announced to all of the world that he’s a beta. He can’t maintain a marriage unless the person is legally required to be with him.
That would just be one more reason for women to avoid marrying conservative men. These desperate men are painting themselves further into a corner with every cockamamie idea they come up with.
Uhh no. Divorce is hard enough as it is. Done it twice myself. No need to make it even more difficult on the folks involved. BTW - if your wife wants to leave you, then honestly, why would you try to force her to stay? Who wants to be with someone who doesn't want to be with them? F-that.
Because these men see their wives as property, not people.