The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

[ZiprHead]

The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

Steven Crowder is part of a growing right-wing chorus calling for an end to modern divorce laws

www.yahoo.com

It was a hard-fought journey to get there. It took more than four decades to end fault-based divorce in America: California was the first state to eliminate it, in 1969; New York didn’t come around until 2010. (And there are caveats: Mississippi and South Dakota still only allow no-fault divorce if both parties agree to dissolve the marriage, for example.)

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. 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.”

What happened to that small government GOP?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, here's to all the women that fell for the CRT and anti-trans bullshit, the Ralph Nader voters of feminists.

Just to be clear, us men... well, the majority (super-majority?) are assholes.

 

[Patooka]

It does seem fitting that Crowder is the right's poster child for this issue. The article skirts around the issue, but there is a recording of Crowder threatening to beat his 8 month pregnant wife if she doesn't perform her wifely duties around the house. This defender of so called traditional family values then decided to cut off any financial support for his wife and chose to have cosmetic surgery done to his chest when his kids were being born so he wouldn't be there for their birth. Immediately after he bought a townhouse for himself and shows zero interest in raising his kids.

I mean it - this guy is perfect for the right's idea of traditional marriage.

 

[zorq]

I don't understand this. What's the outward reasoning here, you know, beyond the silent part of wanting to control women? Is it just religious people who think marriage is somehow magical and need everyone to follow their archaic religious text's weird rules?

By my reckoning, marriage is a mutual relationship and if it isn't working for one of the people, it should be dissolved, no matter how much the other person wants to keep it. Also, it shouldn't matter if the reasons for that failure fit into some limited predefined "fault" categories defined by politicians.

We shouldn't be trapping people into permanent relationships that are causing harm.

 

[Patooka]

By my reckoning, marriage is a mutual relationship and if it isn't working for one of the people, it should be dissolved, no matter how much the other person wants to keep it

That's the problem in their eyes. I'm not fucking joking.

 

[Toni]

The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

Steven Crowder is part of a growing right-wing chorus calling for an end to modern divorce laws

www.yahoo.com

It was a hard-fought journey to get there. It took more than four decades to end fault-based divorce in America: California was the first state to eliminate it, in 1969; New York didn’t come around until 2010. (And there are caveats: Mississippi and South Dakota still only allow no-fault divorce if both parties agree to dissolve the marriage, for example.)

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. 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.”

What happened to that small government GOP?

It was always a lie.

What the GOP means by small government is small tax bill for rich people and lax laws protecting workers and the environment, fair trade, etc..

 

[Toni]

I don't understand this. What's the outward reasoning here, you know, beyond the silent part of wanting to control women? Is it just religious people who think marriage is somehow magical and need everyone to follow their archaic religious text's weird rules?

By my reckoning, marriage is a mutual relationship and if it isn't working for one of the people, it should be dissolved, no matter how much the other person wants to keep it. Also, it shouldn't matter if the reasons for that failure fit into some limited predefined "fault" categories defined by politicians.

We shouldn't be trapping people into permanent relationships that are causing harm.

Obviously but yes, as women have made gains in education and employment, they are more easily able to leave a marriage that they no longer wish to continue for any reason. Which means that men now must face the likely consequences of their bad behavior: drinking/drugging/having sex and/or kids with other people, losing jobs, gambling, abusing wife and/or kid(s). Being financially irresponsible. Not doing their share to maintain home, care for children, pets, each other, family members, whatever. Being too controlling. Emotional abuse. Note: Women also do all of these things, too. But the GOP don't care about no womenfolk except to control them and fuck them (over) figuratively and literally. Note: I am more than aware that a fair number of GOP members prefer to fuck men but they are not likely to admit it in public. See Lindsay Graham.

The issue is now that bad actors in a marriage might eventually lose their partner/victim and assets are more likely to be divided equitably. But since we are talking about the GOP and its general anti-woman party platform, we're going to say: Men, even though, as acknowledged above, women also engage in all of this behavior as well.

Many, perhaps most men these days are much more engaged with their children, including infants and do their fair share of childrearing and cooking and cleaning and the emotional labor of any marriage (if you don't know what emotional labor means, you may be at fault here. If you don't care about emotional labor, you're letting your spouse and family down in a very big way). Women contribute directly to household income, in addition to, for the most part, continuing in the traditional female roles of wife and mother, and take on home repair/improvement/maintenance projects as well, something my mother never would have done. But studies show that women still perform a much greater percentage of household/child rearing tasks than their male partners. And work full time.

But a bunch of people, and for this discussion, we're going to use male pronouns, are big asshole jerks and are arrested development basement game playing beer guzzling babies. Hey, women do it as well. But the GOP doesn't care about women, except to control them, get them to pump out babies and to service men. They expect them to shut up and not complain when hubby moves on to a newer model, and make do with whatever pittance the court awards them.

 

[RVonse]

I don't understand this. What's the outward reasoning here, you know, beyond the silent part of wanting to control women? Is it just religious people who think marriage is somehow magical and need everyone to follow their archaic religious text's weird rules?

By my reckoning, marriage is a mutual relationship and if it isn't working for one of the people, it should be dissolved, no matter how much the other person wants to keep it. Also, it shouldn't matter if the reasons for that failure fit into some limited predefined "fault" categories defined by politicians.

We shouldn't be trapping people into permanent relationships that are causing harm.

Religion and/or control has nothing to do with it. It depends whether or not there are kids involved. When it comes to making sure the kids are raised to the governments standards, yes the government will get involved with every aspect of the marriage, even without any more laws than we already have today. That is what the Department of Family Services is all about. Whenever a divorce goes before a judge its always the kids that get brought up before any pleasures of what the man wants or the women. Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

 

[bilby]

I don't understand this. What's the outward reasoning here, you know, beyond the silent part of wanting to control women?

Why would there be anything beyond that?

Marriage is the transfer of property from a father to a younger man. It relives the father of the responsibility for feeding an adult woman, and provides the younger man with a person to do his drudge work, and to supply him with sons to whom he can pass on his estate, and daughters to transfer into the possession of a younger man in his turn.

No-fault divorce is basically as ludicrous as no-locks-or-chains slavery - it just can't work if there's nothing to stop the slaves from just getting up and leaving whenever they're unhappy.

That you liberals have distorted and redefined marriage as some kind of equal partnership is frankly obscene, and an abomination in the eyes of the church.

For pretty much any value of "church".

 

[bilby]

See Lindsay Graham.

I would really rather not, if that's OK with you.

 

[bilby]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure in tact

Is that true, or just something lots of people believe?

My parents separated when I was nine; I genuinely believe that it was the right choice for them to make on behalf of myself and my siblings.

Each case is different, of course. But then, that's exactly the opposite of:

an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure in tact

Also, "intact" is almost always one word. I hope you will accept this grammatical criticism in the tact with which it is intended.

 

[Toni]

I don't understand this. What's the outward reasoning here, you know, beyond the silent part of wanting to control women? Is it just religious people who think marriage is somehow magical and need everyone to follow their archaic religious text's weird rules?

By my reckoning, marriage is a mutual relationship and if it isn't working for one of the people, it should be dissolved, no matter how much the other person wants to keep it. Also, it shouldn't matter if the reasons for that failure fit into some limited predefined "fault" categories defined by politicians.

We shouldn't be trapping people into permanent relationships that are causing harm.

Religion and/or control has nothing to do with it. It depends whether or not there are kids involved. When it comes to making sure the kids are raised to the governments standards, yes the government will get involved with every aspect of the marriage, even without any more laws than we already have today. That is what the Department of Family Services is all about. Whenever a divorce goes before a judge its always the kids that get brought up before any pleasures of what the man wants or the women. Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

When there is a divorce involving children, it is a nice fairy tale that the needs of the children supersede the wants of the parents. In an ideal world that is what the court puts first. But in no case that I am aware of does the court insist that the parents remain married and/or cohabitate in order to provide the children with an intact family.

It is true that many years ago, a divorce was not granted if the woman was pregnant until after she gave birth, preventing the child from being born with any hint of a stain of illegitimacy. Such stain is no longer an issue these days and I am unaware of any case in the last 50 years or more where a divorce degree was not granted pending the birth of any child.

 

[Patooka]

Religion and/or control has nothing to do with it.

Bull fucking shit. People who complain about no fault laws always, always, ALWAYS use the magic phrase "Judeo-Christian values". So that bullshit argument can fuck right off.

It depends whether or not there are kids involved. When it comes to making sure the kids are raised to the governments standards, yes the government will get involved with every aspect of the marriage, even without any more laws than we already have today.

No shit. The same despicable cunts who are against no fault divorces (a fancy way of saying taking away consent) hide behind religion for their argument but will never advocate the church, synagogue, mosque or temple to pick up the slack. What's your solution, the fucking free market? How working class of you. That argument can also fuck right off.

That is what the Department of Family Services is all about. Whenever a divorce goes before a judge its always the kids that get brought up before any pleasures of what the man wants or the women. Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

That is a gross oversimplification. Seeing as you like arguing with videos, watch Sam Seder's take on Crowder's divorce, where he openly shares his experience in which he and his ex explicitly did not get the kids involved at all. That argument can also fuck off.

I know nothing about this new Texas law

You mean this new fangled no-fault divorce Texas law that has been on the books since fucking 1974?

 

[SLD]

Coming soon thereafter: spousal rape laws.

 

[Shadowy Man]

My parents got divorced when I was nine and I feel I was much better off being raised by two happy parents in two households than two miserable parents in one household. So I don’t buy the whole “intact” family argument as being best for the kids. But that’s just my anecdote so perhaps there is real data there. What I’ve always seen is the comparison of kids from divorced families to kids in happily married families, not to the unhappily forced-to-remain-married families that would be the proper comparison.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Coming soon thereafter: spousal rape laws.

Not after. Concurrent.

 

[SLD]

Coming soon thereafter: spousal rape laws.

Not after. Concurrent.

As well as spousal battery. I mean if you can’t beat your wife, how do you possibly control her?

 

[Jarhyn]

My parents got divorced when I was nine and I feel I was much better off being raised by two happy parents in two households than two miserable parents in one household. So I don’t buy the whole “intact” family argument as being best for the kids. But that’s just my anecdote so perhaps there is real data there. What I’ve always seen is the comparison of kids from divorced families to kids in happily married families, not to the unhappily forced-to-remain-married families that would be the proper comparison.

I'm divorced.

I am much happier.

It's much like Voter ID: they claim there is some evil being perpetrated some where and their law solves it, ignoring that the problem they discuss is non-existent, and the fact that their laws are not instrumental even in the cases where voter fraud happens.

Really, they are passing bad laws in bad faith for use "off-label".

The fact is that if it was for families with children, they would limit the scope to that concern.

It's not about that.

 

[bilby]

Prohibiting divorce to protect children from the harmful consequences of a breakdown in the relationship between parents, is exactly as effective as prohibiting fire extinguishers to protect homes against the harmful consequences of fires.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We can easily resolve the issue of divorce by just simply stopping to allow women to have assets and property. And if the woman still wants a divorce, she can get counseling to help explain to her she is wrong.

Then we can look at voluntary unpaid employment which would help create jobs in America. And then we are going to really be on a roll!