Feminists in Florida have stopped throwing dictionaries around long enough to notice a nefarious bill in front of Florida’s Governor, Rick Scott, in which Senator Tom Lee has put forward the outrageous notion that women are capable adults, and that children are entitled to relationships with both parents following marital breakdown.
Here are some pertinent details of Bill SB 250: judges have to ‘make specific, written findings of fact regarding the relevant factors that justify an award of alimony’. In practical terms, this means that judges can’t award alimony punitively, or based on any statutory provisions, but instead have to make reference to the specific facts that justify why a man (or woman) must continue to support a person to whom they are no longer married.
Feminists claim that ‘[t]his bill, like its predecessors, will economically devastate women in traditional marriages who are divorced’, except that, oops, no it won’t. Those are precisely the women the bill protects. If you are a 65 year old woman in Florida who married straight out of high school and spent most of your adult life raising a family and caring for a home while your husband provided for you, you will be protected under SB 250, which is absolutely fair, IMO. The social contract was considerably different 40 years ago, and it’s very unfair to hold women who married without any market skills to modern standards.
Older women who married under the one-breadwinner social contract will not be affected by SB 250, but modern women sure will be! Oh, rats! The women who will really be affected are those who have market skills, but opted out of the labor force to enjoy their families and a life of relative ease and luxury, something 80% of women aspire to, according to Forbes.
Women like me!
What SB 250 prevents is women like myself from cashing in on a relationship I no longer wish to be part of, and that pisses feminists off something fierce. SB 250 makes it hard, if not impossible, for women to exploit individual men even when they have discarded all obligations and responsibilities to those men. I have made a conscious choice to forgo labor market participation, with the complete support of my husband, and should I choose, at some point in the future to decide I’m not interested in my marriage any more, then I can and should be made to face the consequences of that decision. If I leave my husband because he is in some way abusive, and I can prove that, SB 250 provides for that. What it doesn’t allow is for me to continue to sit on my ass, refuse to get a job, even though I am perfectly capable of getting a decent one, and wallet rape the man I’ve decided to toss out like the weekly garbage. The bill explicitly allows judges to consider whether the spouse requesting alimony is ‘voluntarily unemployed or underemployed’ – all the lady MDs working part time or not at all in Florida? You want a divorce, you better get your ass on the clinic’s roster full time. Why on earth would we expect men to continue to support a spouse who refuses to work at the level she is capable of?
SB 250 does serious damage to a woman’s ability to cruise through life with men footing the bill. It might as well be called the Kanye Foxx Bill:
The bill also contains provisions for equal parenting, and true to form, feminists once again pitch a hissy over the suggestion men and women are equal. When it comes to children, feminists want women to retain their special privileges, and equality is not on the menu. It’s curious that when women are married, feminists demand that men pick up the slack! Do the housework! Take care of the kids! This is a relationship of equals! There is no reason men can’t care for children just as well as women! The idea that women are better care-givers for children is sexist! It’s patriarchy!
But the minute divorce is on the horizon, all of a sudden men are not capable of running a household or doing the laundry or taking care of their own children or signing school forms or getting Suzy to soccer practice and Steven to the dentist. Equality evaporates like a plate of cupcakes at Lindy West’s house.
Gosh, feminists, what happened to that dictionary you were waving around 10 seconds ago?
When it comes to divorce, alimony and custody, feminists make it absolutely clear that they hate men, and are not interested in equality. This is modern feminism. According to the National Organization of Women (who are opposing the bill in Florida), men only want equal custody of their children to indulge in the pleasures of controlling and abusing their former wives. Not because they love their children. Because they want to abuse and control a woman they no longer wish to be married to. It’s really, really fucking sick. They will throw generations of children under the bus to gratify their own, bitter hatred of men. Are some men abusers who sue for custody to hurt their spouses? Sure. There are women who do the exact same thing. They are both in the minority. Most mothers and fathers love their children, and want the best for them. Guess what that is?
Feminists hate men, and will hurt children to indulge in that hate.
No wonder we’re seeing articles like this one in the Spectator:
Here’s the best quote:
…are feminists exaggerating ridiculously — spending so much time dwelling on their own vaginas that they fail to use their brains?
Yes. Yes they are. But it’s more than just narcissism. It’s more than just self-absorption. It’s more than just an utter inability to think about anyone other than themselves. Opposition to equal parenting is the most perfect expression of it: feminism hates men, and will do anything, including hurting children, to engage in that hatred.
Certainly loathing can spring from positive feelings, such as romantic love (in the guise of a former partner or perceived rival). But love seems to deactivate areas traditionally associated with judgment, whereas hatred activates areas in the frontal cortex that may be involved in evaluating another person and predicting their behavior.
Hatred arises from evaluating another person and predicting their behavior. Here’s my theory: feminists hate men because when it comes to predicting men’s behaviour, feminists reach the obvious conclusion that men do not, and never will, love them. But rather than examine what part of their behavior is causing men to hate and revile them, they simply ramp up the hate, hoping this will make men, somehow, love them? The Patriarchy is feminism’s explicit longing for the love of men. It’s kind of sad, really. Feminists like Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte – what they all really wanted/want is to have a man who loves them. Even when married, or involved in relationships with men, feminists know their behavior is gross, and will eventually result in those men leaving them.
So they double down, and hate them more.
I don’t think there is a whole lot we can do about this, but it does lead me to have some compassion for feminists. The love of a man is a pretty special thing. But love between adults is never unconditional. That’s silly. It can be destroyed, and rather easily. I can’t imagine an easier way to destroy a man’s love than to take his children, and his money, and then accuse him of oppressing you.
Feminism, and all forms of hate: Just say no.
That seems to be the trend. Thank god.
Lots of love,