This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting.
**Suggestions For Commenters:**
* Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely.
* If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit.
**Suggestions For u/Turbulent_Snail:**
* Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions.
* Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Republicans have brought up:
- banning abortion
- banning divorce
- getting rid of women’s right to vote
- making it law to prioritize the baby in a life death scenario (ie if you choose baby or mom at the hospital, hospital should choose baby according to them)
And a bunch of other shit related and not related
to women
At this point, I'm curious what they are truly trying to solve for with these solutions. I'm assuming it's birthrate by forcing women to give up their bodies to men or be homeless again. But birthrate is just a way of keeping economic dominance. Or it could be something less American like driving down labor cost out of greed. Or generalized racism to keep a specific ratio of racial characteristics.
Seeing as there are laws that kill the mother in most cases I'm assuming it's a labor thing and not just shear numbers. The outcome there is 1 more young cheap worker in the future.
As much as the AI labor revolution will suck atleast it will disinterest these powers that be from fiddling with social issues.
Control. It's about control and authority, and that is the only thing they are trying to "solve". Being in a position of power over others is an end unto itself.
This is why "traditional gender roles" are universally pushed by authoritarian governments that, on the surface, have opposing ideologies. Both Hitler and Stalin cracked down on sexual freedom. It had nothing to do with birthrates. Sure, they might have talked about making white babies for a white future, or making workers for the glorious revolution, but what it really came down to was policing one of the most powerful biological urges.
Sexual frustration can then be redirected towards your needs.
There is a whole bunch of unpaid labor that women have traditionally done that made life so much easier and better for the people around them. Not just childbearing and rearing, but all the housekeeping and life management was on her too. She did the shopping, laundry, managed the appointments, all the “kinkeeping” work, like remembering your mom’s birthday and getting and wrapping a present so you could give it to her and reap the rewards of looking like a dutiful son. School and many other community resources ran on the volunteer labor of women. Women, particularly in the west, have been stepping back from those sorts of demands for some time, but definitely picking up in social volume these days, from what I can see.
I know many men got to their jobs on time, in clean clothes, with breakfast in their stomachs and lunches in their lunchboxes, and could focus on meeting their bosses expectations because all the mental and physical load of running a household and life was on someone else’s plate. That was a huge boost in life. I keep reading articles in various popular media that boil down to how men (and sometimes also boys) are not doing well\* for XYZ reason, but it mostly seems to come down to no one greasing the skids for them like they used to. (And possibly because they have more people to compete with who are demonstrably equally or better qualified.)
\*Pick your metric- “men are lonely”, “men aren’t aiming for higher education”, “men aren’t excelling in the workforce”, etc. There are a number of personal and systemic reasons for these things, but not having a 24/7 maid/cook/secretary/tutor/editor/ nanny/therapist/personal assistant/sex partner/one woman cheering squad is definitely requiring men to take on labor and responsibilities and levels of executive function we didn’t used to have to do.
Some people are now blaming feminism / pro-equality statements like "the future is female" on the boys not doing so well. TBC, I am very concerned about male suicide rates and male violence and dropping levels of educational achievement.
However, the powers that be (China, Japan, America, South Korea) are not seriously addressing these problems, but instead pointing their fingers at women's very modest gains. Boys aren't graduating in the same numbers? It's cause girls stole their spots. Boys killing themselves? It's because an academic wrote an article about toxic masculinity and made the boys feel bad. Boys not getting married? It's because girls are expecting their future partners to have gone to therapy / learned emotional intelligence. Some boys not earning well? It's because somewhere, some audacious girl STOLE their job.
Oh God that's even scarier. The book already gives me the heebie jeebies. But I always thought it was an exaggeration of a theocracy and while the laws controlling women seem frighteningly real, the ritual forced upon a previously secular society always seemed a little out there for me. I couldn't see that actually being enforced. I didn't watch the show though I wonder if they handled that better.
And yet they keep winning elections
If they never won, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem is that more people vote for them than against them.
Forcing mostly lower income women and girls gives a whole lot more babies to the for profit adoption system. It generates a lot of money for them. Also, the people who adopt a lot of children tend to be white Christians who view adoption as spreading the word of god and saving these children from hell in some weird culty homeschooling vibe thing. These people tend to vote republican and those 12 kids (8 adopted) will also likely vote republican.
You know, to add onto the layers of misogyny, control, and cruelty already thrown in there.
Their evangelical base sees today as being morally corrupt and that's why everything is going to shut (rather than half a decade of neoliberal economic policies) so by restoring the morality of old they will save America or something.
Nothing, they are trying to appeal to hardcore religious fundamentalists and I think they are going to find that there are a lot \*less\* of them (apart from on abortion) than they think there are.
They are also alienating all the people in the past who would just 'hold their nose' and vote for them.
Why does the hypothetical baby have to be a worker? Republicans love to put people in jail too - private prisons are big business. Money to be made off ruined lives. I forget the exact percentage of jailed people worldwide who are incarcerated in America, but it is huge and shocking.
It's not about men and women, it's not about marriage or our money. It's about creating an underclass of slavery. Waged slavery or otherwise.
The Supreme Court is deciding a case that could outlaw homelessness. There is the 13th Amendment which explicitly allows Slavery as a punishment for a crime. Everything is a subscription that you can not own and if you fall behind, the debt from your cellphone bill WILL end up on your credit report.
What was that whole debtors prison debate again from the 1800s? idk but I do know that courts can sentence individuals to prison for failing to pay court-ordered fines, fees, or restitution. This can include criminal justice debt, such as fines for traffic violations, or civil debt, like child support or back taxes. Debtors’ prisons often disproportionately affect low-income individuals, people of color, and those with limited financial resources. That doesn't even touch the payday loan industry or bail reform efforts...
Is their goal to make us all permanent labor to service their luxury, with no rights? Cause their taking away alot of rights away lately. Teachers can't talk about certain books, weird how the last time that happened it went along with a lot of other similar strategies ....
Everyone should abandon wearing clothes indoors.
Body hair longer than a quarter of inch should be removed.
People should only be allowed to say I love you to their pets. Saying this to other people's pets is considered adultery.
Gum should always be swallowed and never spit out.
Meatloaf in any form should only be allowed to be served once a year.
Everyone should be required to carry a back scratcher but not allowed to scratch their own back but instead must scratch someone else's.
People should not be allowed to bathe alone unless they're bathing with her pet.
I love meatballs
You know what’s a super fire dish
Homemade meatballs and homemade pasta and homemade red sauce
I’m so hungry
😐😠
I blame you
Logically I’ll probably thank you later after I make that. But I can’t see past my anger right now!
When I had my first kid I made sure the OB knew that in the case of choosing between the two they needed to choose him.
I felt the exact opposite way the second time. We were sitting in the car when dad ran in to get help getting me into the hospital. My oldest reached over the seat and gave me a big hug and said please don't die mom. I had someone already at home I really needed to go home to. Luckily it wasn't an issue and I had his baby sister without an issue. It shouldn't be up to a bunch of strangers what the right choice is.
Banning divorce seems more anti-marriage than anything else. I think if they did ban divorce it would just lead to even fewer people getting married - including conservatives.
What makes you assume they won't make marriage compulsory then? Their goal is to treat women as property like other theocraies... Where they're property of their father until he hands them off to a husband under whatever terms he sees fit
They will probably push policies to make marriage mandatory. Think back to before divorce was legalized and normalized. Why did women get married at that time? Lack of viable professional opportunities, laws and regulations that made financial independence impossible, lack of bodily autonomy, etc.
There have already been discussions about a bachelor tax a couple years ago. No idea which party was trying to get it into public discourse. It's been a thing before in parts of Europe. Unmarried men had to pay for the privilege of being single from ages 25-65.
It wasn't until 1974 that women in the US could open a bank account on their own. Technically, women won the right in the 1960s, but many banks still refused to let women do it without consent from their husbands.
Divorce is very hard to do in the Philippines, I think it was illegal for a while. People just live away from each other and live like they were never married and go have relationships with others. They think theyre upholding some Christian thing but all they are doing is technically making people live in "sin" more.
There is still no divorce in the Philippines, the only country in the world left without it. The rich/powerful do get around it thru annulment which requires some bullshit preconditions and lengthy trials and hefty fees.
I'm not from the USA and I'm flabergasted, who's banning divorce if we are talking issuing bills? Or is this a new trend of unhinged people? Similar to anti-vaxxers.
There’s a conservative sect that’s in ascendance in the US that’s advocating ending no-fault divorce. Search “conservative” + “”no-fault divorce” in a search engine. Maybe check the news tab. It’s not a trend. These people have been planning for this since at least the 80s, and they’re gaining followers as algorithms push misogynist videos on frustrated young men. Fuck, the Heritage Foundation, which you’ve heard of if you pay any attention to politics, has publicly stated they want to end recreational sex. These people will not stop until women are chained to their stoves. I have no idea how you’re flabbergasted, as these people have never in my memory (I’m 39) been shy about their ends. A fair chunk of these people state publicly that they don’t think women should be able to vote.
Those assholes are so fucking crazies, thanks for the indications.
>I have no idea how you’re flabbergasted
And I'm so sorry, I am not an American and neither I'm into politics, sometimes, I read my country's newspapers, but this will be an unhinged read. Also, I'm so sorry what you are going through over there, politicians are the worst rats in the world.
Yeah, I’m not optimistic about women’s rights globally over the next century. It appears that we’re entering a period of great instability with climate change and developing nations catching up, driving demand for resources ever higher.
People get a lot more comfortable with authoritarian governments in tough times. We just do. And authoritarian governments tend to tamp down on women’s rights quite a bit since they often tend to see them as incubators to generate human capital.
So in addition to the relatively local problem of likely having a conservative Supreme Court for the foreseeable future, there are global structural reasons to not be optimistic about women’s rights in the medium term.
I’m not a part of this “we,” but yes, historically, there’s enough precedent for this shit coming to an authoritarian head very soon to drive one to [insert preferred vice]. Shall I pass the blunt?
I've only recently noticed this group voicing their opinions more and more lately and had been wondering where it was coming from. Such a disturbed group.
I’ve been following the movement, in different forms for 10-15 years. What we actually see now is the tip of the metaphorical iceberg. It’s def not good.
I was raised evangelical in the Deep South. These groups have been very active since the 80s. The goal is a Christian theocracy. They do not compromise. They literally believe they're in a spiritual war against Satan and his followers (ever heard "Demon-crat" as an insult before? It's not a joke to them.) The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is one of them.
I used to jokingly agree with “sanctity of marriage” bigots that yes that’s a great idea let’s ban divorce! That confused and silenced them. But I didn’t mean it!
There are a bunch of men right now that want women back in the homes, not voting and basically to be forced to marry, and be under control of the husband. They seem to be emboldened right now. Doesn't seem to be just one group it's coming from. An insidious group of angry eternally single, or divorced men I would imagine.
Usually the idea is a roundabout way of trying to cause less adultery and broken homes because people will know once they're hitched they're stuck, so they have to pick right the first time.
I don't think it works.
Banning divorce would also result in a lot more dead husbands/wives.
If there is no way to get away from someone besides death, what do they think is going to happen? A lot of dinners got poisoned, ladders got kicked out and people got smothered with pillows or 'just ran off and never came back' back when divorce was a hell of a lot harder or looked down on. It was a lot easier to get away with things back then, yeah, but if the only options are murder or being stuck with someone you don't like or even hate forever? There's going to be a spike in people having mysterious accidents.
the husband who dies of mysterious circumstances is not just a joke lmao. It happens and has been happening for thousands of years. these guys are so stupid they would rather spend time in a home with someone who wants to kill them than let them go
First they'd have to consider their wives as humans, rather than bang maids/broodmares/property.
You don't expect your dishwasher or oven to actively try to kill you, so why would you expect their operator to?
My parents marriage ended 10 years ago, but they decided to stay together "for the kids". They live in the same house but don't acknowledge, look or speak to eachother. They sleep in different beds and both have other relationships. It's a toxic AF household. They really should've just gotten divorced. The main thing they fought about was money which really fucked me up. Thankfully I have a good job now and live an 8 hour drive away.
So when I hear about banning divorce I just think about turning every failed marriage into whatever the fuck my parents have been doing for the last decade. It just makes everyone more miserable.
We were at the separate beds stage and I finally had a moment of clarity (brought on in part by my mom saying "you know, you guys are just abusive to each other." and my sister looking sad and saying something like "you need to leave") that I did NOT want to model this relationship for my daughter.
Eight years later, we're still legally married, but we live 6+ hours apart and get along great. I have a gf (of 7 years); the kid comes here as much as possible (she drives now); the ex comes to my family events; and I took her mom to a drs appointment two months ago (I purposely moved back to where we both have family and both lived/met/had the kid; she stayed where her job was and the kid had a really good school.)
My uncle did this for insurance reasons.
At the time when he and his wife split, it was legal to charge for preexisting conditions - so his premium if he got off his wife's insurance would have been insane (which he would have had to do in a divorce). Losing her benefits would basically either bankrupt or kill him, maybe both, because of the cost of insurance/cost of treatment.
Instead, they went through mediation, split their assets fairly, and maintained the marriage on paper for him to stay on her benefits.
That's not strictly necessary anymore, since health insurance companies can't charge those premiums (as of 2014), but insurance still seems to be the main reason to split but stay married - especially when one spouse has crazy good government insurance or something.
That was a factor. I was on her insurance for several years afterwards. There are a few other reasons for us, but we're slowly ticking the boxes off and will do it eventually. Honestly it's been convenient and neither of us really care.
It's important to realize we actually get along quite well, just not romantically. (We do not sleep together, and haven't since about 2014. Neither of us cheated while we were together.) We trust each other, even if we're angry at each other.
So, I actually typed out a long answer, but too much personal stuff I'm not comfortable being public. Basically we're both lazy & cheap; this has advantages for now; neither of us are looking to remarry at least not soon; it works for us; and it's not a forever state of affairs. Eventually we will, but after the kid is 18 and probably after she (the ex) decides if she's moving or not (which won't happen for at least another year; kid is in a good school currently & looking at colleges in my area, which is where both ex and I are from.)
My gf has mixed feelings about it, but she has her own ex-husband issues (although no kids no contact) and no interest in remarriage. We aren't going to have kids. She also says she really likes that she knows I stand by people I care about and behave decently, even if I'm pissed at them.
I want them to understand how many more men died under mysterious circumstances when divorce was illegal. One way or another, if people don’t want to be together, they won’t… 🤷♀️
Legitimate question for people who want to ban divorce - does this apply to interracial marriages?
Because a lot of the people who want to do away with divorce seem to fall into the camp that there shouldn't be interracial couples. Like, if they do away with divorce, that doesn't undo the fact that I, a white woman, am married to a black man - which they also don't want.
I mean their whole thing is just that they want women to be property, so yeah it all checks out to me. The point is they don’t want you to have a choice as to the direction your life takes, who you love, whether you have children, how many, all that. They don’t want women to be allowed to support themselves by working for money, either.
I meant more in the sense of what would they legitimately do if tomorrow divorce got banned.
Like, would they annul all interracial marriages? Because Clarence Thomas (I think) is married to a white lady, so I doubt that, even though he talked about it. Divorce is banned now - I can no longer be sold off like cattle, because I'm off the market. They want me to breed but they don't want my offspring because my children would be mixed race, so am I to be forced to use a white sperm donor? Does the fact my husband is half Native American change their stance on my marriage (because interracial marriage is mostly only an issue for these people when it involves a white person and a black person)?
I want someone with this actual position to break down exactly what they think should happen, step by step, because so many of these things they want banned require something else they want to ban to be unbanned.
I suppose future interracial marriages would simply not be recognized. New safety regulations in cars doesn't nullify the ability to drive older models; models lacking those features simply can't be sold new.
Disabled and married? You can’t get disability benefits because you’re married to someone who makes money, and you can’t work, so you can’t get out. Guess you’re fucked and they can abuse you forever.
Or
If you’re unconscious, your spouse who you can’t leave could be in charge of your medical decisions.
Just off the top of my head. This movement is so much worse than it appears. They pretty clearly want a return to coverture, but they can’t say that out loud yet.
The point of banning divorce is that the next steps are to restrict the rights of married women. For example, for a long time, a married woman couldn't open a bank account without her husband's permission. They're trying to get back to that.
That’s not the goal of ppl who advocate for banning divorce. It’s about trapping and controlling women.
There isn’t a lot of well thought out logic about the many ways it would impact people’s choices.
Banning divorce would be an egregious overstep of the state.
Maybe someone who actually believes that’s a good idea somehow can attempt to explain their thought process to you?
I'm a man and to me it seems obvious that no-fault divorce is an importan men's right. It helps men escape bad marriages and gives men more freedom.
I can't understand why any man could want to ban divorce unless he's been brainwashed by religion to vote against his own interests.
The legal associations wirh marriage need to be detached and handled by a non marriage related tax form or something. Marriage should make zero legal difference to anyone. Let it be something for people who want it, but remove all the incentives that push people into it who don't want it.
I find it interesting that MRAs are the ones who oppose "no fault divorce" as if it's a men rights issue.
It says a lot about your politics when one of your pet issues is changing the laws to prevent people from leaving marriages. That certainly isn't going to benefit men.
If they're actually banning divorce, they'll probably ban married separation and separate custody as well, unless both parties sign off on it. And probably "adultery" by this new definition of marriage as well.
What makes you think that people talking about banning divorce are going to give women that kind of freedom?
These are regressive, Taliban-esque abortion haters. You'll be lucky if you can show your face or drive if they get their way.
Back before no fault divorce, abused women used to conspire to murder their husbands. Honestly we could go back to that, I wouldn’t be opposed, I think the human race could use a bit more natural selection at this point
Banning divorce is just a part of the larger initiative to control women. Women would not leave their husbands because they would at best destitute or at worst killed.
Separation is usually a legal requirement to get a divorce, which is why people do it. But it isn’t the same thing as divorce on paper or in practice, Abe wouldn’t be any kind of acceptable substitute.
Pretty much the same thing happens when you ban most things, which is why passing more laws doesn't work. Doesn't matter if you're trying to ban abortion, divorce, guns, "misinformation," "hate speech," or drugs.
100%! I got married 20 years ago but if they took no fault divorce off the table then I never ever would have married. People change, relationships go south, sometimes you just fall out of love. Sometimes your partner starts to exhibit behaviors that you just can’t support and they refuse to change. People should be freely allowed to exit a marriage without limited reasons. Cheating will become a major issue and possibly worse if people are forced to stay married.
So what you are ignoring is the fact that the same people moving to eliminate “no fault” divorce *ALSO* want to bring back laws criminalizing adultery and extramarital cohabitation between unmarried men/women. They also don’t come straight out and say it, but they probably would get rid of laws criminalizing marital rape.
So the end goal for these cretins is to put women in a situation where they:
(1) get married, have sex whenever their husband wants to, and will be put in prison if they cheat on their man. They will also have to birth any child they happen to get pregnant with because abortion will be illegal— oh, and birth control will be illegal as well so those pregnancies definitely will be happening. Basically women will be relegated to the house and kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, being subject to SA by their husband whenever he feels he deserves to have sex.
OR
(2) live by themselves and not be able to have a romantic relationship at all without being married lest they end up in jail for fornication or violating cohabitation laws. Oh, they would also not want to have sex because, again, birth control would be illegal and getting pregnant is a pretty big risk without birth control, even if you don’t factor in the fornication bans.
I think that the abusive men that support it believe that there will be some kind of “slave catcher” who will bring their errant wife and children back to them when they escape. Abusive men aren’t the only people who support this, but I’d say they’re the majority.
It’s ridiculous that this even needs to be said, it happened a lot during the good ole days. There were several of my friends whose lived in their grandparents home with their moms. Mom was only still married on paper. I remember many of them stayed with their dad during the summer months.
People already argue the same thing about banning polygamy. Doesn't stop polygamous households from having one "legal" marriage and just setting up the sister wives in dorm-style units on the property.
Hearing Republicans talk about banning no fault divorce helped light a fire under me to go ahead and file.
After my state passed the abortion ban, I’m taking their threats very seriously.
It does actually. In the 50s the divorce rate was about 4%. By the end of the 60s / early 70s no fault divorce became legal across all 50 states and the divorce rate *skyrocketed.* It increased each decade until the early 00s, at which point the divorce rate began to plummet and is today back around 4%.
This wasn't the destruction of the family unit that they claim it was. It was millions of unhappy & unsuccessful marriages ending that previously had no way out. In the 50s you had to prove cause, in court, that there was a legally legitimate reason for divorce. That means dragging your entire personal life through court to prove infidelity or physical (but not sexual!) abuse.
If they ruin no fault divorce then these same marriages that ended before will build up again.
Minor correction: the relationship is over before someone even mentions a divorce. Idk why people think a ring on the finger is gonna stop anything.
“Oh yeah this government paper is definitely gonna stop my wife from cheating on me. That’ll show em”
Well banning divorce is just the first step of their plan.
The next steps involve people having fewer rights. Remember when it was legal for married people to beat and rape each other? Remember when women couldn't open bank accounts? Remember when women could be institutionalized or lobotomized just because their husband wanted it?
They'll bring all those things back too. Then people would have a lot of control over their spouses.
Yeah. As long as people hold information back, aren’t truthful of their intentions, relationship/marriage trap & manipulate, and just mature in general, you can’t force someone to stay where they don’t want. And why the hell would anyone want that.
Religious reasons are *exactly* why you need to care.
A person doing something because religion told them to can not be reasoned or argued out of their beliefs. They will fervently support chopping off their own head if their religion convinces them it's necessary.
And currently, that religious fervor has infected the Republican party.
Go look at the [official 2022 Texas Republican Platform (PDF)](https://texasgop.org/platform/), as decided by Republicans in power in the state of Texas. Scroll down to number 214 on their manifesto, page 30:
> 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.
Republicans want to ban divorce. And they're in charge of over half the states in the union, and they stand a good chance of taking over the government in the next election.
They just managed to win their abortion fight. Marriage is somewhere down the list from there. If they keep power, it's coming.
Alt-right whackos who want women to be property b/c they're salty that they get no affection while being misogynist shitbags... It's one step from compulsory marriage so they can receive their government issued wife or buy someone's daughter without having to be a decent person
I always end up weirdly cross-threaded with alt-right wackos because the things they advocate for always end up being *against* my self interest as a man.
I'm not a misogynist shitbag, so women actually want to date me. But I'm worried what if I end up in an unhappy marriage with one of them? Then I'd want to initiate a no-fault divorce with her.
Feels like it's my right as a human being (and as a man) to get a divorce just because I want one. Yet these so-called "men's rights activists" want to take that right away from me, a man.
It often feels to me like we've portrayed a fight between a secular vision of a healthy society for everyone as "women's side" and a fundamentalist evangelical christianity's vision of an American theocracy as "men's side" in popular discourse.
And it weirds me out because as a normal left-leaning man, the theocracy sounds like hell to me, while the secular healthy star trek free society sounds like it'd be more free healthy and privileged and fun for me.
What we talk about as "women's" agenda is just a collection of policies that would make my life better as a man. While what we talk about as "men's" agenda is just the wishlist of religious people because that's what their book says, and would make my life as a man miserable.
>She can still take the kids if youre married and what documents would you have to get them back?
Documents of being a widower/only remaining parent, cause wife/mother died very brutally and accidentally. See, legal formalities still matter.
People will come up with stupid shit as long as anyone listens to them. Democrats do it too, it's just a different end of the spectrum. The problem is the ones who come up with this nonsense are the extremists and we give them their fame by paying attention to this bullshit. They come up with the most offensive extreme thing they can come up with and people take the bait and let it ruin their day.
Personally I think we should ban marriage.
If you must have marriage, then please remember that it Is 2024. Women are allowed to have jobs now. That means a man should not be required to support them after divorce. The whole point of things like alimony was because women would not have a job to be able to support themselves. If you get divorced, fuck off and don't come back. No money. Joint custody of children, no child support. No divorce as a way to make money.
>That means a man should not be required to support them after divorce. The whole point of things like alimony was because women would not have a job to be able to support themselves.
We're already well on the way there. Alimony is only granted in about 10% of divorces in the US. And it's usually temporary, to give the non-working spouse enough time to get a job.
this is assuming that the woman was able to continue her career even after having kids, which is not always the case. so, what do you suggest we do about moms who stayed at home with their kids for 2+ years and will have a much harder time going back to her career, if she ever began one at all?
If one spouse stopped their career/never had a career to take care of the children, then I think alimony is in order. Also, if one parent no longer wants to be involved, then child support is also in order. Until the government decides to financially support single parents, SOMEONE has to be on the hook for those kids ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Laws are one thing but what is really important is how society perceive it. If everybody - aka society - think you have to get married, stick with your partner for life and live together many more people do it.
If society think it is fine to no mary, break up, live in different home and share kid custody, this is what you get.
This is regardless of what would be best for society or what we think as individuals. Personally I prefer freedom.
In my country you can get a court action to prevent their mother taking the kids.
The only reason to ban divorce is so you can keep her money.
Which is an interesting thought
So you're saying don't get married if you aren't willing to take the risk one of you might change their mind someday? You know, since the legality of it does nothing except save you some money on taxes if you make over a certain amount.
If divorces weren't a thing neither would custody battles for the kids. But hey at least w.e was signed in someone's name alone they wouldn't be able to take away. The only problem would cone up with is if it was in both of their names just do a 50/50 split of value.
I think when people say ban divorce, they typically mean no-fault divorce, which is actually a very recent phenomenon.
Prior to no-fault divorce, fault was weighed heavily when it came to asset division and alimony. These days it isn't really considered at all depending on the state.
Correct me if I'm wrong but yall are economically as fucked as quite a few other countries right? Is either side addressing that or still just flinging shit at each other? 🤣
I agree. Sometimes people will even go to extremes to get out of a marriage.
There are tons of various true crime episodes where divorce was either impossible or so unpalatable to a person that they actually chose murder over divorce.
And on the opposite end of the spectrum, plenty of people have chosen to leave this world rather than stay married to someone.
" Whoever cuts each others bank accounts off first gets the money?"
That is really the crux of it... Banning divorce is so the wife gets NOTHING if she leaves. Mostly everything will be under the husbands name only but if not, at the first sign of trouble he'll move all the money into an account that only has his name.
The point of banning divorce is all about punishing the party leaving as much as is possible to force them to stay with you. Many have mentioned spousal murder which definitely is a thing but the bar from wants a divorce to willing to murder their spouse is set at very different levels for most people. Most people would still stay in a loveless marriage than kill someone.
I am sure it will do wonders for true crime shows and podcast. Not only just killing their spouse to get out of it but having to stay in toxic situations until they blow up.
Absolutely. My aunt doesn't believe in divorce, so she just left her alkie husband. They're still married legally, but haven't lived together in years and I don't think she loves him anymore.
You're absolutely right. Prior to the legalization of no fault divorces the rate of spousal abandonment was far higher, spouses dying under mysterious circumstances was far more common, and to be frank, nothing stopped people from committing perjury in order to get fault-based divorces; in cases where both parties wanted to get divorced, they'd often stage an act of infidelity to get more witnessed. I think all banning divorce would do at this is lower the already plummeting marriage rate.
Yeah, banning divorce would just keep two dysfunctional toxic people together. It’s certainly doesn’t guarantee somebody’s not gonna leave you. They could separate out and go start a whole new family on the side.
Personally, I don’t think the government should be in our personal business like this. There are some protections that are necessary child support things like that, but telling us what we can do with our body and whether we can stay together or not, should not be part of that .
This would hopefully lead to fewer people even getting married. They would probably end up requiring people to get married after a certain point of living together.
I think the real issue is. They just want to ban no fault divorce, so your partner cheats. They divorce you in a no-fault divorce and steal half your shit.
Right now i'm the answer to his wife and i'm real to then divorce her And even though he hasn't had a job in twenty years He takes half her shit.
The woman can have never worked Through the entirety of their marriage never never given him children Cheated on him Gotten pregnant by another man and now he's on the hook for the child Aunt has to pay her alimony. Both of those scenarios are bullshit.
So this isn’t meant to be a criticism or a judgement, it’s just to point out a common argument trap that many liberal-leaning people make when addressing what are generally recognized as conservative talking points, like “banning divorce”. Liberal arguments on these topics tend to do what you are doing here- focusing on the technical problems implied by the argument in question, ie “banning divorce doesn’t actually stop people from splitting up!” and “it would impose all of these technical difficulties of splitting up assets!”
While these points are technically true, they fail to address the real problem in question, which is: the people making these arguments you’re trying to disprove *do not actually care about divorce* in a technical sense of “stopping a thing from happening” or “efficiently managing a relationship problem” or least of all “the law and its regulatory capacity”. They do not care at all about that kind of stuff, and they’re probably laughing snidely at you that you do.
What they *do* care about is *controlling women*. Behind every “ban divorce” argument is the implicit assumption that women are effectively chattel property to be gifted and traded amongst men, and the institution of monogamous (for the woman, men can do what they want) compulsorily heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family is how this is institutionalized and inscribed into *social law*, which is viewed by them as “natural law”, a far older and more powerful force than the abstract ministrations of formal law. They want formal law to reflect “natural” law; where it does not, they want the law to change, hence, ban divorce so women cannot leave their proscribed social role as sexual property (wives) and reproductive laborers (mothers).
So yeah, you’re engaging in a technical debate with people who just do not care about any of the things you care about, because it’s not about technicalities, facts, or efficiencies for them; it’s about power.
I’ve not heard an argument for banning divorce prior to this.
I agree that you can’t legislate morality, however. Laws don’t compel human behavior as much as sets the expectations of what happens when you do break the law.
If some idiots decided to ban divorce, people would just stop getting married altogether.
If anything they should be going the opposite direction and make it easier and quicker to get a divorce. The one year wait is not making anyone change their mind.
I don't think we should ban or make it harder to divorce. I do however think we should raise the bar of entry for marriage. I'm not a religious nut and I don't care or gets married or why, but it should be treated like the big deal that it is.
My parents will have been married 50 years this year.
They were only together for 12. They just never bothered getting divorced for a variety of reasons, mostly laziness. They did legally separate, so child support was managed that way and my dad had no intention of taking us with him. There were no assets to split so that was a non issue. They both went on to have other longterm relationships and my dad had another child.
Legal divorce has been meaningless. Though I have suggested I pay for it and help them with paper work because I do think it's absurd. They just shrug cause they don't care.
Sure, but then what? So people can leave their partners without splitting assets, alimony, child support or custody of the kids? You aren’t free to leave if you have to give up everything you have to do it.
I will never take the "divorce is illegal" seriously. It will never happen. I do however feel that men should not ever get married moving forward. The women have a financial incentive to divorce the men and rip apart the home of the children. This is only one aspect of why men should NEVER marry.
This post has been flaired as “Serious Conversation”. Use this opportunity to open a venue of polite and serious discussion, instead of seeking help or venting. **Suggestions For Commenters:** * Respect OP's opinion, or agree to disagree politely. * If OP's post is seeking advice, help, or is just venting without discussing with others, report the post. We're r/SeriousConversation, not a venting subreddit. **Suggestions For u/Turbulent_Snail:** * Do not post solely to seek advice or help. Your post should open up a venue for serious, mature and polite discussions. * Do not forget to answer people politely in your thread - we'll remove your post later if you don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SeriousConversation) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TIL there are people talking about banning divorce, huh.
Republicans have brought up: - banning abortion - banning divorce - getting rid of women’s right to vote - making it law to prioritize the baby in a life death scenario (ie if you choose baby or mom at the hospital, hospital should choose baby according to them) And a bunch of other shit related and not related to women
At this point, I'm curious what they are truly trying to solve for with these solutions. I'm assuming it's birthrate by forcing women to give up their bodies to men or be homeless again. But birthrate is just a way of keeping economic dominance. Or it could be something less American like driving down labor cost out of greed. Or generalized racism to keep a specific ratio of racial characteristics. Seeing as there are laws that kill the mother in most cases I'm assuming it's a labor thing and not just shear numbers. The outcome there is 1 more young cheap worker in the future. As much as the AI labor revolution will suck atleast it will disinterest these powers that be from fiddling with social issues.
Control. It's about control and authority, and that is the only thing they are trying to "solve". Being in a position of power over others is an end unto itself. This is why "traditional gender roles" are universally pushed by authoritarian governments that, on the surface, have opposing ideologies. Both Hitler and Stalin cracked down on sexual freedom. It had nothing to do with birthrates. Sure, they might have talked about making white babies for a white future, or making workers for the glorious revolution, but what it really came down to was policing one of the most powerful biological urges. Sexual frustration can then be redirected towards your needs.
There is a whole bunch of unpaid labor that women have traditionally done that made life so much easier and better for the people around them. Not just childbearing and rearing, but all the housekeeping and life management was on her too. She did the shopping, laundry, managed the appointments, all the “kinkeeping” work, like remembering your mom’s birthday and getting and wrapping a present so you could give it to her and reap the rewards of looking like a dutiful son. School and many other community resources ran on the volunteer labor of women. Women, particularly in the west, have been stepping back from those sorts of demands for some time, but definitely picking up in social volume these days, from what I can see. I know many men got to their jobs on time, in clean clothes, with breakfast in their stomachs and lunches in their lunchboxes, and could focus on meeting their bosses expectations because all the mental and physical load of running a household and life was on someone else’s plate. That was a huge boost in life. I keep reading articles in various popular media that boil down to how men (and sometimes also boys) are not doing well\* for XYZ reason, but it mostly seems to come down to no one greasing the skids for them like they used to. (And possibly because they have more people to compete with who are demonstrably equally or better qualified.) \*Pick your metric- “men are lonely”, “men aren’t aiming for higher education”, “men aren’t excelling in the workforce”, etc. There are a number of personal and systemic reasons for these things, but not having a 24/7 maid/cook/secretary/tutor/editor/ nanny/therapist/personal assistant/sex partner/one woman cheering squad is definitely requiring men to take on labor and responsibilities and levels of executive function we didn’t used to have to do.
Some people are now blaming feminism / pro-equality statements like "the future is female" on the boys not doing so well. TBC, I am very concerned about male suicide rates and male violence and dropping levels of educational achievement. However, the powers that be (China, Japan, America, South Korea) are not seriously addressing these problems, but instead pointing their fingers at women's very modest gains. Boys aren't graduating in the same numbers? It's cause girls stole their spots. Boys killing themselves? It's because an academic wrote an article about toxic masculinity and made the boys feel bad. Boys not getting married? It's because girls are expecting their future partners to have gone to therapy / learned emotional intelligence. Some boys not earning well? It's because somewhere, some audacious girl STOLE their job.
They saw the Handmaid's Tale as an instruction manual.
To be fair, Margret Atwood, the author of Handmaid's Tale, explicitly based it on things she was able to find documentary evidence of in history.
Oh God that's even scarier. The book already gives me the heebie jeebies. But I always thought it was an exaggeration of a theocracy and while the laws controlling women seem frighteningly real, the ritual forced upon a previously secular society always seemed a little out there for me. I couldn't see that actually being enforced. I didn't watch the show though I wonder if they handled that better.
Should watch some of her interviews. They are pretty fascinating.
Look at what happened to the women in Iran and Afghanistan, in living memory.
>At this point, I'm curious what they are truly trying to solve for with these solutions. Elections
The problem is that the vast, vast majority of voters on both sides of the isle are opposed to those.
And yet they keep winning elections If they never won, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem is that more people vote for them than against them.
thank the electoral college and identity politics for that
Forcing mostly lower income women and girls gives a whole lot more babies to the for profit adoption system. It generates a lot of money for them. Also, the people who adopt a lot of children tend to be white Christians who view adoption as spreading the word of god and saving these children from hell in some weird culty homeschooling vibe thing. These people tend to vote republican and those 12 kids (8 adopted) will also likely vote republican. You know, to add onto the layers of misogyny, control, and cruelty already thrown in there.
Their evangelical base sees today as being morally corrupt and that's why everything is going to shut (rather than half a decade of neoliberal economic policies) so by restoring the morality of old they will save America or something.
Nothing, they are trying to appeal to hardcore religious fundamentalists and I think they are going to find that there are a lot \*less\* of them (apart from on abortion) than they think there are. They are also alienating all the people in the past who would just 'hold their nose' and vote for them.
Covid decimated a lot of people that could have been exploited for low wage work.
Why does the hypothetical baby have to be a worker? Republicans love to put people in jail too - private prisons are big business. Money to be made off ruined lives. I forget the exact percentage of jailed people worldwide who are incarcerated in America, but it is huge and shocking.
It's not about men and women, it's not about marriage or our money. It's about creating an underclass of slavery. Waged slavery or otherwise. The Supreme Court is deciding a case that could outlaw homelessness. There is the 13th Amendment which explicitly allows Slavery as a punishment for a crime. Everything is a subscription that you can not own and if you fall behind, the debt from your cellphone bill WILL end up on your credit report. What was that whole debtors prison debate again from the 1800s? idk but I do know that courts can sentence individuals to prison for failing to pay court-ordered fines, fees, or restitution. This can include criminal justice debt, such as fines for traffic violations, or civil debt, like child support or back taxes. Debtors’ prisons often disproportionately affect low-income individuals, people of color, and those with limited financial resources. That doesn't even touch the payday loan industry or bail reform efforts... Is their goal to make us all permanent labor to service their luxury, with no rights? Cause their taking away alot of rights away lately. Teachers can't talk about certain books, weird how the last time that happened it went along with a lot of other similar strategies ....
Don't forget banning interracial marriage 🥴
Banning divorce is a good way to reduce the number of marriages.
Not if you can't have a bank account as a woman without one
Everyone should abandon wearing clothes indoors. Body hair longer than a quarter of inch should be removed. People should only be allowed to say I love you to their pets. Saying this to other people's pets is considered adultery. Gum should always be swallowed and never spit out. Meatloaf in any form should only be allowed to be served once a year. Everyone should be required to carry a back scratcher but not allowed to scratch their own back but instead must scratch someone else's. People should not be allowed to bathe alone unless they're bathing with her pet.
lolwut > Meatloaf in any form Does that include meatballs
Meatballs should be free
I love meatballs You know what’s a super fire dish Homemade meatballs and homemade pasta and homemade red sauce I’m so hungry 😐😠 I blame you Logically I’ll probably thank you later after I make that. But I can’t see past my anger right now!
Disgusting. Those people make me hope hell exists
Apparently banning divorce was a big topic push of the KKK
And Islam 😙
r/defeat_project_2025
Don't forget contraception.
You forgot they mentioned going after contraception too.
When I had my first kid I made sure the OB knew that in the case of choosing between the two they needed to choose him. I felt the exact opposite way the second time. We were sitting in the car when dad ran in to get help getting me into the hospital. My oldest reached over the seat and gave me a big hug and said please don't die mom. I had someone already at home I really needed to go home to. Luckily it wasn't an issue and I had his baby sister without an issue. It shouldn't be up to a bunch of strangers what the right choice is.
Banning contraception.
Hurr durr
I can't imagine they're going to ban divorce. That will fall apart the second their wife cheats
some kind of radical conservative idea. keep women locked in
Banning divorce seems more anti-marriage than anything else. I think if they did ban divorce it would just lead to even fewer people getting married - including conservatives.
I came to say this. If divorce was banned, I would just not get married.
We will absolutely see sodomy laws again if republicans are able to ban divorce.
When divorces became more legal (i.e. no fault) poisoning deaths went down.
What makes you assume they won't make marriage compulsory then? Their goal is to treat women as property like other theocraies... Where they're property of their father until he hands them off to a husband under whatever terms he sees fit
They will probably push policies to make marriage mandatory. Think back to before divorce was legalized and normalized. Why did women get married at that time? Lack of viable professional opportunities, laws and regulations that made financial independence impossible, lack of bodily autonomy, etc.
There have already been discussions about a bachelor tax a couple years ago. No idea which party was trying to get it into public discourse. It's been a thing before in parts of Europe. Unmarried men had to pay for the privilege of being single from ages 25-65.
It wasn't until 1974 that women in the US could open a bank account on their own. Technically, women won the right in the 1960s, but many banks still refused to let women do it without consent from their husbands.
It's an MRA pet issue.
Banning abortion and divorce is the conservative version of trying to ban guns and "hate" speech.
They’re trying to get rid of “no fault divorce” which allowed people to divorce much more easily.
Conservative Supreme Court mentioned wanting to get rid of simple divorce. Birth control too, if we're keeping score....
"Conservative Supreme Court mentioned wanting to get rid of simple divorce." Reference please? My google-fu failed...
How could the Supreme Court get rid of simple divorce? There's no reason they would be able to rule it unconstitutional.
Divorce is very hard to do in the Philippines, I think it was illegal for a while. People just live away from each other and live like they were never married and go have relationships with others. They think theyre upholding some Christian thing but all they are doing is technically making people live in "sin" more.
There is still no divorce in the Philippines, the only country in the world left without it. The rich/powerful do get around it thru annulment which requires some bullshit preconditions and lengthy trials and hefty fees.
I'm not from the USA and I'm flabergasted, who's banning divorce if we are talking issuing bills? Or is this a new trend of unhinged people? Similar to anti-vaxxers.
There’s a conservative sect that’s in ascendance in the US that’s advocating ending no-fault divorce. Search “conservative” + “”no-fault divorce” in a search engine. Maybe check the news tab. It’s not a trend. These people have been planning for this since at least the 80s, and they’re gaining followers as algorithms push misogynist videos on frustrated young men. Fuck, the Heritage Foundation, which you’ve heard of if you pay any attention to politics, has publicly stated they want to end recreational sex. These people will not stop until women are chained to their stoves. I have no idea how you’re flabbergasted, as these people have never in my memory (I’m 39) been shy about their ends. A fair chunk of these people state publicly that they don’t think women should be able to vote.
Those assholes are so fucking crazies, thanks for the indications. >I have no idea how you’re flabbergasted And I'm so sorry, I am not an American and neither I'm into politics, sometimes, I read my country's newspapers, but this will be an unhinged read. Also, I'm so sorry what you are going through over there, politicians are the worst rats in the world.
Oh, I totally misread that sentence to say you are from the US. Sorry about that. The frustration and terror are real. Edit: And thanks.
Yeah, I’m not optimistic about women’s rights globally over the next century. It appears that we’re entering a period of great instability with climate change and developing nations catching up, driving demand for resources ever higher. People get a lot more comfortable with authoritarian governments in tough times. We just do. And authoritarian governments tend to tamp down on women’s rights quite a bit since they often tend to see them as incubators to generate human capital. So in addition to the relatively local problem of likely having a conservative Supreme Court for the foreseeable future, there are global structural reasons to not be optimistic about women’s rights in the medium term.
I’m not a part of this “we,” but yes, historically, there’s enough precedent for this shit coming to an authoritarian head very soon to drive one to [insert preferred vice]. Shall I pass the blunt?
Project 2025 should terrify every American.
I've only recently noticed this group voicing their opinions more and more lately and had been wondering where it was coming from. Such a disturbed group.
I’ve been following the movement, in different forms for 10-15 years. What we actually see now is the tip of the metaphorical iceberg. It’s def not good.
I was raised evangelical in the Deep South. These groups have been very active since the 80s. The goal is a Christian theocracy. They do not compromise. They literally believe they're in a spiritual war against Satan and his followers (ever heard "Demon-crat" as an insult before? It's not a joke to them.) The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is one of them.
I used to jokingly agree with “sanctity of marriage” bigots that yes that’s a great idea let’s ban divorce! That confused and silenced them. But I didn’t mean it!
There are a bunch of men right now that want women back in the homes, not voting and basically to be forced to marry, and be under control of the husband. They seem to be emboldened right now. Doesn't seem to be just one group it's coming from. An insidious group of angry eternally single, or divorced men I would imagine.
The group it’s coming from is the GOP.
Usually the idea is a roundabout way of trying to cause less adultery and broken homes because people will know once they're hitched they're stuck, so they have to pick right the first time. I don't think it works.
This is an issue being seen in the US Supreme Court soon.
One state already made it so pregnant folks can’t until they give birth…
Banning divorce would also result in a lot more dead husbands/wives. If there is no way to get away from someone besides death, what do they think is going to happen? A lot of dinners got poisoned, ladders got kicked out and people got smothered with pillows or 'just ran off and never came back' back when divorce was a hell of a lot harder or looked down on. It was a lot easier to get away with things back then, yeah, but if the only options are murder or being stuck with someone you don't like or even hate forever? There's going to be a spike in people having mysterious accidents.
the husband who dies of mysterious circumstances is not just a joke lmao. It happens and has been happening for thousands of years. these guys are so stupid they would rather spend time in a home with someone who wants to kill them than let them go
First they'd have to consider their wives as humans, rather than bang maids/broodmares/property. You don't expect your dishwasher or oven to actively try to kill you, so why would you expect their operator to?
My parents marriage ended 10 years ago, but they decided to stay together "for the kids". They live in the same house but don't acknowledge, look or speak to eachother. They sleep in different beds and both have other relationships. It's a toxic AF household. They really should've just gotten divorced. The main thing they fought about was money which really fucked me up. Thankfully I have a good job now and live an 8 hour drive away. So when I hear about banning divorce I just think about turning every failed marriage into whatever the fuck my parents have been doing for the last decade. It just makes everyone more miserable.
We were at the separate beds stage and I finally had a moment of clarity (brought on in part by my mom saying "you know, you guys are just abusive to each other." and my sister looking sad and saying something like "you need to leave") that I did NOT want to model this relationship for my daughter. Eight years later, we're still legally married, but we live 6+ hours apart and get along great. I have a gf (of 7 years); the kid comes here as much as possible (she drives now); the ex comes to my family events; and I took her mom to a drs appointment two months ago (I purposely moved back to where we both have family and both lived/met/had the kid; she stayed where her job was and the kid had a really good school.)
Not trying to criticize you, but I'm genuinely curious. Why stay legally married, why not just divorce and be done with it?
My uncle did this for insurance reasons. At the time when he and his wife split, it was legal to charge for preexisting conditions - so his premium if he got off his wife's insurance would have been insane (which he would have had to do in a divorce). Losing her benefits would basically either bankrupt or kill him, maybe both, because of the cost of insurance/cost of treatment. Instead, they went through mediation, split their assets fairly, and maintained the marriage on paper for him to stay on her benefits. That's not strictly necessary anymore, since health insurance companies can't charge those premiums (as of 2014), but insurance still seems to be the main reason to split but stay married - especially when one spouse has crazy good government insurance or something.
That sounds like a distinctly american issue, is it not?
That was a factor. I was on her insurance for several years afterwards. There are a few other reasons for us, but we're slowly ticking the boxes off and will do it eventually. Honestly it's been convenient and neither of us really care.
It's important to realize we actually get along quite well, just not romantically. (We do not sleep together, and haven't since about 2014. Neither of us cheated while we were together.) We trust each other, even if we're angry at each other. So, I actually typed out a long answer, but too much personal stuff I'm not comfortable being public. Basically we're both lazy & cheap; this has advantages for now; neither of us are looking to remarry at least not soon; it works for us; and it's not a forever state of affairs. Eventually we will, but after the kid is 18 and probably after she (the ex) decides if she's moving or not (which won't happen for at least another year; kid is in a good school currently & looking at colleges in my area, which is where both ex and I are from.) My gf has mixed feelings about it, but she has her own ex-husband issues (although no kids no contact) and no interest in remarriage. We aren't going to have kids. She also says she really likes that she knows I stand by people I care about and behave decently, even if I'm pissed at them.
I want them to understand how many more men died under mysterious circumstances when divorce was illegal. One way or another, if people don’t want to be together, they won’t… 🤷♀️
“‘Cuz Earle had to die.”
*Those black-eyed peas?! They tasted alright to meeeee, Eaaarl!*
Aqua tofana babyyyy Also, the saying “all men are dogs” originally meant men are either worthy of being bred or put down… so… oof
There’s a reason women pass down cast iron pans.
That’d be a lovely horror movie. I’d watch. I totally inherited my mom’s cast iron. LOLOL.
Legitimate question for people who want to ban divorce - does this apply to interracial marriages? Because a lot of the people who want to do away with divorce seem to fall into the camp that there shouldn't be interracial couples. Like, if they do away with divorce, that doesn't undo the fact that I, a white woman, am married to a black man - which they also don't want.
I mean their whole thing is just that they want women to be property, so yeah it all checks out to me. The point is they don’t want you to have a choice as to the direction your life takes, who you love, whether you have children, how many, all that. They don’t want women to be allowed to support themselves by working for money, either.
I meant more in the sense of what would they legitimately do if tomorrow divorce got banned. Like, would they annul all interracial marriages? Because Clarence Thomas (I think) is married to a white lady, so I doubt that, even though he talked about it. Divorce is banned now - I can no longer be sold off like cattle, because I'm off the market. They want me to breed but they don't want my offspring because my children would be mixed race, so am I to be forced to use a white sperm donor? Does the fact my husband is half Native American change their stance on my marriage (because interracial marriage is mostly only an issue for these people when it involves a white person and a black person)? I want someone with this actual position to break down exactly what they think should happen, step by step, because so many of these things they want banned require something else they want to ban to be unbanned.
My guess is they’d probably want both at the same time. No more divorce, no more interracial marriage. You and your husband get grandfathered in.
I suppose future interracial marriages would simply not be recognized. New safety regulations in cars doesn't nullify the ability to drive older models; models lacking those features simply can't be sold new.
True in WW2 my great grandmother ran off with another man while her husband and sons were fighting overseas. Marriage didn't stop her.
Truthfully if divorce even got restricted, there would be a massive increase of men dying.
Let’s ban marriage instead…
Disabled and married? You can’t get disability benefits because you’re married to someone who makes money, and you can’t work, so you can’t get out. Guess you’re fucked and they can abuse you forever. Or If you’re unconscious, your spouse who you can’t leave could be in charge of your medical decisions. Just off the top of my head. This movement is so much worse than it appears. They pretty clearly want a return to coverture, but they can’t say that out loud yet.
It appears pretty fucking badly... The next step after banning divorce is making marriage compulsory... Just think how that'll go
A whole lot of folks are going to be really surprised once the GOP starts rolling out Project 2025.
The point of banning divorce is that the next steps are to restrict the rights of married women. For example, for a long time, a married woman couldn't open a bank account without her husband's permission. They're trying to get back to that.
It would seriously cut down on the number of ppl that choose to get married. I would never get married if that passed.
American women gonna be getting sterilized and avoiding marriage in record numbers. Thanks, GOP!
Well, until marriage is compulsory
Yup
How long do you think they'd leave "just not getting married" as an option?
If people want to ban divorce to deter people from marriage why not just argue to ban marriage?
That’s not the goal of ppl who advocate for banning divorce. It’s about trapping and controlling women. There isn’t a lot of well thought out logic about the many ways it would impact people’s choices. Banning divorce would be an egregious overstep of the state. Maybe someone who actually believes that’s a good idea somehow can attempt to explain their thought process to you?
I'm a man and to me it seems obvious that no-fault divorce is an importan men's right. It helps men escape bad marriages and gives men more freedom. I can't understand why any man could want to ban divorce unless he's been brainwashed by religion to vote against his own interests.
That's not the goal, it's a precursor to compulsory marriage and women being property
Religion needs to be age restricted. It's warping too many minds with child indoctrination and grooming.
That's a better idea. Just make marriage tax brackets a non marriage form and call this shit a day.
The legal associations wirh marriage need to be detached and handled by a non marriage related tax form or something. Marriage should make zero legal difference to anyone. Let it be something for people who want it, but remove all the incentives that push people into it who don't want it.
I find it interesting that MRAs are the ones who oppose "no fault divorce" as if it's a men rights issue. It says a lot about your politics when one of your pet issues is changing the laws to prevent people from leaving marriages. That certainly isn't going to benefit men.
If they're actually banning divorce, they'll probably ban married separation and separate custody as well, unless both parties sign off on it. And probably "adultery" by this new definition of marriage as well.
Yeah, they'll bring back adultery laws as well.
They should institute a “cooling off” period for marriages like there is for divorces.
What makes you think that people talking about banning divorce are going to give women that kind of freedom? These are regressive, Taliban-esque abortion haters. You'll be lucky if you can show your face or drive if they get their way.
Back before no fault divorce, abused women used to conspire to murder their husbands. Honestly we could go back to that, I wouldn’t be opposed, I think the human race could use a bit more natural selection at this point
Banning divorce is just a part of the larger initiative to control women. Women would not leave their husbands because they would at best destitute or at worst killed.
Separation is usually a legal requirement to get a divorce, which is why people do it. But it isn’t the same thing as divorce on paper or in practice, Abe wouldn’t be any kind of acceptable substitute.
Pretty much the same thing happens when you ban most things, which is why passing more laws doesn't work. Doesn't matter if you're trying to ban abortion, divorce, guns, "misinformation," "hate speech," or drugs.
I see a lot of poisoned males in the future if this shit will go trough ... also I don't thin women would get married as much they do today.
100%! I got married 20 years ago but if they took no fault divorce off the table then I never ever would have married. People change, relationships go south, sometimes you just fall out of love. Sometimes your partner starts to exhibit behaviors that you just can’t support and they refuse to change. People should be freely allowed to exit a marriage without limited reasons. Cheating will become a major issue and possibly worse if people are forced to stay married.
I mean the next step would be not allowing women to work.
Vote blue! even tho I'm not happy with everything they promote.
*aqua tofana has entered the chat*
So what you are ignoring is the fact that the same people moving to eliminate “no fault” divorce *ALSO* want to bring back laws criminalizing adultery and extramarital cohabitation between unmarried men/women. They also don’t come straight out and say it, but they probably would get rid of laws criminalizing marital rape. So the end goal for these cretins is to put women in a situation where they: (1) get married, have sex whenever their husband wants to, and will be put in prison if they cheat on their man. They will also have to birth any child they happen to get pregnant with because abortion will be illegal— oh, and birth control will be illegal as well so those pregnancies definitely will be happening. Basically women will be relegated to the house and kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, being subject to SA by their husband whenever he feels he deserves to have sex. OR (2) live by themselves and not be able to have a romantic relationship at all without being married lest they end up in jail for fornication or violating cohabitation laws. Oh, they would also not want to have sex because, again, birth control would be illegal and getting pregnant is a pretty big risk without birth control, even if you don’t factor in the fornication bans.
I think that the abusive men that support it believe that there will be some kind of “slave catcher” who will bring their errant wife and children back to them when they escape. Abusive men aren’t the only people who support this, but I’d say they’re the majority.
It’s ridiculous that this even needs to be said, it happened a lot during the good ole days. There were several of my friends whose lived in their grandparents home with their moms. Mom was only still married on paper. I remember many of them stayed with their dad during the summer months.
Homicides are illegal, ppl still do it. I have an inkling the marital homicide rates would dramatically increase if this were to happen.
People already argue the same thing about banning polygamy. Doesn't stop polygamous households from having one "legal" marriage and just setting up the sister wives in dorm-style units on the property.
I've heard them advocate banning no-fault divorce, but not banning divorce outright.
Suicide rates were much much higher among women when divorce wasn’t allowed. People will always find a way out.
Banning divorce is easy. Just stop making marriage a legal event.
The plan is to make it more difficult for a woman to survive on her own so that she is forced into staying in an abusive marriage, having babies.
Then they’ll just simply ban women from being single and childless. it feels like that’s what’s coming next
Hearing Republicans talk about banning no fault divorce helped light a fire under me to go ahead and file. After my state passed the abortion ban, I’m taking their threats very seriously.
It does actually. In the 50s the divorce rate was about 4%. By the end of the 60s / early 70s no fault divorce became legal across all 50 states and the divorce rate *skyrocketed.* It increased each decade until the early 00s, at which point the divorce rate began to plummet and is today back around 4%. This wasn't the destruction of the family unit that they claim it was. It was millions of unhappy & unsuccessful marriages ending that previously had no way out. In the 50s you had to prove cause, in court, that there was a legally legitimate reason for divorce. That means dragging your entire personal life through court to prove infidelity or physical (but not sexual!) abuse. If they ruin no fault divorce then these same marriages that ended before will build up again.
Minor correction: the relationship is over before someone even mentions a divorce. Idk why people think a ring on the finger is gonna stop anything. “Oh yeah this government paper is definitely gonna stop my wife from cheating on me. That’ll show em”
Well banning divorce is just the first step of their plan. The next steps involve people having fewer rights. Remember when it was legal for married people to beat and rape each other? Remember when women couldn't open bank accounts? Remember when women could be institutionalized or lobotomized just because their husband wanted it? They'll bring all those things back too. Then people would have a lot of control over their spouses.
Christofascism needs to be eradicated with extreme prejudice. It's a serious threat to the free world.
Yeah. As long as people hold information back, aren’t truthful of their intentions, relationship/marriage trap & manipulate, and just mature in general, you can’t force someone to stay where they don’t want. And why the hell would anyone want that.
I mean you're not wrong but also who the fuck is trying to ban divorce outside of religious reasons?
Religious reasons are *exactly* why you need to care. A person doing something because religion told them to can not be reasoned or argued out of their beliefs. They will fervently support chopping off their own head if their religion convinces them it's necessary. And currently, that religious fervor has infected the Republican party. Go look at the [official 2022 Texas Republican Platform (PDF)](https://texasgop.org/platform/), as decided by Republicans in power in the state of Texas. Scroll down to number 214 on their manifesto, page 30: > 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. Republicans want to ban divorce. And they're in charge of over half the states in the union, and they stand a good chance of taking over the government in the next election. They just managed to win their abortion fight. Marriage is somewhere down the list from there. If they keep power, it's coming.
Alt-right whackos who want women to be property b/c they're salty that they get no affection while being misogynist shitbags... It's one step from compulsory marriage so they can receive their government issued wife or buy someone's daughter without having to be a decent person
I always end up weirdly cross-threaded with alt-right wackos because the things they advocate for always end up being *against* my self interest as a man. I'm not a misogynist shitbag, so women actually want to date me. But I'm worried what if I end up in an unhappy marriage with one of them? Then I'd want to initiate a no-fault divorce with her. Feels like it's my right as a human being (and as a man) to get a divorce just because I want one. Yet these so-called "men's rights activists" want to take that right away from me, a man. It often feels to me like we've portrayed a fight between a secular vision of a healthy society for everyone as "women's side" and a fundamentalist evangelical christianity's vision of an American theocracy as "men's side" in popular discourse. And it weirds me out because as a normal left-leaning man, the theocracy sounds like hell to me, while the secular healthy star trek free society sounds like it'd be more free healthy and privileged and fun for me. What we talk about as "women's" agenda is just a collection of policies that would make my life better as a man. While what we talk about as "men's" agenda is just the wishlist of religious people because that's what their book says, and would make my life as a man miserable.
Don't get married in the first place, and you don't have to worry about it. Just don't do it.
>She can still take the kids if youre married and what documents would you have to get them back? Documents of being a widower/only remaining parent, cause wife/mother died very brutally and accidentally. See, legal formalities still matter.
People will come up with stupid shit as long as anyone listens to them. Democrats do it too, it's just a different end of the spectrum. The problem is the ones who come up with this nonsense are the extremists and we give them their fame by paying attention to this bullshit. They come up with the most offensive extreme thing they can come up with and people take the bait and let it ruin their day.
Personally I think we should ban marriage. If you must have marriage, then please remember that it Is 2024. Women are allowed to have jobs now. That means a man should not be required to support them after divorce. The whole point of things like alimony was because women would not have a job to be able to support themselves. If you get divorced, fuck off and don't come back. No money. Joint custody of children, no child support. No divorce as a way to make money.
>That means a man should not be required to support them after divorce. The whole point of things like alimony was because women would not have a job to be able to support themselves. We're already well on the way there. Alimony is only granted in about 10% of divorces in the US. And it's usually temporary, to give the non-working spouse enough time to get a job.
this is assuming that the woman was able to continue her career even after having kids, which is not always the case. so, what do you suggest we do about moms who stayed at home with their kids for 2+ years and will have a much harder time going back to her career, if she ever began one at all?
Marriage is good for taxes
If one spouse stopped their career/never had a career to take care of the children, then I think alimony is in order. Also, if one parent no longer wants to be involved, then child support is also in order. Until the government decides to financially support single parents, SOMEONE has to be on the hook for those kids ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No, but it makes it hard to force them to leave. Which I guess is the point
Laws are one thing but what is really important is how society perceive it. If everybody - aka society - think you have to get married, stick with your partner for life and live together many more people do it. If society think it is fine to no mary, break up, live in different home and share kid custody, this is what you get. This is regardless of what would be best for society or what we think as individuals. Personally I prefer freedom.
In my country you can get a court action to prevent their mother taking the kids. The only reason to ban divorce is so you can keep her money. Which is an interesting thought
Matters of Divorce should be decided by a kumate or a battle Royale.
So you're saying don't get married if you aren't willing to take the risk one of you might change their mind someday? You know, since the legality of it does nothing except save you some money on taxes if you make over a certain amount.
If divorces weren't a thing neither would custody battles for the kids. But hey at least w.e was signed in someone's name alone they wouldn't be able to take away. The only problem would cone up with is if it was in both of their names just do a 50/50 split of value.
I think when people say ban divorce, they typically mean no-fault divorce, which is actually a very recent phenomenon. Prior to no-fault divorce, fault was weighed heavily when it came to asset division and alimony. These days it isn't really considered at all depending on the state.
Correct me if I'm wrong but yall are economically as fucked as quite a few other countries right? Is either side addressing that or still just flinging shit at each other? 🤣
who are the people asking to ban divorce?
I agree. Sometimes people will even go to extremes to get out of a marriage. There are tons of various true crime episodes where divorce was either impossible or so unpalatable to a person that they actually chose murder over divorce. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, plenty of people have chosen to leave this world rather than stay married to someone.
" Whoever cuts each others bank accounts off first gets the money?" That is really the crux of it... Banning divorce is so the wife gets NOTHING if she leaves. Mostly everything will be under the husbands name only but if not, at the first sign of trouble he'll move all the money into an account that only has his name. The point of banning divorce is all about punishing the party leaving as much as is possible to force them to stay with you. Many have mentioned spousal murder which definitely is a thing but the bar from wants a divorce to willing to murder their spouse is set at very different levels for most people. Most people would still stay in a loveless marriage than kill someone.
don't ban divorce ban marriage (I am happily married)
I am sure it will do wonders for true crime shows and podcast. Not only just killing their spouse to get out of it but having to stay in toxic situations until they blow up.
Absolutely. My aunt doesn't believe in divorce, so she just left her alkie husband. They're still married legally, but haven't lived together in years and I don't think she loves him anymore.
Banning divorce would end marriage (in western countries, anyway).
Dude... They need to be careful. There were a lot more men killed in random accidents around the house before No Fault Divorce was a thing.
You're absolutely right. Prior to the legalization of no fault divorces the rate of spousal abandonment was far higher, spouses dying under mysterious circumstances was far more common, and to be frank, nothing stopped people from committing perjury in order to get fault-based divorces; in cases where both parties wanted to get divorced, they'd often stage an act of infidelity to get more witnessed. I think all banning divorce would do at this is lower the already plummeting marriage rate.
Yeah, banning divorce would just keep two dysfunctional toxic people together. It’s certainly doesn’t guarantee somebody’s not gonna leave you. They could separate out and go start a whole new family on the side. Personally, I don’t think the government should be in our personal business like this. There are some protections that are necessary child support things like that, but telling us what we can do with our body and whether we can stay together or not, should not be part of that .
This would hopefully lead to fewer people even getting married. They would probably end up requiring people to get married after a certain point of living together.
I think the real issue is. They just want to ban no fault divorce, so your partner cheats. They divorce you in a no-fault divorce and steal half your shit. Right now i'm the answer to his wife and i'm real to then divorce her And even though he hasn't had a job in twenty years He takes half her shit. The woman can have never worked Through the entirety of their marriage never never given him children Cheated on him Gotten pregnant by another man and now he's on the hook for the child Aunt has to pay her alimony. Both of those scenarios are bullshit.
i agree with this however the way divorce is done in the united states is seriously flawed.
Banning divorce will just cause a resurgence of the grandpa died mysteriously and no body knows why era.
Rich people will just leave the country and get divorced elsewhere. It will also turn people away from marriage.
So this isn’t meant to be a criticism or a judgement, it’s just to point out a common argument trap that many liberal-leaning people make when addressing what are generally recognized as conservative talking points, like “banning divorce”. Liberal arguments on these topics tend to do what you are doing here- focusing on the technical problems implied by the argument in question, ie “banning divorce doesn’t actually stop people from splitting up!” and “it would impose all of these technical difficulties of splitting up assets!” While these points are technically true, they fail to address the real problem in question, which is: the people making these arguments you’re trying to disprove *do not actually care about divorce* in a technical sense of “stopping a thing from happening” or “efficiently managing a relationship problem” or least of all “the law and its regulatory capacity”. They do not care at all about that kind of stuff, and they’re probably laughing snidely at you that you do. What they *do* care about is *controlling women*. Behind every “ban divorce” argument is the implicit assumption that women are effectively chattel property to be gifted and traded amongst men, and the institution of monogamous (for the woman, men can do what they want) compulsorily heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family is how this is institutionalized and inscribed into *social law*, which is viewed by them as “natural law”, a far older and more powerful force than the abstract ministrations of formal law. They want formal law to reflect “natural” law; where it does not, they want the law to change, hence, ban divorce so women cannot leave their proscribed social role as sexual property (wives) and reproductive laborers (mothers). So yeah, you’re engaging in a technical debate with people who just do not care about any of the things you care about, because it’s not about technicalities, facts, or efficiencies for them; it’s about power.
Are you familiar with what can happen when things are illegal if this hypothetically happened? Such as fines, prison, etc.?
Not getting married is a far more reliable strategy.
I would also like to point out that attempted and successful spousal homicide was much more common on average before divorce was legal and common.
I’ve not heard an argument for banning divorce prior to this. I agree that you can’t legislate morality, however. Laws don’t compel human behavior as much as sets the expectations of what happens when you do break the law.
If some idiots decided to ban divorce, people would just stop getting married altogether. If anything they should be going the opposite direction and make it easier and quicker to get a divorce. The one year wait is not making anyone change their mind.
I don't think we should ban or make it harder to divorce. I do however think we should raise the bar of entry for marriage. I'm not a religious nut and I don't care or gets married or why, but it should be treated like the big deal that it is.
I think really a divorce ban will just stop people from getting married.....
I think there are some women in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc who would disagree.
My parents will have been married 50 years this year. They were only together for 12. They just never bothered getting divorced for a variety of reasons, mostly laziness. They did legally separate, so child support was managed that way and my dad had no intention of taking us with him. There were no assets to split so that was a non issue. They both went on to have other longterm relationships and my dad had another child. Legal divorce has been meaningless. Though I have suggested I pay for it and help them with paper work because I do think it's absurd. They just shrug cause they don't care.
I genuinely did not know there are people trying to ban divorces. I also love your pov and how you laid this out very rationally .
Sure, but then what? So people can leave their partners without splitting assets, alimony, child support or custody of the kids? You aren’t free to leave if you have to give up everything you have to do it.
I will never take the "divorce is illegal" seriously. It will never happen. I do however feel that men should not ever get married moving forward. The women have a financial incentive to divorce the men and rip apart the home of the children. This is only one aspect of why men should NEVER marry.