Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Am An Mra

News just in;

"Yes avfm ( a voice for men) is strongly opposed to marriage because the institution of marriage is nothing more than slavery for men. The same can be said for.having children. Father a child in this gynocentric feminist culture is about as smart as playing ba<x>seball with a live grenade. Marriage is worse. Most MRAs who aren't already married vow to never do so. This is why MRAs and MGTOWs are so close. We share that same philosophy."

This kind of puerile crap is exactly why the MRA is a hate group. It attacks fathers and marriage. What exactly does it stand for in a positive way, I wonder?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

bluelady1021

JB posted more foolish nonsense below that shows that he doesn't really know how things work most of the time in relation to divorce and alimony. In most states a woman can't empty the couples bank account and file for divorce without being expected to return half of the money she took out of the account in one way or another. Virtually everything that the couple owns jointly will be split 50/50 unless they mutually agree to do things in other ways. This is because the majority of the time each spouse is considered to be contributing equally to the marriage in one way or another. Both people may be working at a job and contributing financially, and also contributing emotionally, physically, sexually, and in many other ways equally.

Often when only the husband works and is the "bread winner", the wife will be picking up the slack and doing almost all of the housework, shopping, cooking, caring for the children, etc. It is also the case if only the wife works and is the "bread winner" and the husband takes care of other things so they both contribute equally. Any man who thinks that making money is the only thing that contributes to the livelihood of a marriage is an ass. Also, in most states a spouse will not get alimony for the rest of their life unless they have no working skills, and are too old to get any before they can start a career and start supporting themselves as a result. Even if this is the case, if they remarry their alimony will stop.

In most cases if one of the spouses is not too old to get a job, but has no career skills, has not been working, and is a stay-at-home mom/dad at the request, and/or with the appreciation and acceptance of the working spouse, if they divorce the spouse who has not been working will be expected to get job training and then begin working and supporting themselves. The working spouse will pay for the job training and the non-working spouse will receive alimony while they are getting their job training and then looking for a job, but once they get a job their alimony will usually end. This is the norm in almost every state. This is also the case if the spouse has been working, but only part-time or at a lower paying job than the other spouse. They will receive alimony until they begin working full-time and are able to support themselves as a result, or if they work at a job where even if they work full-time they still will not be making enough to support themselves they will get alimony until they get the training needed to get a job where they can support themselves, and then actually get the job that enables them to do so. This is often the case if, for instance, one spouse works at a fast food restaurant like McDonalds while the other spouse works at a job where they earn more pay. The courts in almost every state rarely ever let a young wife, who is capable of somehow getting a job and supporting herself, collect alimony from her husband for the rest of her life if they get a divorce. Any MRA who thinks that is common is showing, once again, that he doesn't know much about reality.

I find it very interesting that JB has indicated that his wife is now working full-time. When I first encountered him here on EP he stated that his wife was not working, and did not want to, because she didn't like working with women and every job she could ever have would require her to have female co-workers. If she is working full-time now it must be either because she got bored not working and really didn't have a problem working with women (JB was lying again), or because she found a job where only men are her co-workers (very unlikely), or JB ended up working less and being on the internet instead so he wasn't making enough money to support his family and his wife had to go to work to pick up the slack. Those are the only reasons I can think of as to why she would be working full-time now ba<x>sed on what he wrote about her in the past.

bluelady1021

JB wrote: "Should an adult have responsibility for another adult that is their equal after divorce? If so, why?"

my response: Because sometimes one adult insists or promotes the other adult not to work and just to do almost all of other chores that must be done in their relationship so that the adult that is working can focus primarily on their job and not be responsible for taking care of all the other things that need to be done. So when they divorce, the adult who hasn't been working won't have any job, any job training, or the ability to immediately get a job and support themselves. As a result they would end up becoming homeless and living on the street when the other adult stops supporting them. Do you get it now?

Some people still have traditional marriages where one spouse works at a job, and the other spouse does housework, etc. Some religions insist on this, and some people also choose to do it and have what is referred to as DD marriages where one spouse is the dominant boss, and the other is the submissive slave. Often the sub does not work and just takes care of all the work the dom tells them to take care of. As a result these people would also be unable to immediately find work if they got divorced and would also likely end up being homeless. Spousal support is necessary under these circumstances and it is the fair and just, and appropriate thing for them to do.

bluelady1021

You're right in some respects, but women who have been in a traditional marriage and are getting divorced often have access to information and counseling to advise them on what kinds of jobs they may want to have to be able to support themselves, and what kind of job training they can get to do so. As I mentioned above, if the woman is able to work, even though she has been in a traditional marriage and has not been working, most courts will require that she obtain job training and begin working at some point. Most courts will not allow a woman who is capable of working to get alimony for the rest of her life. They will allow her to get alimony, and the funding for job training, but once she has completed the training and gets a job the alimony will usually stop. If she has children she will continue to get child support, but often it will be reduced once she starts working because at that point she will be able to provide some financial support for the children too.

Feminism has actually benefited men in this way. Before feminism existed the majority of women were not able to have the kinds of higher paying employment that most men had that would allow them to support themselves. As a result when women divorced they often received alimony from their husband for their entire life because there was no way they could support themselves. Thanks to feminism women became more educated, had access to far more job training, and higher paying jobs that would enable them to support themselves. As a result most men no longer have to pay their ex wives alimony for her entire life, and pay to completely support their children. They can thank feminism for this, but of course the MRAs never will.