Advertisement
by Des-Bal » Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:54 am
Knask wrote:
Well...that's quite surprising. That's kind of messed up to be honest, kind of goes against the whole original point of feminism.
by Galloism » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:14 am
Des-Bal wrote:Knask wrote:I'm not surprised. Here's some context, but there's no need to look more closely at it since we all know context is a women's privilege it's best to get rid of.
Your context is behind a paywall.
How London divorce judges are curbing ‘meal ticket for life’
Time limits are being placed on maintenance payments, with the poorer spouse expected to work
Vinny B
London's courts have a reputation for awarding generous divorce settlements but judges are moving to limit one type of financial award dubbed a “meal ticket for life” by critics.
In two key cases, judges have signalled they are opting to place time limits on life-long post-divorce maintenance payments and now expect the financially weaker spouse to eventually go out to work.
“There is now a presumption that someone can go to work and that the court will hold the view that people have some sort of earning capacity unless they are a few years off retirement,” said Simon Blain, partner at Penningtons Manches.
The UK capital is still likely to attract big money divorce cases because English law says that wealth should be split equally between a divorcing couple, even if one spouse is the main breadwinner.
English courts’ unusual approach
In cases where there is not enough money for a one-off divorce settlement payment, courts have the option to award ongoing maintenance payments as well as lump sum awards. Judges have often awarded so-called joint lives maintenance to the financially weaker spouse, which means they receive annual payments for the rest of their life.
English courts are unusual in awarding open-ended maintenance orders. In Scotland, which has a separate legal system, maintenance is only usually payable for three years following a divorce, after which it is assumed the spouse will get a job and become self supporting. In France the maintenance period lasts eight years and in Norway and Greece it is usually three years.
Lawyers say a recent decision by the UK’s Supreme Court not to hear an appeal from former accountant Kim Waggott, whose maintenance will stop in 2021, underscores how judges appear to be taking a tougher line on open ended maintenance.
Ms Waggott, who was awarded £10m plus £175,000 a year maintenance when she divorced in 2012, had appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that her maintenance should cease in 2021. The UK’s highest court refused permission for her appeal on the grounds it did not raise an arguable point of law.
The Supreme Court in June also signalled it was against increasing joint lives payments to former spouses when it ruled in favour of Graham Mills, who argued that he should not have to increase life-long monthly maintenance payments to his former wife Maria after she made unwise property investment decisions with her 2002 divorce settlement.
Pressure grows for legislative reform
The shift comes amid moves to reform the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 — which deals with financial provision in divorce settlements — to create greater legal certainty and reduce reliance on judicial discretion to make maintenance orders.
Baroness Deech, a cross-bencher in the House of Lords, is seeking urgent reform of the law and wants a financial cap to be placed on most open-ended maintenance payments. “The proposal to put a limit on maintenance reflects what is happening in Scotland and other jurisdictions,” she said.
Her Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill had its third reading in the House of Lords in December and has now passed to the Commons. It includes a provision that would limit maintenance payments to five years except in exceptional circumstances.
However, the government expressed reservations about the bill at its second reading last May. The Ministry of Justice said in a statement: “We are considering the evidence for reform of financial provision, making sure any proposals would not undermine protection for vulnerable spouses.”
Lawyers are already advising clients that courts are becoming reluctant to grant joint lives maintenance, according to Mr Blain. He said that solicitors representing the main breadwinner — usually a husband — might even go to a recruitment consultant with the wife’s CV and ask what sorts of jobs she could do. But he acknowledged that “it’s difficult for someone though if their skills are 20 years out of date and they are a certain age”.
Ros Bever, national head of family law at Irwin Mitchell, agreed there is a trend towards time-limited orders as opposed to joint lives maintenance. “Ten or 15 years ago I’d have said to a wife file in the Principal Registry [London’s family court] and you have a chance of securing a lifetime order,” she said. “I think there is a trend towards term orders and the pendulum has swung . . . but I think joint lives should remain as safety measure,” she added.
The case for judicial discretion
Some family lawyers have argued that there should not be a time limit imposed on maintenance payments and say decisions should be left to judges who can assess each case on its facts. Some spouses may not be able to work at all if they are caring for a severely disabled child, for example.
Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, said in an April speech to Resolution, an association representing family lawyers, that she sees the goal of divorce settlements as being “to give each party an equal start on the road to independent living.”
However, she said that settlements cannot ignore the fact that someone who has given up work to concentrate on family responsibilities will never make up what they have lost and an equal start “is bound to involve, for most couples, an element of compensation for the disadvantage, often the permanent disadvantage, resulting from the choices made by both parties during the marriage”.
“Sometimes, but not always, the only way to do this is by open-ended periodical payments.” she added.
by Forsher » Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:06 am
by Liriena » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:20 pm
Hirota wrote:Just because you three struggle to read more than an average tweet, doesn't mean nobody else can.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:26 pm
Hirota wrote:Just because you three struggle to read more than an average tweet, doesn't mean nobody else can. Still, Ostro does ramble on a bit!
As far as I can tell, the TLDR of Ostros post is that historically certain cultures that could be considered Matriarchial in nature expected Men to perform the larger proportion of manual labour. The obvious parallels to today are how men continue to act as the primary providers of manual labour with little to no obligation upon women to do so (see the US draft as an obvious example).
In addition one of the favorite tactics of modern day feminism is to public shame anyone who doesn't follow certain orthodoxy, which follows with the tribal values Ostro claims to exist of "contributing to communal stockpiles" and "upsetting the women of the tribe," with the example that the Iroquois cited.
I believe the leap being made is If those are two of the main factors associated with tribal matriarchies and they exist today in the modern western world, we ergo exist in a matriarchy.
Ostro can clarify if that's what was meant or if I'm off track entirely.
My main problem with this claim is that it's poorly sourced so far.
by Hirota » Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:51 am
I don't disagree with you, but that claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Perhaps you don't expect certain people to give it a fair shout regardless of what evidence is provided, so you don't seek to convince them.Ostroeuropa wrote:I would say there's stronger evidence we live in a matriarchy than a patriarchy, and that pointing to the fact men act as "chief" as "proof" of patriarchy shows historical and anthropological illiteracy, but nonetheless crops up frequently.
"Poorly sourced.".
I don't really know what to tell you.
Oh babe, I could roast you so hard you'd struggle to walk (•̀⌄•́)
by The Huskar Social Union » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:12 am
by Liriena » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:00 am
Hirota wrote:Anyhoo, I was mulling over the nature of TERF's, not exactly a popular group here on NSG.
Hirota wrote:It's an old fashioned viewpoint nowadays to say "There are men and women and that’s all" that just five years ago wouldn't cause the outrage that it does now. But I'm not entirely convinced the TERF's are the only bigots here. When simply liking a limerick is considered worthy of a "hate crime." Where a row on Twitter gets treated like a hate crime, and leads to protests calling for critics to be silenced.
Hirota wrote:But it's curious to me that it isn't exactly TERFs who discriminate on the basis of hate. Feminism, by dint of it's nebulous objectives seeks to promote rights for one specific demographic/tribe whilst ignoring or actively undermining any opportunity for other demographics to further their own rights or areas where they are disadvantaged.
Heck, it's not even just feminism that is responsible for this petty tribalism. The whole LGBT community is regularly accused of ignoring Bi-Folk, elements have sought to exclude Gay representation in UK student Unions. The whole LGBT gamut is rife with infighting.
People truly interested in furthering fundamental human rights should not be considering themselves "trans-activists," "feminists" "TERFS" or any of the other petty labels which seek to exclude any demographics on the basis of self-serving bigotry.
Get away from the petty bigotted tribalism and embrace furthering rights and eliminating areas of concern for the whole that may or may not target groups outside of your little selfish interests. For example, recognise that hate crime does disproportionately target trans-folk, recognise that homelessness does disproportionately target men and that both are important - one for the serious impact on a comparatively smaller number of people, and one for the comparatively smaller impact on a vastly larger demographic. Both need something done about them. It's not about assigning an importance or priority on them or that progressive stack bullshit.
by Gospel Power » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:06 am
by Liriena » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:07 am
Gospel Power wrote:and in it radical form, it just want to enslave men.
by Galloism » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:51 am
by Ostroeuropa » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:48 am
Galloism wrote:Liriena wrote:I'm pretty sure radical feminism is less about "enslaving" men and more about some sort of separatism, but okay.
Eh, I'd say feminism involves a certain level of male slavery attempts already.
Not in the literal sense of chains and ownership, but in the sense that men should feel obligated to help women on the basis of their sex, while women are never so obligated to help men also on the basis of their sex. We see this all the time in feminist centered messaging (IE, the Gillette ad, for a recent example). There's a strong feminist pressure for men to conform to their gender role of protector, with nothing in return. That's not a trade - that's a taking, which is a form of socialized attempt at making men's obligations subservient to women's needs.
by Liriena » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:17 am
by Tahar Joblis » Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:07 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:Let's do a write up on matriarchy because i'm just so fucking bored of people smugly asking if we're not a patriarchy how come males occupy certain positions disproportionately, demonstrating a total ignorance in even their own movements history and the nature of matriarchies.
Let's start off with the foundations, Engels and his writing on the origin of family, private property, and the state, itself based on the anthropology of Morgan and the idea that matriarchies predated patriarchies, something feminists built on to develop the concept of patriarchy theory.
(please note. Engels wrote of this to demonstrate the origin of private property and the state, he was not commenting on sexism. That is a conclusion feminists drew.).
Firstly, what are the characteristics of a matriarchy, rather than just blithely demanding it ape the conditions of a patriarchy.
1. Women of the tribe operate as a socio-political unit.
2. Women of the tribe are primarily involved in childrearing and domestic work. (Hur hur, why aren't they chiefs? Checkmate, MRAs.)
3. Women of the tribe may optionally work in other fields and contribute to communal stockpiles, but are not required to do so to retain membership of the tribe.
4. Men ARE required to do so. Failing to contribute to communal stockpiles or upsetting women of the tribe will result in their exile from the tribe. The women will banish men who displease them. Notice how the dynamic means that men who focused on child rearing would be cast out, and how it places on women NO obligation to childrear to remain part of the tribe (though most do.). Not only does this damage men socially and psychologically by making their relationships with others unstable and place men in a subordinate position to women, it means that men who seek to preserve what relations they have must focus on production of wealth. This shows that the basics of gender roles predate patriarchy and are instead sourced in matriarchal tendencies.
Why did feminists fuck this up? Because they're gynocentric, and were selfishly focused only on the ways sexism impacted women. They noted that a characteristic of patriarchy is removing womens ability to contribute to stockpiles and concluded this was the source of all the dynamics. Rather, patriarchy is a reaction to matriarchy and the conditions it imposes on males, with men acting to lessen womens ability to render them tribeless and dislocate them from their families by making them reliant on mens contributions. This is despite the foundations of the feminist philosophy of patriarchy coming from the same texts showing the same dynamic. What feminists saw was a lack of restrictions on womens ability to work in matriarchal societies and concluded "See, patriarchy is the cause of sexism.", because they were blithely ignorant of the other sexism against men right in front of them, actively denied it existed (and thus refused to see the evidence right in front of them), in the same texts and failed to deduce how this would give rise to patriarchal dynamics.
So that's "Muh gender roles" out of the way. What you should be saying is; "Matriarchy is the source of gender roles. Patriarchy is the source of excluding women from the workplace to make mens gender role more bareable to them, and feminism is a selfish view of this that ignores reality and womens contribution to sexism, that focuses entirely on the impacts of "Misogyny", and has only recently in a minority of cases been shaken out of this solipsistic view but has failed to revise their understanding.". The conflation of patriarchy with "Gender roles" is a result of feminisms historical animosity and refusal to recognize sexism against men and their focus on the way it impacts women. This is why they were so uncritically positive about matriarchies, they saw it lacked the sexism against women and thought "Well that's sexism dealt with.".
5. Women do not act as chiefs in matriarchal societies and often do not hold official positions outside of religious ones (though matriarchies which developed codified constitutions, such as the Iroquois, differ). Rather, they engage in behavior akin to the Iroquois and "Knocking off the horns" (Knocking a mans hat off him). That is, women in the tribe are given the social power to demote men in status at their whim and send them to the bottom of the pile. Note that men cannot do the same to women. I now invite you to consider the lopsided and selfish way women have conducted feminism, and how long it has taken for even a fraction of them to concede misandry exists and women can be sexist against men. If we conclude feminism is a form of matriarchy, their unilateral criticism and refusal to hold women accountable is merely a codification of the process for "Knocking off the horns", alongside an additional element of no longer replacing the man with a man more ammenable to their demands, but nowadays, often women will replace the man, representing an escalation over previous matriarchies. Men cannot engage in the same behavior and eliminate a womans status through criticism of her sexist behavior. Consider also the incoherent and contradictory stances feminism takes on what constitutes sexism against women, and how this functionally means that in the end it boils down to the whims of the woman involved. Feminism is a prolonged verbal ritual of knocking off the horns. Note also that traditionalism coincides with this and provides women a similar function through criticism of a mans failure to uphold her view of what a man should be.
6. Feminism has escalated on prior matriarchies. Previously upon exile from a family unit, the man would at least be able to be entitled to the producsts of his own labour and thus able to find another tribe elsewhere and contribute. The loss of a mans contribution provided a check against arbitrary and malicious use of this dynamic by women. This check against female excess has been removed by feminism through the push for alimony and child support, and the sky high divorce rates are a consequence of it.
7. Matriarchies engage in sex boycotts against men and control womens sexuality in order to obtain concessions and power, punishing women who go against this. (Consider the slut shaming studies, and consider updated views of domestic abuse that include withholding sex to control others as a form of abuse).
8. Matriarchies operate primarily through control of social relations, social ostracization, access to family, and status of men, and demand men focus on resource production or women will use these things to harm the man in question. They do not ape the conditions of patriarchy and control over material resources and demanding they do is a gynocentric demand that functions to erase mens historical and present experience. The reason the left ignores this is that Marxism is economic determinism and horribly reductionist, and this impacted left wing writing on the topic. Because of matriarchal power dynamics, women are afforded more time and opportunity to gain more control over social relations, family, and status. It means men who spend time focusing on social or emotional literacy are wasting time compared to focusing on wealth production. Demanding proof of equivalence to patriarchy to demonstrate matriarchy is not understanding the difference, and demanding a gynocentric view of sexism and power dynamics that operates much like other feminist abuses; it seeks to erase the ways, means, and prevalence of the ways women abuse, harm, and control men in order to act like only male perpetration of a thing exists.
Consider also that radical feminists were matriarchy obsessed and fetishized these societies, and these are the feminists directly responsible for a number of the laws and dynamics we are faced with today.
Aaand let's tag some relevant folk I guess.
Galloism , Tahar Jobils , Costa Fierro , and why the fuck not because I've seen this feminist argument used by these folk , Liriena , Kowani
Stuff:Usually, the female portion ruled the house, and were doubtless clannish enough about it. The stores were held in common; but woe to the luckless husband or lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many children, or whatever goods he might have in the house, he might at any time be ordered to pack up his blanket and budge; and after such orders it would not be healthful for him to attempt to disobey.
+The women were the great power among the clans, as everywhere else. They did not hesitate, when occasion required, to "knock off the horns", as it was technically called, from the head of a chief, and send him back to the ranks of the warriors. The original nomination of the chiefs also always rested with them.
— Morgan, Lewis H. (1877). Ancient Society.
Feminists focus on economically deterministic forms of sexism is itself sexist against men by erasing their experience and oppression, similar to how economic determinism erased experiences of sexual minorities and so on.
by Galloism » Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:50 am
Women’s March participant charged in incident with Infowars reporter
Peter Hermann
A participant in the Women’s March on Washington earlier this month has been accused of inappropriately touching a video producer for Infowars as he conducted interviews at the event, according to D.C. police.
Isabel O’Shaughnessy, 21, was charged with misdemeanor sex abuse, and a police spokesman said she surrendered Wednesday. A Superior Court judge released her pending her next court appearance March 14.
The police spokesman identified O’Shaughnessy as a student at Catholic University of America. She did not immediately return a call seeking comment, and her attorney did not respond to a phone call to his office or to an email message.
Police said the incident occurred Jan. 19 as thousands of people marched through the nation’s capital. The producer was conducting an interview at the time near New York Avenue and 14th Street Northwest.
The producer posted a video on the Internet on Jan. 21, saying on Twitter: “Here is the moment I was sexually assaulted by a #WomensMarch2019 protester. She laughed about it. The crowd cheered. The police did nothing.” Infowars was founded by Alex Jones, a conservative conspiracy theorist.
Dustin Sternbeck, a D.C. police spokesman, said the producer reported the incident on Jan. 23 and the investigation took several days before prosecutors signed off on an arrest warrant.
The arrest affidavit alleges O’Shaughnessy intentionally grabbed the producer in a private area. In an interview with police, she said she “inadvertently brushed up against him” and that he took her comments out of context in what was an “emotionally charged situation.”
The Washington Post generally does not identify victims of alleged sexual assault, and the producer could not be reached for comment.
by Des-Bal » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 am
by Liriena » Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:44 am
Des-Bal wrote:Oh she was taken out of context.
She made contact with him, the crowd wooed, he said "she just grabbed my dick, is that sexual assault?" whereupon he offered the micropohone and she said "yes." He asked her to clarify "so you just sexually assaulted me?" to which she responded "I did assault you." He then asked "Should you be arrested?" and she responded "Arrest me."
See when you look at in context it's not at all incriminating.
by Galloism » Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:55 am
Liriena wrote:Des-Bal wrote:Oh she was taken out of context.
She made contact with him, the crowd wooed, he said "she just grabbed my dick, is that sexual assault?" whereupon he offered the micropohone and she said "yes." He asked her to clarify "so you just sexually assaulted me?" to which she responded "I did assault you." He then asked "Should you be arrested?" and she responded "Arrest me."
See when you look at in context it's not at all incriminating.
It reads like a needlessly elaborate and self-destructive trolling attempt.
If you're gonna try to troll Infowars dipshits on camera, do it like that one cool ass Bernie girl did: shamelessly advocate for socialism and universal healthcare and point out that Infowars dipshits have brainworms.
by West Leas Oros 2 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:52 pm
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by Galloism » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:52 pm
West Leas Oros 2 wrote:What’s the current subject, comrades?
by West Leas Oros 2 » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:54 pm
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by Mattopilos II » Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:38 pm
Liriena wrote:Des-Bal wrote:Oh she was taken out of context.
She made contact with him, the crowd wooed, he said "she just grabbed my dick, is that sexual assault?" whereupon he offered the micropohone and she said "yes." He asked her to clarify "so you just sexually assaulted me?" to which she responded "I did assault you." He then asked "Should you be arrested?" and she responded "Arrest me."
See when you look at in context it's not at all incriminating.
It reads like a needlessly elaborate and self-destructive trolling attempt.
If you're gonna try to troll Infowars dipshits on camera, do it like that one cool ass Bernie girl did: shamelessly advocate for socialism and universal healthcare and point out that Infowars dipshits have brainworms.
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cyptopir, Maximum Imperium Rex, Shrillland, Tungstan
