Redditer simplecosine was kind enough to link to my post Threatpoint where I stated:
..divorce reform is all about redistributing power from the husband who wants to honor the marriage vows to the wife who doesn’t.
Redditer justaconservative read the post and pointed out my error:
This article is perfectly ludicrous. Prior to unilateral divorce, the legal situation favoured whichever party was able to make the marriage most unconscionable for the other party, without crossing the line into blatant illegality. The aggrieved party either had to suffer an unlivable situation, had to leave without a divorce and forfeit their right to re-marriage, or had to negotiate for a divorce on the terms of the aggressor.
While both genders are fully capable of being the aggressor, the realities of most families meant that men were overwhelmingly favoured by this arrangement; as their typically greater sizes and strengths meant a greater ability to make marriage unconscionable (through physical violence/control), and they generally controlled most of the income. A woman, or otherwise financially vulnerable party, who couldn’t remarry could be condemned to destitution by this system if they simply left, so they would be forced to negotiate a settlement far below what they needed or deserved. The economically independent party could also always threaten to leave, and have it be a real threat, preventing the other party from making the living arrangement truly unconscionable for them.
See his full comment for all of the conservative goodness, but note what his argument is in the two paragraphs I quoted. His argument is that marriage as practiced from biblical times until 40 years ago was inherently unfair to women, and that he for one is glad that feminists fixed this. He doesn’t deny the social engineering I’m describing, he merely is thankful for it. I know Not All Trad Cons Are Like That, but honestly how many do you know who aren’t?
Leave a Reply