~ archived since 2018 ~

Just for laughs: Council helps jobless women find a rich man to keep them (from r/MaleStudies)

tomek77

June 9, 2010

1 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/06/council_helps_jobless_mothers.php

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Just for laughs: Council helps jobless women find a rich man to keep them (from r/MaleStudies)
Author	tomek77
Upvotes	1
Comments	24
Date	June 9, 2010 1:12 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cd4c2/just_for_laughs_council_helps_jobless_women_find/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/just-for-laughs-council-helps-jobless-women-find-a.1049180 https://theredarchive.com/post/1049180

Comments

[–]carchamp1 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77[S] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]stemgang 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_true_bro -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]catlebrity 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomek77[S] -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I have no idea what you are talking about (and the book is about contemporary psychology, not history):

Middle Ages: nuclear family
Ancient Rome: nuclear family
Early ancient rome: nuclear family
Chinese civilization : nuclear family
Muslim civilization : family (although they can practice polygamy)
Ancient babylon: nuclear family (they even had divorce and child support and that was 4,000 years ago!!!)

You would have to go pretty far back in time to find a civilization that does not rely on the nuclear family.

What you are talking about is a well-known lesbian feminist fantasy. Supposedly, a long long time ago, human society was a happy matriarchy (lol) and women were raising kids in communities, without men. Problem is: there is absolutely no historical record of this. As far as written history goes back (4000-6000 years ago at most), this feminist fantasy did not exist. But I am open to see if you can find examples of such civilizations!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

and the book is about contemporary psychology, not history

Right, but it has extensive sections on why the contemporary is so different from the historical

Middle Ages: nuclear family Ancient Rome: nuclear family Early ancient rome: nuclear family Chinese civilization : nuclear family Muslim civilization : family (although they can practice polygamy) Ancient babylon: nuclear family (they even had divorce and child support and that was 4,000 years ago!!!)

Thats all false. Completely false. People lived in extended family groups, with parents, grandparents, children, cousins, uncles, aunts, brothers and sisters often sharing living quarters. I don't think you've ever studied history, its almost laughable that you'd post that - I honestly thought everyone knew that nuclear families are modern creations.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se02.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family#History

There's two online sources, but you could really benefit from real reading. I hear libraries are free.

[–]tomek77[S] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I never said that they didn't get help from relatives; but the nuclear family was always there, as the primary social construct and the primary way to help the survival of offsprings (gandpa and auntie can help babysit, but they won't put food on the table every single day for the 5 kids of each relative they have).

Throughout all written history (except maybe the last 50 years), humans were very religious. Look at every major religion: they all had a concept of a man and a woman putting their work together to raise a child. The terminology and rituals vary, but "marriage" was always there.

And for good reason: throughout most human history, humans were struggling to survive vs diseases, starvation, wars (usually brought by starvation). Without the help of a dedicated man, a pregnant woman and her offspring(s) had very little chance of survival. This is also the reason why women care so much about relationships and romance, those who didn't find a hubby didn't pass on their genes.

[+][deleted] 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You got me on the spelling of "roles" I'll admit, but I'm wondering why you think this is important at all?

Marriage was NOT a welfare program before the advent of what is modern legal (civil) marriage. I don't have time to go through the history of marriage so please do your own research and discover for yourself. I do suggest the book "Wives Without Husbands" to give yourself insight into the beginnings of modern marital welfare.

I feel like I should take some time to explain "imputed income". "Imputed income" as it relates to alimony and child support is a creation of the States to force men to earn money at a level the court deems appropriate. You see, men have realized for a long time that they are essentially slaves to their ex-wives under our post-marital income distribution rules. Instead of living subsistent lives and working like a dog, men simply took easier jobs or stopped working altogether. In stepped the States which now "impute" income to payers of "support".

For example, the court can declare that you're being lazy or that you're intentionally making less then you're capable of. If the court thinks you're capable of making $80k it will set you're payments based on that amount so your ex can live a life she's accustomed to. You may only be making $60k. You may be left with not enough to live on after you make your "support" payments. At this point you need to make up the difference somehow so you can live AND make your payments. If you can't make up the difference you will end up homeless or starved to death (who cares anyway - you're just a man) or you can stop making you're support payments. If you do the latter you'll be thrown in prison.

I hope this information is helpful.

I d'ont atempt to exprtly edit mi posts, so please don't brother menshioning any grammatikal errors.

[+]tomek77[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link