Sunday, 21 August 2011

Family law reform

Family Law reform

The whole area of family law needs drastic reform. In almost every way it’s totally unfair to men and of course there are different ideas on what should be done and how to fix the problems created by feminists.

There’s the gender equality approach, the moderate masculist one and the radical masculist solution. All would be better than what we’ve got now and I’ll go through them and explain them.

The way things are right now is that feminist laws have got us into the following situation. Women don’t bother to get married at all or if they do they get divorced at the drop of a hat. If they split up they got the family home, sole custody of the children, huge sums in alimony from the ex-partner and they can more or less deny him any access to the kids if they feel like it.

Even worse, if men object to how they’re being treated then they can be arrested for “domestic violence” and no matter how much they struggle to pay the alimony the woman always wants more. If the man can’t pay then he can be arrested and thrown into prison more or less indefinitely.

And that’s just one of the many areas of family law that needs reform. Let’s start by looking at the various ways we could improve things.

In the first place, the divorce laws need reforming. Gender equality advocates want to scrap the whole idea of “no fault” divorces and for divorce only to be legal if there’s clear proof of adultery or cruelty. They still want both sexes to be able to get a divorce, though.

Moderate masculists take a different approach, arguing that there’s no reason to scrap the grounds for existing divorces – in fact, they want divorce to be easier than it is right now – but that it shouldn’t be an option for a woman. They argue that a man should be able to divorce his wife freely but that she should be absolutely forbidden to apply for a divorce from him.

Radical masculists agree with the moderate ones but go further. They want a two-tier system of divorce, one a “no fault” divorce where the husband divorces his wife without laying any blame on her and a second layer of “aggravated divorce” where he complains about her behaviour or attitudes.

So who’s right? Should we just let everyone get divorced willy-nilly like they do now? Should we only allow it in the case of adultery or cruelty? Should both husbands and wives be able to apply for a divorce? And should we have a two-tier system where “aggravated divorce” leads to tougher penalties against the “rogue partner,” as radical masculists describe the wife in their suggested reforms?

I’ll come back to those questions later in my post. Let’s look at another big problem in terms of divorce – custody of children from the marriage. At the moment almost every divorce ends up with the wife getting the sole custody of the children. Gender equality thinkers want joint custody to be the norm and only in very exceptional circumstances should the court grant sole custody to either parent. They also want the claims of fathers to be weighed equally with those of the mother when it comes to custody.

Moderate masculists broadly agree but want a two-tier system, one where joint custody is the norm but the presumption of the court is in favour of giving “primary custody" to the father rather than the wife and one where sole custody is awarded to the man. Radical masculists want to turn the existing system on its head and insist that sole custody must always be given to the father in the event of a divorce.

I’ll look at these ideas later on. In the meantime I’m going to look at money, property and other assets. Is it right that, as happens now in almost every case, the husband loses his home, his kids, is forced to pay huge sums of alimony and child support to his wife and is basically asked to finance the theft of his own children? And if it isn’t right, what can we do about it?

Again, there are three approaches to the question. The gender equality advocates want alimony and child support to be abolished altogether and for all assets within a marriage to be assessed by the court on the basis of who contributed them and then make a decision based on the proportion of money and so on contributed by each partner.

Moderate masculists take more or less the same view but want the court to award a higher proportion of the assets to the husband than the wife and also to make the wife contribute a larger share of child support costs than the man on the grounds that, even with joint custody, they want the man to be recognised in law as the “primary carer.”

Radical masculists want not just to turn the existing laws on their head but to make them even more unfavourable to an ex-wife than the ones we’ve got right now are to ex-husbands. They want to keep alimony and child support but make it only payable by the wife to the husband; give all assets from the marriage 100% to the husband and 0% to the wife; and to keep all the feminist-inspired harsh sanctions against “deadbeat Dads” but to use them against “deadbeat Mums” instead.

Then there’s the question of “no fault” divorces and “aggravated divorce” proposals. In a no fault divorce, the court just recognises that the man wants a divorce and that it’s not a question of anyone being at fault. In an aggravated divorce, the wife’s behaviour is held against her as being a reason for divorcing her.

The following grounds are suggested by radical masculists for aggravated divorce: adultery, cruelty, mental cruelty and unreasonable behaviour. As always with the masculist approach, these charges can only be made by a husband against his wife, not the other way round. If she’s found guilty of these offences then the court can order all sorts of additional types of punishment against her.

The question of access to children from the marriage also needs to be reformed. Gender equality wants each partner to have 50-50 access to the kids; moderate masculists want to see a 4-3 or 5-2 split in favour of the father; and radical masculists want it to be entirely up to him where, when, how often and even if she can see the children. Radical masculists want “no access” to be the norm for a mother if it’s an aggravated divorce and “limited access” – once a month or less often – to be the general rule even in a no fault divorce.

Those are the basic options (though radical masculists also want to use the existing feminist laws against husbands and fathers and turn them on wives and mothers instead.) I’ll deal with them in a separate post because they’re more part of the discussion about reforms in the criminal code in general rather than just in the area of family law.

Then there’s the question of adultery. Should it be a crime for women but legal for men, a crime for both sexes or for neither?

Gender equality advocates don’t think it should be a crime at all; the moderate masculists think it should be a crime for both sexes and radical masculists think it should only be a crime for a girl to commit adultery.

Then there’s the question of what basis marriage ought to be done on. Gender equality advocates want it to be a free choice by both partners; moderate masculists want it to be a case where marriages are arranged on behalf of the girl by her male guardian and the male suitor but the girl would have the right to say no; and radical masculists want all marriages to be arranged and for the girl to have no say at all in the matter.

Then there’s the question of multiple partners. Should both sexes be able to have as many wives or husbands as they like? Should both only be able to have just one? Or should one gender be able to have multiple partners and the other not?

Gender equality thinks either no one should be able to have more than one husband or wife or alternatively both should be able to. Moderate masculists want men to be able to have more than one wife up to a maximum of ten but women would only be allowed one husband. Radical masculists want men to be able to have as many wives as they like but a girl can only have one husband.

Then there’s the cases of contraception and abortion. Gender equality wants both sexes to be able to use contraception of their own free choice; masculists (moderate and radical) want it to be entirely the decision of the man whether or not birth control can be used.

With abortion, gender equality want both partners to reach a mutual decision but if they disagree they want the woman’s wishes to be the deciding factor; moderate masculists want only the man to decide on the issue; radical masculists want the same but also insist that if the girl is carrying a male child abortion can NEVER be an option.

So how do I feel about the various suggestions? In the first place, who should be able to get a divorce – husband, wife, either, both, neither? IMO divorce should only be an option open to the husband. I don’t think a wife should ever be able to get divorced of her own free will but I think the husband should have the right to divorce her. I also agree with the radical masculists about a two-tier system of no fault divorces and of aggravated divorces.

On the custody issue I agree with the gender equality position. I think joint custody is the best solution and that sole custody is always going to lead to unfairness towards the non-custodial partner. I also agree with them about a 50-50 split when it comes to access because otherwise I think it’s unfair to the non-custodial partner. On the distribution of assets I also agree with them though I’m not so sure about alimony and child support. IMO the partner with more money should pay something extra into the pot to help financially.

Should marriages be arranged on her behalf and the girl have no say at all in the matter? I find that quite a sexy fantasy but I’m not sure it’s a good idea in reality. I can see how it’s probably better overall to have marriages arranged for girls under, say, the age of 30 but over that age I think it should be a mutual decision. And even with the young ones I do think she should have the right to say no.

On multiple partners I’m not sure to be honest. I find it an incredibly sexy fantasy to be, say, in a harem of girls all getting fucked by their hubby and not being able to be unfaithful to him. On the other hand I can also see the problems that might cause. On balance I suppose I’d say it might be worth a limited trial period to see how it works out. And, of course, it could only be on the basis of husbands having multiple wives and not the other way round.

On adultery I’m a bit iffy. To be honest how I feel is I’d always be faithful to my husband and I’d like him to be the same with me. On the other hand, if he did have an affair my first thought would be to wonder what I’d done wrong and what the other woman had to offer that he wasn’t getting from me. I’d try and think about my own behaviour and see how I could improve it to make him stay faithful. But if you absolutely push me and say, should either partner have the right to cheat on the other one, I guess I’d have to say that it’s more understandable when a man does it than when a woman does. If it’s a cheating wife or a cheating husband, I think the wife is more to blame to be honest. And I’d definitely blame the other woman for leading him on and want her to be punished in some sort of way – whether by me beating the shit out of her or by the law giving her some sort of punishment. If the law was going to be changed, though, I guess I’d support making it a crime for the wife (and the other woman) but not for the husband.

On contraception and abortion I take the view that it should be up to the man to decide on those issues. Whatever he wants is the right decision. I also agree with the radical masculists that if the girl’s carrying a boy she should be absolutely forbidden to have an abortion. I think how she feels should be taken into account on the questions of contraception or abortion but the final decision should be made by the man.

By my standards this is one of my more moderate posts – I’m taking the middle ground on most issues and favouring gender equality on most of the solutions!


  1. If men might be able to have a harem (or at least some extra sex partners) *and* male fetuses are not allowed to be aborted but female are... won't both those factors lead to a shortage of women? Wouldn't we then have to do whatever possible to increase the number of females, not decrease?

  2. Well, in the first placc, Sir, the gentleman would decide on whether or not the female foetus should be aborted or not.

    If there were population issues with not enough females to go round then obviously there would be pressure not to abort a girl baby.

  3. Mostly i agree with you. However, i don't think it should be against the law to abort a male baby in the case of some serious birth defect. i do not advocate aborting any baby for these reasons but i do know some conditions lead to serious suffering by the child. Also, it should be the man's right to decide if he wishes to father a child who will have an inherited disease.

    As for female's having the right to divorce. you have said previously you do not agree with a man bashing his wife severly for no good reason or him taking her life. What do you think of the idea of her father or other male family member being able to petition for divorce on her behalf, in the case where a husband is intent on killing his wife? i know the numbers are less than 1% of this actually happening in real life, but there should be some provision for it.

    i also think a female should be allowed to see her children, as it is of benefit to the child/ren to have access to both parents, however, i think the visits should be supervised to ensure she does not speak ill of the father or men in general.

  4. Could you please explain why the standard for abortion should be different depending on the gender of the child

    1. Because boys grow up to be men so they are more important.

      Biology is destiny and in our case having a cunt means that our destiny is to be inferior and worth less than men.