Why I stopped being a feminist

[Rose Garden]

Do you know of any men jailed for contempt? I'm asking because my lawyer said that, at least here in Utah, that never actually happens. Legally, it's in the law and could happen, but he said judges just won't make that ruling. It doesn't really make sense to jail a man who can't pay child support. What better way to make sure he loses his job and won't be able to pay in the future? Not that something not making sense means courts won't do it . . .

Yes. Keep in mind that, although my profile says I live in Utah, the move happened two months after she filed for divorce. I lived in Washington state at the time. And no, I didn't move away from my child. My wife took him to live someplace she knows I can't afford to live or even visit.

I also know a few men who were laid off from their jobs and eventually found jobs paying much less - so much less that their monthly gross income was less than what they are ordered to pay in alimony and child support. Would you expect a judge to be reasonable, reducing their payments to something they can actually afford? They did and I did, but that's not what the judges did. These men fled the country and fled the continent. The men in this situation that I know fled to third world countries where they work under the table, making enough money to get by reasonably comfortably, but they live in constant fear that they will be discovered. If that happens they can expect to be extradited, flown to the US, and jailed for a long time.

Based on a child support estimator, if the judge orders the maximum amount of child support from me that he can then I won't be able to afford tithing or food. So I am really worried about what will happen. And when my wife moved to California she enrolled our child in a private school paid for by her wealthy parents, but in the divorce petition she asked for me to pay half that amount - about $14,000 per year. If that happens I will no longer be able to afford rent. I am praying for things to go well but, knowing the wickedness of the family court system, I don't have much faith behind those prayers.

I feel like the child support laws are pretty much corrupt through and through. The definition of "support" of a child when it comes to law means paying money, which is utterly backwards, if you ask me. The support children need is time and attention and individual care, which you can pay other people for, but they will never provide the same loving care a parent can. Unfortunately, propaganda campaigns have led people to view those who can't or don't pay child support as terrible people and most people feel justified in judging them, and unsympathetic toward their struggles, including incarceration. I could go on for a while but would prefer not to dwell on the subject. It is terribly frustrating to me to think of the harm the system does to families.

[Fiannan]

Not to worry, once we have Sharia Law then men automatically get custody of the children and the woman gets a bit of money and is sent on her way.

[Spaced_Out]

Do you know of any men jailed for contempt? I'm asking because my lawyer said that, at least here in Utah, that never actually happens. Legally, it's in the law and could happen, but he said judges just won't make that ruling. It doesn't really make sense to jail a man who can't pay child support. What better way to make sure he loses his job and won't be able to pay in the future? Not that something not making sense means courts won't do it . . .

Yes. Keep in mind that, although my profile says I live in Utah, the move happened two months after she filed for divorce. I lived in Washington state at the time. And no, I didn't move away from my child. My wife took him to live someplace she knows I can't afford to live or even visit.

I also know a few men who were laid off from their jobs and eventually found jobs paying much less - so much less that their monthly gross income was less than what they are ordered to pay in alimony and child support. Would you expect a judge to be reasonable, reducing their payments to something they can actually afford? They did and I did, but that's not what the judges did. These men fled the country and fled the continent. The men in this situation that I know fled to third world countries where they work under the table, making enough money to get by reasonably comfortably, but they live in constant fear that they will be discovered. If that happens they can expect to be extradited, flown to the US, and jailed for a long time.

Based on a child support estimator, if the judge orders the maximum amount of child support from me that he can then I won't be able to afford tithing or food. So I am really worried about what will happen. And when my wife moved to California she enrolled our child in a private school paid for by her wealthy parents, but in the divorce petition she asked for me to pay half that amount - about $14,000 per year. If that happens I will no longer be able to afford rent. I am praying for things to go well but, knowing the wickedness of the family court system, I don't have much faith behind those prayers.

I feel like the child support laws are pretty much corrupt through and through. The definition of "support" of a child when it comes to law means paying money, which is utterly backwards, if you ask me. The support children need is time and attention and individual care, which you can pay other people for, but they will never provide the same loving care a parent can. Unfortunately, propaganda campaigns have led people to view those who can't or don't pay child support as terrible people and most people feel justified in judging them, and unsympathetic toward their struggles, including incarceration. I could go on for a while but would prefer not to dwell on the subject. It is terribly frustrating to me to think of the harm the system does to families.

It is a temple recommend question, so if you are unable to pay - you are totally stuffed.

I think the woman post divorce purposely do things to make life as costly as possible like private schools so the ex has no chance of paying and has no chance of ever getting into another relationship and no chance of a temple recommend.
So that is the risk of marriage and with more than half of marriages ending in divorce best to avoid marriage like the plague.

Best just to declare bankruptcy and go and live on welfare stop all payments, quit your job and declare yourself as suffering from PSTD - if you have no job you cant pay anything. It cost the state lots of money to keep a person in jail - they would rather avoid the expense, as the you would not be a liability with criminal intent.

[Rose Garden]

Not to worry, once we have Sharia Law then men automatically get custody of the children and the woman gets a bit of money and is sent on her way.

If it weren't for the other aspects of Sharia law, I would think this would be highly preferable to what we have now. In divorce, custody is often used as a means of revenge between the spouses. To add the extra incentive of receiving child support to the equation just makes that problem much worse. Children become a commodity.

If the custodial parent were required to bear the full cost of supporting their children, those who sought custody for revenge would think twice over taking on the responsibility. If they were required to pay the non-custodial spouse for the loss of their children, then it would change the dynamics drastically. The motivation behind custody would be entirely different. It still would be far from ideal, but it would certainly shake things up.

[Fiannan]

Not to worry, once we have Sharia Law then men automatically get custody of the children and the woman gets a bit of money and is sent on her way.

If it weren't for the other aspects of Sharia law, I would think this would be highly preferable to what we have now. In divorce, custody is often used as a means of revenge between the spouses. To add the extra incentive of receiving child support to the equation just makes that problem much worse. Children become a commodity.

If the custodial parent were required to bear the full cost of supporting their children, those who sought custody for revenge would think twice over taking on the responsibility. If they were required to pay the non-custodial spouse for the loss of their children, then it would change the dynamics drastically. The motivation behind custody would be entirely different. It still would be far from ideal, but it would certainly shake things up.

Thanks Meili, I never thought of it this way. Sort of like the case with Solomon the two women and the baby but within the context of why would someone who is not really into their kids fight to get custody of them. Seen some pretty p-poor women get custody of kids over very involved and loving fathers. Bet they would not have positioned themselves to get the kids if they knew they had to foot the bill.

[brianj]

I feel like the child support laws are pretty much corrupt through and through. The definition of "support" of a child when it comes to law means paying money, which is utterly backwards, if you ask me. The support children need is time and attention and individual care, which you can pay other people for, but they will never provide the same loving care a parent can. Unfortunately, propaganda campaigns have led people to view those who can't or don't pay child support as terrible people and most people feel justified in judging them, and unsympathetic toward their struggles, including incarceration. I could go on for a while but would prefer not to dwell on the subject. It is terribly frustrating to me to think of the harm the system does to families.

It is a temple recommend question, so if you are unable to pay - you are totally stuffed.

I think the woman post divorce purposely do things to make life as costly as possible like private schools so the ex has no chance of paying and has no chance of ever getting into another relationship and no chance of a temple recommend.
So that is the risk of marriage and with more than half of marriages ending in divorce best to avoid marriage like the plague.

Best just to declare bankruptcy and go and live on welfare stop all payments, quit your job and declare yourself as suffering from PSTD - if you have no job you cant pay anything. It cost the state lots of money to keep a person in jail - they would rather avoid the expense, as the you would not be a liability with criminal intent.

I recently saw an article claiming that wealthy young men from places like The Hamptons, NY (who are obviously not LDS) are getting elective vasectomies in order to protect themselves and their wealth. The real reason for this is because of the beautiful women who will lie about being on the pill, use a pin to punch holes in condoms, or even steal the contents of a used condom for the purpose of artificial insemination. These women see the men and pregnancy as a payday: since the father is wealthy they will argue in court that their child needs to be raised in that lifestyle and they need enough child support to cover the cost of such a lifestyle. Of course this is done without any love for the child, only a love for wealth and status.

We live in a sick world. Though we have plenty to be optimistic and hopeful over, we have a lot to strengthen ourselves against.

[Fiannan]

Now that washed up female comedian is blaming white men for her troubles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR5g9uvaIBQ&t=11s Not feeling sorry for her.

[djinwa]

Let me generalize, and of course, there are exceptions.

Women in general are more likely to claim victimhood and avoid blame and responsibility. It is their nature.

I see it at home and at work - when giving an opinion or asking someone to do something, women like my wife and daughters or those I supervise at work, are much more likely to react defensively and assume I was accusing them of something.

On the other hand, we tell men to "man up" and "grow a pair". So women feel no limits to claiming victimhood, while men feel shame to do so. So men will lose as long as we tolerate such behavior.

So feminism is about power through victimhood. If you can claim to be a victim of men, you get special treatment and benefits.

Problem with feminists is they don't know when to stop. Many of them won't be satisfied until they've gotten everything they can - and why not, after all, men are rapists and abusers, and oppressive patriarchy and rape culture, and on and on. They'll keep going until few men want to touch them, or work to pay for them.

Good luck ladies building your own roads and bridges and houses and cars and combines and whatever, cuz of course you need men "like a fish needs a bicycle", right?

Now if women generally want to have husbands and families, they might want to fight against feminism, but few care. Just complain there aren't any good men out there, and they're immature, and irresponsible and selfish, blah, blah. Once again, only blame the men. Women are all sweet, innocent angels.

As I've said before, the church doesn't care if women blow up families. Seen it happen multiple times among LDS relatives, based on the wifes' desire for more money. Only thing that really matters is that the dad doesn't look at porn.

Once again, men bad, women good.

MGTOW is the future, and for good reason.

[djinwa]

I must start with confessing that I haven't watched the video yet.

This video is important not only because it helps you understand the problem of male/female dilemma but because it is an excellent discussion about prejudice in general. Anytime we generalize a population, whether it's men or women, blacks or whites, Mormons or Christians, etc., we are using the dehumanizing methods she discovered in herself as she made this documentary. You cannot ever find peace and love using those tools. The only way we will find love and peace in our lives is through looking at every single person as an individual who is deserving and in need of love, respect, concern, and so forth.

I am a bit worried that this is exactly what we are doing with feminists. We generalize them to stereotypes and then dehumanize them. Just like many see all Mormons as they see Warren Jeffs. Yet, not all feminists are bad. If we look at the definition Wikipedia gives, it doesn't sound so bad:

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.

The problem is that for different people feminism means different things. I do not agree with all feminists in all things, yet I think that there still is room for feminism in the world.

This reminds me of those, including my LDS BIL, who say Marxism and communism weren't bad ideas. Just so happens they result in 100 million or so dead bodies.

Same with feminism. May sound good to some people, but somehow it creates the victim mentality in millions of women, which leads to divorce and destroyed families.

But then, turns out families aren't valued as much as we claim. More important to bow to the ever-increasing demands of feminists, lest we be accused of hating women.

[David13]

I must start with confessing that I haven't watched the video yet.

This video is important not only because it helps you understand the problem of male/female dilemma but because it is an excellent discussion about prejudice in general. Anytime we generalize a population, whether it's men or women, blacks or whites, Mormons or Christians, etc., we are using the dehumanizing methods she discovered in herself as she made this documentary. You cannot ever find peace and love using those tools. The only way we will find love and peace in our lives is through looking at every single person as an individual who is deserving and in need of love, respect, concern, and so forth.

I am a bit worried that this is exactly what we are doing with feminists. We generalize them to stereotypes and then dehumanize them. Just like many see all Mormons as they see Warren Jeffs. Yet, not all feminists are bad. If we look at the definition Wikipedia gives, it doesn't sound so bad:

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.

The problem is that for different people feminism means different things. I do not agree with all feminists in all things, yet I think that there still is room for feminism in the world.

This reminds me of those, including my LDS BIL, who say Marxism and communism weren't bad ideas. Just so happens they result in 100 million or so dead bodies.

Same with feminism. May sound good to some people, but somehow it creates the victim mentality in millions of women, which leads to divorce and destroyed families.

But then, turns out families aren't valued as much as we claim. More important to bow to the ever-increasing demands of feminists, lest we be accused of hating women.

Well, there are important bandwagons that everyone must jump on because "everyone" is jumping on, yes, those of "political correctness" and "progress", and "the latest thing", etc., which includes all the trash "movies" and trash tv that is actually just propaganda, disguised as entertainment.
dc

[Sarah]

I must start with confessing that I haven't watched the video yet.

This video is important not only because it helps you understand the problem of male/female dilemma but because it is an excellent discussion about prejudice in general. Anytime we generalize a population, whether it's men or women, blacks or whites, Mormons or Christians, etc., we are using the dehumanizing methods she discovered in herself as she made this documentary. You cannot ever find peace and love using those tools. The only way we will find love and peace in our lives is through looking at every single person as an individual who is deserving and in need of love, respect, concern, and so forth.

I am a bit worried that this is exactly what we are doing with feminists. We generalize them to stereotypes and then dehumanize them. Just like many see all Mormons as they see Warren Jeffs. Yet, not all feminists are bad. If we look at the definition Wikipedia gives, it doesn't sound so bad:

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women.

The problem is that for different people feminism means different things. I do not agree with all feminists in all things, yet I think that there still is room for feminism in the world.

This reminds me of those, including my LDS BIL, who say Marxism and communism weren't bad ideas. Just so happens they result in 100 million or so dead bodies.

Same with feminism. May sound good to some people, but somehow it creates the victim mentality in millions of women, which leads to divorce and destroyed families.

But then, turns out families aren't valued as much as we claim. More important to bow to the ever-increasing demands of feminists, lest we be accused of hating women.

I think imho and meli are right. You can't generalize, and we must acknowledge that people hold different definitions to words.

Let's take communism and compare it to feminism. If you look at the definition of communism, it looks a lot like the same definition we would give to the United Order. But we know there is a big difference right? The difference is freedom and agency is preserved in the United Order and not under communism. When people are forced to do things, they start to obey grudgingly, and that leads to dishonesty and rebellion, which leads to punishment and confiscation by those in power.

In the family structure, ideally agency and freedom are preserved, but we have had a predominance of males asserting power over women throughout history, husbands asserting power over their wives. Like the united order, where an authority figure makes righteous judgement, deals fairly and preserves agency, the husband has the opportunity to do the same. But when a husband or men in general exercise control unrighteously or unfairly, or take advantage of a women's dependence on men, you will have women obeying grudgingly and then have rebellion. That is what the feminist movement is - simply a rebellion against chauvinism, or the man's assertion of an entitlement to power over the woman. If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism.

I don't think there is anything wrong with those who believe men and women should be treated equally, but when you have women, like the gay or black population, lobbying for special rights, or "reparations" in effect, then you are crossing the line into forcing the population to give you something, and that is how it resembles communism. It's true that they are taking their victum-hood into the level of revenge and wanting to force others to pay the price so to speak.

But you're right, women need men, and they are trying to get around that need by working on their own to make money. They are turning men off with their anger and desire to punish men for what they see as injustice. But men need to be careful in decrying feminism in that they need to define exactly what it is they don't like. Do you want to pass laws again forbidding women from voting or working for example? Its kind of interesting to me that black men were allowed to vote before women were.

[Yahtzee]

If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism.

I don't like modern feminism, but this pretty much nails it.

Also acknowledging that the way things are going though we're going to need an advocacy group for white, Christian, straight men soon.

[h_p]

If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism.

I don't like modern feminism, but this pretty much nails it.

Too bad their answer was to become what they despise.

[David13]

If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism.

I don't like modern feminism, but this pretty much nails it.


...

I don't really agree. "Feminism" is a type of perversion or aberration, and it doesn't address the question, nor provide a solution or answer to the issue of man's inhumanity toward women. I think it's some weird personal psychological aberration. Much, maybe most of it isn't based on reality or experience as much as mis-perception and misunderstanding. Also a great deal of 'social' or 'cultural' influence.
dc

[Sarah]

If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism.

I don't like modern feminism, but this pretty much nails it.

Too bad their answer was to become what they despise.

Exactly.

[Gage]

"If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism." LOL!! That is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard! That is like saying "If women behaved and acted right you wouldn't have gay men"

[Sarah]

"If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism." LOL!! That is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard! That is like saying "If women behaved and acted right you wouldn't have gay men"

If all men behaved and treated women as our Savior would, you would not have a feminist movement. You would still have selfish women. You would still have immoral women. But you wouldn't have the huge backlash and demanding attitudes that you see now. Expectations men have for women breed women's expectations for men.

[Rose Garden]

I thought this article was pertinent to this conversation and very eye-opening: http://sites.middlebury.edu/middmag/201 ... -violence/

Problems of gender violence, which include sexual violence, domestic violence, sexual abuse of children, and sexual harassment, are viewed by society as “women’s issues that some good men help out with,” rather than seen as men’s issues.

Men and masculinity “have been rendered invisible in much of the discourse” around gender violence, Katz said. This is not surprising since “dominant groups often go unchallenged in society, and their power and privilege goes unexamined.”

[Gage]

"If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism." LOL!! That is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard! That is like saying "If women behaved and acted right you wouldn't have gay men"

If all men behaved and treated women as our Savior would, you would not have a feminist movement. You would still have selfish women. You would still have immoral women. But you wouldn't have the huge backlash and demanding attitudes that you see now. Expectations men have for women breed women's expectations for men.

If all women behaved and treated men as our Savior would have them to, there would be no Feminist movement. if all women were not trying to go against what our Savior's purpose for them is, there would be no Feminist movement. If there were no Satan, there would be no feminist movement.

[Fiannan]

"If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism." LOL!! That is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard! That is like saying "If women behaved and acted right you wouldn't have gay men"

If all men behaved and treated women as our Savior would, you would not have a feminist movement. You would still have selfish women. You would still have immoral women. But you wouldn't have the huge backlash and demanding attitudes that you see now. Expectations men have for women breed women's expectations for men.

If all women behaved and treated men as our Savior would have them to, there would be no Feminist movement. if all women were not trying to go against what our Savior's purpose for them is, there would be no Feminist movement. If there were no Satan, there would be no feminist movement.

And what about women like this? http://www.momtastic.com/love-sex/49863 ... g-bag/amp/

[Sarah]

"If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism." LOL!! That is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard! That is like saying "If women behaved and acted right you wouldn't have gay men"

If all men behaved and treated women as our Savior would, you would not have a feminist movement. You would still have selfish women. You would still have immoral women. But you wouldn't have the huge backlash and demanding attitudes that you see now. Expectations men have for women breed women's expectations for men.

If all women behaved and treated men as our Savior would have them to, there would be no Feminist movement. if all women were not trying to go against what our Savior's purpose for them is, there would be no Feminist movement. If there were no Satan, there would be no feminist movement.

And how does the Savior want us to treat men? He wants us to obey righteous husbands. But that is kind of hard to do when you are being treated unfairly or unkindly. Men are able to obey a perfectly loving being whom they can trust perfectly. Women must obey, love and put their trust in often times selfish men. See the dilemma women have? Again, what is it specifically that you are complaining about regarding the feminist movement?

The Savior would have women bear children and raise them, but that can only be done with men's help. Both men and women must be willing to sacrifice to bring about God's purposes. And at least in my experience it is men who want their wives to forgo children and work outside of the home just as much as women make that choice.

[Gage]

Ok you make fine points but I am sorry its just not real world. Most women could care less what the Savior wants they want their Alpha man and they dont care how they are treated, most prefer badly because thats what nature tells them. They want their rich Alpha man to take care of them, show authority and take control and be a man and "rule" over them. I am sorry but Feminism is just a load of crap started by lesbians.

[Fiannan]

Ok you make fine points but I am sorry its just not real world. Most women could care less what the Savior wants they want their Alpha man and they dont care how they are treated, most prefer badly because thats what nature tells them. They want their rich Alpha man to take care of them, show authority and take control and be a man and "rule" over them. I am sorry but Feminism is just a load of crap started by lesbians.

Out of every 100 single 20-something LDS women today...if given a choice what percentage would choose this:

1) Active priesthood holder, struggled to get through college with a teaching degree and works at a middle school, or

2) Non-member wealthy CEO who makes his money in the entertainment industry?

[h_p]

And how does the Savior want us to treat men? He wants us to obey righteous husbands. But that is kind of hard to do when you are being treated unfairly or unkindly. Men are able to obey a perfectly loving being whom they can trust perfectly. Women must obey, love and put their trust in often times selfish men. See the dilemma women have? Again, what is it specifically that you are complaining about regarding the feminist movement?

The temple covenant a woman makes is to obey her husband as her husband obeys Father. Meaning, her obedience to him is conditional. No woman should ever feel like they need to follow an unrighteous man into hell.

[David13]

"If all men behaved righteously and fairly towards women, you wouldn't have feminism." LOL!! That is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard! That is like saying "If women behaved and acted right you wouldn't have gay men"

If all men behaved and treated women as our Savior would, you would not have a feminist movement. You would still have selfish women. You would still have immoral women. But you wouldn't have the huge backlash and demanding attitudes that you see now. Expectations men have for women breed women's expectations for men.

This just reeks of a total lack of self responsibility. It's always someone else's or something else's fault.
And your assessment just doesn't fit any reality.
Seems like some personal issues.
dc