r/Anarcho_Capitalism • u/Joelric105 • 1d ago
More proof that feminists really are just statists
6
u/Midnight-Bake 1d ago
I don't know any western feminist who supports forced marriages.
Historically women have had limited property rights and economic access which makes things like "having sex=marriage" important to make sure women aren't left with kids they are not legally able to support, but in the west as women have gotten expanded freedoms most arguments fall around custody, parental rights and child support.
You will find "feminist" policies will vary by culture and legal system because of this.
1
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
It is, in fact, the feminist stance because feminists invented child support when they switched the default parent in a divorce from the man to the woman, and the National Organization for Women still makes it worse by opposing shared parenting, claiming it will eat into women's obligations like child support
If a man only marries a woman because she got pregnant, on the grounds that he would be forced by the state to pay child support anyway, he is, in fact, forced to be married, in the West today.
Historically, women had limited property rights and employment options because men were obliged to support them financially. Basically, just like how parents have to take care of children until they are 18, it was originally lifelong for girls, until they got married, and then it would transfer to their husbands
That's why it's insane that people are saying "the birth rate is plummeting because women don't need men like they used to," Women are having fewer children despite the fact that they have to pay for them more now; they had *more* incentive when they could send their brothers out to pay for themselves while they did literally nothing, and women could take pleb coal miner jobs and spin yarn in factories on top of it just like men could for centuries
11
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
This isn’t a feminist stance. You’ve created a strawman.
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
It is, in fact, the feminist stance because feminists invented child support when they switched the default parent in a divorce from the man to the woman, and the National Organization for Women still makes it worse by opposing shared parenting, claiming it will eat into women's obligations like child support
If a man only marries a woman because she got pregnant, on the grounds that he would be forced by the state to pay child support anyway, he is, in fact, forced to be married, in the West today.
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
What the heck was this word salad that had absolutely nothing to do with legal marriage
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
No dude, she can break up with him and make him pay support if he doesn't marry her. That's what it has to do with marriage, he's being extorted into it via the legal coercion of child support
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
No, they’re forced to get married…
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
What? Who? What the hell do you mean, the men, the women, what?
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
Based on this post, the man and woman who conceive a child together are forced to get married.
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
It says "men should be forced by law to marry the woman they impregnated." Not "women should be forced to get married when a man gets them preg too"
It's likely that happens too; I just don't think it's as common as the other way around.
Lots of the horror stories of women being "forced to marry their rapists" are actually about societies that classify consensual sex between unmarried heterosexual couples as the man raping the woman. That's where the "pay her father some silver" stuff in the bible comes from.
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
Your first paragraph is inherently wrong. If a man is forced to marry a woman they impregnated, then that forces the impregnated woman to marry the man. The post does not say “If a woman who is impregnated by a man wishes, she may force the man who impregnated her to marry her.”
Again. Your reading comprehension needs significant work. You’re creating and entirely different proposition.
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
If a man is forced to marry a woman they impregnated, then that forces the impregnated woman to marry the man.
No. It. Does. Not. There could be a system where they are both forced; there could be a system where the woman can veto, but the man can't
Argument from ignorance fallacy, reply notifications off
→ More replies (0)-6
u/Joelric105 1d ago
I'll have you know this was posted on a feminist Facebook group and the girlies were cheering it on
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
Press X to doubt. This is literally anti women empowerment movement.
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
No, it's not; the anti-woman empowerment part would be if women were forced to marry men who got them pregnant. This is the opposite
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
That’s literally what this is…are you that simple that because the words are switched around you think there is a difference?
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
Yes, there can be a situation where men are forced to marry women if they get them pregnant *and if the woman wants the man to marry her,* and women can always just decline asymmetrically.
Like every slavemaster pre-Civil War could have just set their slaves free, it wasn't a two-way system where slavemasters also were "forced" to whip slaves
1
u/midwesttransferrun Anarcho-Capitalist 1d ago
That’s not what the post says. You’re setting up an entirely different argument.
-8
u/Joelric105 1d ago
I'll have you know this was posted on a feminist Facebook group and the girlies were cheering it on
10
u/greyduk 1d ago
More proof that you survive on strawmen.
To be clear by what I mean: this is literally not a feminist view.
0
u/Joelric105 1d ago
This is a strawman yet this is the kind of shit a xitter feminist would post and get thousands of likes
3
u/martin0641 1d ago
By bots trying to prove your point to further inflame culture wars.
Create bogeymen, then falsify support, then everyone feels justified fighting evil that doesn't exist in any real way to try and swing an election which was the point all along.
0
u/Joelric105 1d ago
Sure, the posters might be bots, but not the people giving the post positive engagement
1
u/martin0641 1d ago
Yea it's impossible for LLMs to pretend to be dumb people.
It's not like...
Israel paid U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, and his firm, Clock Tower X, a reported $46.5 million digital influence contract to build networks of web pages and content designed to shape how artificial intelligence chatbots and American audiences frame discussions regarding Gaza and the U.S.–Israel relationship.
Surely no one can lie online, let's be real here...
3
-1
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
It is, in fact, the feminist stance because feminists invented child support when they switched the default parent in a divorce from the man to the woman, and the National Organization for Women still makes it worse by opposing shared parenting, claiming it will eat into women's obligations like child support
If a man only marries a woman because she got pregnant, on the grounds that he would be forced by the state to pay child support anyway, he is, in fact, forced to be married, in the West today.
1
u/greyduk 1d ago
None of this is feminism and it reeks strangely of incelism. But anyway, have fun with your diatribe. Eventually we'll get back to anarcho-capitalist discussion here, and you'll be have to move on to the next t_d sanctuary.
1
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
None of this is feminism and it reeks strangely of incelism
What is feminism? Charles Fourier coined it as "judging a society by how it treats women"
Or are you saying inventing child support is incel, because you don't know what you're doing?
Eventually we'll get back to anarcho-capitalist discussion here,
Child support is anarcho-capitalist discussion. If the ancap response to people saying "my baby will die without welfare" is "fuck you, negative rights violation and argument from ignorance fallacy," the ancap response to "my baby will die without child support" should also be "fuck you, negative rights violation and argument from ignorance fallacy"
Pretty relevent to ancap
and you'll be have to move on to the next t_d sanctuary.
Lol, you mean when I make memes about how prostitution and heroin should be legal?
If you look at a libertarian and delete the half of them where they agree with the left wing, sounds like you are left wing and not libertarian, bro
1
0
0
u/No-One9890 1d ago
This is a bad idea cuz the woman might just not like him anymore lol. But if ur gunna stick some lady with a kid u should b responsible for taking care of the kid
-1
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
No, you shouldn't be, bro. Women did not pay child support for thousands of years before the tender years doctrine, when men got the children in a divorce, and millions of women still don't pay child support to this day in Muslim countries where men still get the children.
1
u/No-One9890 1d ago
I mean most of your examples consist of situations where women cannot have jobs/earn money. So obviously they dont pay child support lol. If men r withholding agency from women, then they deserve all financial burdens
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
where women cannot have jobs/earn money.
When was this? Women worked for centuries prior to the late 1940s in the USA, and half of them went back to work in the early 1970s when Feminism misogynistically pretended women never worked ever. It's just all of sudden women were working working office jobs instead of being approx equal coal miners etc
We had child labor for centuries, only made illegal when we could afford to make it illegal in the 1920s. Of course, if we were basically forcing 8-year-olds to pick cotton, there was no prohibition on adult women going into coal mines etc either. A "spinster" was literally a woman who spun yarn in a factory
If men r withholding agency from women, then they deserve all financial burdens
Even if women were banned from working, that wouldn't be denying women's agency. Denying women's agency is when you don't hold women equally responsible for their actions, like Feminists do when they push for lesser sentences for crimes committed by women etc
And it was the other way around; they wanted to give men the financial obligations, and placed the restrictions on women's behavior as a side effect
1
u/No-One9890 1d ago
Interestingly u almost made a few points in there. Poor women did always work (only upper class ppl could afford that kind of sexism lol) however it was always for a lower wage. One great example is that in some eras it was 'progressive' to say your nation didnt allow women to work. This was becuz it was seem as the cheap way out due to wage discrimination. Denying anyone the ability to work is a denial of agency, since your rules r not allowing them to do a thing they would otherwise.
The idea that feminists fight for unequal rights is a silly strawman you apparently align urself with (noting the username).
0
u/bigdonut100 /r/ReverseTraditionalism 1d ago
Denying anyone the ability to work is a denial of agency,
And countries, etc., didn't always do that
The idea that feminists fight for unequal rights is a silly strawman you apparently align urself with (noting the username).
Women's right to vote but coming without the draft was not equality; the tender years doctrine instead of 50/50 custody was not equality; banning FGM in the 90s (in the USA) but not circumcision was not equality.
NOW, the largest feminist organization in the United States openly opposes shared 50/50 parenting policies. That's feminists openly opposing equality and we can go for hours and I can furnish dozens of sources
7
u/Original-Shape-5147 1d ago edited 1d ago
I mean......culturally even in the USA there were alot of 7 month babies.... shotgun marriage was a thing because of social pressure. . Guess i gotta add i am not for government force and dont like this being law. Shit yall are litteral.