One of the original writers/editors of Cosmopolitan Magazine who recently found religion and is now a Catholic has so much remorse for what she and her female colleagues did to the American housewife starting in the 60's. I had no idea but women are 80% of the consumer base and Madison Ave. figured out that if they could convince a large portion of these women to leave their husbands and children they could unlock this new revenue stream. Much of the drivel she and her colleagues wrote was pure fantasy by her own admission. This lie has perpetuated itself into today's feminism and mixed with social media it is so absolutely toxic for everyone especially women. Thanks to the data disclosed by Tinder and Bumble, etc. we have figured out that the women on these app's are all chasing the same 10% of men. Most women have pretty common standards and the attention they get from Chad and Tyrone is mistook for real love or affection and they continuously get pumped and dumped. Before they know it, they are 35 and miserably unhappy by their own admission. Some escape without having children, thankfully, but all too often they end up having some kids and then they and their children pay the price. Men have to work to earn their value in the world in order to provide for their families. Women, to a large part, are to preserve their purity and value. The old saying is true, women control access to sex and men control access to relationships. If women give away sex for free then why would a man take her seriously for long term relationships? Most won't because they know it is an L for them long term.

We should all honor this man.

No thank you. 1 is more than enough.

Just finished mine January of Last year, 25 yr marriage, 23 yr captain for the other big freight company, they stuck me with 12k a month temporary support while we fought it out, 4k every two weeks and you pay the taxes, message me if you have any questions. I ended up doing better than what the court gave me, we ended up settling, but you will lose half you can plan on it. I am also located in the Memphis area, so our situations will be similar

IMO, you are only looking through the lens of domestic abuse and not the larger societal impacts. No fault divorce has been around since well before the 1960s, so women weren’t chained to marriages. My grandmother went through more than her fair share of alcoholics and domestic abusers (married four times). Her first divorce was in 1946 and she was a Rosie the Riveter on Long Island and her dad was a coal miner. She had an outhouse until 1959, so she wasn’t exactly a woman of privilege. Yet she got out of harmful marriage just fine.

However, the greater ramifications of the ease of divorce have been the detrimental impacts psychologically for all the people that have experienced them. 25-35% of divorces are due to domestic abuse. Another 20% are due to adultery. That means around half are attributed to something else. And given that women initiate 80-90% of divorces, it only facilitates the path to an early exit when she gets half for a no fault divorce.

The 60’s saw an increase in divorce rates from 2.6/1000 to 6.2/1000. That’s nearly 250%. For reference, todays rate is closer to 2.7. And these divorces impacted not only women, but children as well. Those children are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, suicidality, and have academic performance that is a third of a standard deviation below their peers from intact families. This impacts them, but also has downstream consequences that last decades. More than any other time in our history. That’s a lot of harm and I wouldn’t say that you could call it a “grand” thing for society.

I see your point about some good things coming as a result, but that time period for families and society in general was a net loss (IMO) in many ways. Calling it “grand” minimizes the damages that occurred.

Thanks for the response. I'll take your percentages as true without citation. In that case, with 80% of women initiating divorce, their reasons are abuse 25%, infidelity, 20%: that's over half and leaves just 35% to irreconcilable differences based on the woman initiating divorce and unknown in the case of male initiated divorce. I don't doubt that children with abusive and unfaithful fathers may encounter difficulties in a co-parenting situation, but the fathers in this example have already proven through their actions that they put their own needs ahead of the families. So, in the best case only one third of the co-parenting scenarios have a chance at being successful but there is a strong argument that the children are better off than in an unhappy household and undeniable they are better off out of an abusive one.

Two minor quibbles, women don't always get half of anything and that assumes there is something to get and divorce is creature of state law so your grandmother's experience in that timeframe was the exception and not the norm. Equal partnership and Equality IS a grand thing indeed. Unfortunately, some men have a problem with that. If a participant in the marriage chooses to be subservient or subordinate for whatever reason, that's a choice. It should not be the only choice.

This is apparently the tiny penis thread.

I seriously doubt they give a sh!t