Comments by "POO CRAYON" (@poocrayon4588) on "Are Arranged Marriages Outdated? | Middle Ground INDIA" video.

Stigmatizing divorce is necessary. The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement.
16
@helloitsdammy Exactly - marriage can only work if gone into with the idea it's for life (except in rare circumstances) and your building happiness and contentment together. NOT if its over and you split the family once you lose the feels. In the west women initiate divorce 86% of the time for no fault reasons and are rewarded for it. Basically they want the men they dump to continue to provide for them after they've dumped them. Which is an unsustainable system.
14
Which is marriage working. The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement.
12
The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement. Marriage only works if it's based of the idea of building a lasting life and growing relationship together. Not if it's something to leave once the feels are gone like teenage girls in high school.
12
@sherwood9917 Lets be real women are initiating divorce 85% of the time. Even when they're valued and respected they get bored of relationships they previously found fulfilling and happy. Marriage by choice doesn't work because women get sick of long term relationships and fall out of love - but a society based on that doesn't work either because men wont enforce laws which are a sum negative for them in the long term.
11
Phunsuc Gates So true - dont let feminists ruin India like they have ruined America and the west. We will only become productive again once we overcome them
9
@yashviparikh319 No Im not referring to gold diggers - I'm referring to the usual and most common reasons women divorce in the west and what happens after.
9
@lisah8438 typical response of someone without a point or brain, resort to slander. This isnt twitter, that doesn't work here
7
@claireelizabeth9431 Thankyou I appreciate your well considered response. Even tho I have some problems with your comment, I will give you kudos for your reasoning behind why women are leaving marriages so much more than men. Many people (especially women) are triggered by this and say the different rate of initiation is because women are being abused or cheated on etc. - or else they just want to ignore it. In this regard your thoughts about "emotional connection" (and I would add loss of attraction and satisfaction with the "idea" of their relationship) are pretty close to the truth I feel. So well done as far as your understanding of it goes, tho your appreciation of it as a problem logically and morally is lacking imo - which is to be expected given you see it from the female viewpoint (that's not an insult, what I mean is we are better able to appreciate problems which are problems for us, especially over problems we cause others simply by being us and expecting them to understand, the same I'm sure is true of me) As I say I agree with you on womens reason for leaving. However it's not "people growing out of each other other and falling out of love" - on the whole it's women feeling they have grown out of their relationship and fallen out of love. Women often describe it as mutual as you did, but be honest - that isn't really the truth. What you described as men "putting up with a bad marriage" - is often a situation which men don't see as bad at all. Further I will say even tho men can be very selfish or just naturally inclined to expect women to take care of them (and this is of course unfair) - I don't actually think it's a large factor in women initiating divorce. Very few women who are already doing this in marriages divorce for this reason - tho they may be more aware of and annoyed it after they fall out of love/lose connection/lose attraction or purpose. However when attraction and connection is there many women enter into this situation of being the one doing the domestic and "emotional labour" (lol) knowingly and it doesn't have a great impact. You say "why continue to stay married if they are no longer in love" - and you have a point - the problem for men is "why get married and have kids together if your woman will fall out of love" and then the problem for society is men and boys will think "if your woman will inevitably fall out of "love", why enforce laws that let her take the children to raise with another man, or keep any assets, or the house etc, when she falls out of "love"? (and she will)" and then the problem is all womens. This also goes to the heart of the way the sexes see love in the context of a marriage - if women are only (or can only) seeing love as an emotional connection or a feeling and not a long term philosophy and action then there is a problem. Personally for me and many men - if you consider and agree to raise kids with someone or build a life with someone, and then you go back on that then you are incapable of understanding what love actually means for most men anyway. And tbh those that believe otherwise have a school girl conception of love to me - and it's worthless in my life and the lives of most men to be loved that way by a woman. Totally worthless. To clarify my original comment - I wasn't implying that women leave the marriages to force the men to provide for them away from the marriage, or that they all marry for money - the point I was making was that the laws (which women wanted) that come into play when couples divorce (which is done the majority of the time by the initiation of the woman) are no fault and as such at least split assets and even more importantly child custody. And these laws dont somehow just happen - they're enforced by force and the threat of punishment thru law (which again is enforced by force) This is what makes people follow them when they don't want to. What I meant by this being an unsustainable system if women want to divorce when they're "no longer in love" and women are "no longer in love" at such a greater rate than men is that it's virtually unthinkable that men would enforce such laws with such a net negative result for themselves far into the future. After all men aren't going to go into child raising and marriage gladly expecting their wives to leave them and alter that situation to their cost - especially if they grow up expecting it as boys. It's an impossibility. And men are very much needed to keep the system in place. And as of right now it is (to put it bluntly) - a system which enforces womens wishes violently onto men thru the violence of men (law being the threat of imprisonment) Now if women were to agree to a fault based system (when assigning assets and custody) say less custody (not the primary parent) and less percentage of joint assets upon divorce (perhaps women should even start saving for this reason during marriage and expect none) perhaps that would be workable into the long term. But I dont really see women on the whole (as they feel and think about these things today)agreeing to that, do you? I do see a few inevitable out comes of all this perhaps you havent considered which I wont get into here. But it's very much a pandoras box situation and I'm not sure you or any women (or even many men) have a full appreciation of the consequences and possibilities which could arise from it. The fact is It's simply not good enough to tell men (and raise boys) to expect to be left by their wives and upon this expect to see their children half the time (at best) and have them possibly raised by another man and also to hand over a percentage of what they have worked toward (asset and finance wise) Why would they take part in this expecting this outcome? (oh btw even tho I appreciated your comment in your last paragraph you made a "point" about society telling men to "man up" and ignore their emotions etc. which you described as really sad. This sounds like something feminists repeat to each other as tho it's true and so they (being mostly women) assume it must be and assume men have a problem with it. Actually most men don't feel they are being made to man up - it's simply the way they are and it's actually insulting of you to say this thinking you understand how they feel. Even tho I disagreed with some of it, your comment was intelligent and well thought out aside from this one thing. You don't need to repeat simple minded feminist crap like this to make your point and doing so will only lessen whatever you say if your talking to men, especially if your talking to men about men. Consider that for the future, or don't and keep on doing it, whatever, just know how it looks to the people your actually talking about)
7
@yashviparikh319 Ok then - in the west no fault division of assets and child custody laws have to change based on who left if there was no abuse or cheating or the husband didn't go nuts or become a huge drinker or something. It's totally unsustainable and unfair for men to enter into marriage where women initiate divorce 85% of the time under no fault laws.
6
@Mayakihara No fault laws in general - such as custody of children or asset division (they are minute differences in law all over the western world but there all basically no fault) are the problem. On the face of it they shouldnt be, BUT - because it's women who initiate divorce 85% of the time it is very unfair to have laws which are no fault and award the person leaving the same as the one not ending the marriage. The system is slowly collapsing because of it - and soon enough it will accelerate.
6
@Qwerty-jc3so If you can't read paragraphs you shouldn't even be bothering to think about important and complicated issues. So the long answer is - If women are going to continue to initiate divorce in the vast majority and expect to be awarded alimony or custody then the answer is no, no no fault alimony - what happens to women after they dump their husband is their and your choice - not men's responsibility. To combat their own starvation they either need to get a part time job during marriage and save or a full time job after marriage or women like you can donate to them. It's unfair to marry a man then dump him and expect him to keep providing for you. It's also unrealistic as a long term law. And paragraphs aren't hard. You start at the start - then there's a little gap - then you keep reading. You should try it some time.
6
@whatthehell3590 That's the problem - you may well need some kind of movement to stop those kind of horrific things specific to your country - but by importing modern day western feminism your jumping way ahead to something which wont solve those things but will bring a whole host of other problems which will need solving.
5
@yashviparikh319 Once again its not about WHO COULD end up paying - its about who does and why and since its women who initiate these divorces (and they wanted the laws) everything you said about men possibly being payed is totally irrellevant - no men wanted that to be the case. I am not saying women go into marriage looking to divorce for money - I am saying that throughout the course of the marriage they tend to grow tired and want to divorce and a much greater rate than men - this is a fact. So the law being equal to both sexes doesnt make a shred of difference when the law is made according to womens wishes AND since they are the ones overwhelmingly leaving - they are the ones who use it. And further - it might matter in India if your not married - but in the west de facto relationships without marriage can also trigger the exact same things - again because people tried to escape marriage law by not marrying and womens groups campaigned to apply the same laws (or similar) to de fact relationships. It's inevitable this will also happen in India. So what if someone is financially dependent on you if they're raising your kids? If they cheat and leave you they shouldnt get half your money or child custody as THEY have broken the agreement you made together. And once again this is a gendered action with 85% of the time that being done by the woman. So the law while being theoritically equal is in fact quite biased in favour of women. Get a clue
5
Maybe she was a mega shrew
4
@yashviparikh319 So basically they do just give assets and alimony depending on who has less - so what are you talking about "they dont just give it"? And most marriages that will affect you negatively if this happens are longer than 7 years smh. You'd "think you can trust" yourself not to marry a partner who wouldnt divorce you? -should you not be protected by law if they do divorce you? Would you ask women "to trust their husbands wont abuse them"? You are all caught up in being anti domestic abuse so you dont want to hear it - in the west were divorce isn't stigmatized, women initiate divorce 85% of the time for no fault reasons and because of this the system will collapse (because it is totally unbeneficial to men. Because it is overwhelmingly women who want divorce.THE EXACT SAME will happen in India. You'll see. Already in the response of Palak Greg in this comment thread you can see what the origianl attitude of western women under this system must have been - shes like "why shouldnt my husband pay for me if I decide to leave him, I deserve it" - problem is it's women who are overwhelmingly thinking this way. So it doesn't work. Like I say - you are caught u in the Indian situation so you are ignoring the fact you are starting down the same dead end road as the west has been going down a while now. You should learn from our mistakes because your on a road to failure of the marriage system. But you wont.
4
@Priya-jn6mp Again the point has gone over your head. If women are initiating the majority of divorce and are happy with the laws after they are initiating the enforcement of said laws - if men are not happy with those laws which are being initiated ON them (the majority of divorce being initiated by the wife), by womens choosing then it doesn't matter if the laws are technically gender neutral as they clearly are being used by women to their own satisfaction and against mens wishes. This shouldnt be difficult to understand unless your simple. And obviously Muslim women in India and elsewhere are oppressed. Whatever you think Indian marriage law is (and whatever it is), if it is hard to get alimony or half of assets now - believe me as you go down this road of destigmatizing divorce - various feminists and womens groups will campaign to change those laws to make it much easier. India is only beginning it's descent into stupidity and unfairness in regards to marriage law. You really haven't got a clue.
4
@deletedaccount6498 Lol "boomer" The vast Majority of divorces and family breakup are initiated by women - they may not start out planning to do it but they do. That is a fact and a reality that men have to deal with and it can't be ignored.
4
The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement. Marriage doesn't work if it's not based on expectations of staying together and a greater idea of family. And no other system will work because men won't enforce something which has zero benifet to them (like expecting to be divorced by their wives going into marriage)
4
Your Mom is right - the current western system of marriage is unsustainable and heading for crises. Marriage only works if it's based of the idea of building a lasting life and growing relationship together. Not if it's something to leave once the feels are gone like teenage girls in high school. The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement.
4
Which is marriage working. The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement.
3
If divorce isnt shamed marriage doesn't work. The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement.
3
@claireelizabeth9431 I'll try to keep this shorter because I think we've both explained ourselves to the point that either can understand at this point and what were saying may be going over each others heads. I'm not saying I think the way women love (or whatever) can change quickly or easily or that it has no value. I'm also not saying that I don't understand how people can fall out of love gradually and slowly over the course of a marriage. Understand that I do understand your reasons and the reasons in general why women and people in general can gradually stop loving or wanting to be with someone over the course of a marriage. And I understand that they feel those are perfectly valid and perhaps they are.(although the reasons you have given are possibly more sympathetic than a lot of the actual reality which is full of people who simply grow tired of each other gradually and come to resent their partners - or more likely one grows tired of the other and comes to resent being with them) But understand this - It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if women fall out of love gradually and want divorce for what they consider good (and possibly they are) reasons, it doesn't matter if I'm sympathetic to them. As long as women keep on initiating divorce at such a greater rate than men and as long as custody and assets are awarded without this being taken into account, marriage remains a unfair and depressing proposition for men (and boys growing up I guess) - whatever he good reasons women have for doing it. Me or other men understanding completely, or not understanding at all why it's happening doesn't change the fact that it is happening and is being noticed and the longer it goes on the more it becomes societal knowledge - and a general expectation that men will have for how marriage will go. If nothing else, you must see that women initiating divorce at such greater rates will be (and already is) a problem that has to be reckoned with if the trend continues (which it almost certainly will)
3
In some places it's encourage by their religion
2
And she’s had four divorces. Yeah that’s someone you should take advice on marriage from😭
2
Marriage only works if divorce is stigmatized if it's not for very good reasons. The institution of marriage is failing in the west because women initiate divorce 85% of the time and advocate for laws which reward them for doing so - and expect men to enforce those laws. That's an unsustainable system. Basically it's women wanting men to provide for them after they've actually chose to leave the men - absurd entitlement. Marriage only works if it's based of the idea of building a lasting life and growing relationship together. Not if it's something to leave once the feels are gone like teenage girls in high school.
2
@StarryxNight5 Breaking it off and leaving is fine however expecting to leave and recieve equal assets and or more Child custody is not. You dont have to care if it breaks down, but if it breaks down because women are choosing to divorce at a much higher percentage than men then dont be surprised if this plays into whatever set of laws replace it that govern what happens after a breakup regarding child custody and asset division - laws which after all will need to be enforced by men. If marriage breaks down what do you suppose will happen? Have you thought it through at all or can you only think about what you want in the moment and not the possible consequences to society? Because that's the impression I'm getting from a lot of people like you. You really haven't got a clue or a plan.
2
@claireelizabeth9431 I wasn't meaning to imply that an emotional connection with a woman/wife was worthless, that was never my intention at all. Of course men (well many at least) value that. Some parts of my comment may have come off more generalized and negative than what I actually believe, because they were prompted by the specific negative situation we were discussing. What I meant to say was if an emotional connection was solely based on ones current emotional state about ones partner and that was being defined as love by (some) women - and that "love"(defined that way) either being present or not was what was keeping them in marriages, then that was worthless in the confines of a marriage, since everything held dear was dependent on a ever changing thing. That is, if ideas, ideals and promises previously talked about with ones partner and valued as worthwhile - such as raising children together for example, were subject to change based merely on ones current feeling of emotional connection - and that those ideas and ideals were rendered worthless by an emotional connection which was unconnected to them, that a purely emotional connection was worthless, since it made everything else uncertain and meaningless. To oversimplify - if someone tells you they value and believe things one day and will live their life with you by it- and the next day tells you their emotional state has changed and that what they previously valued doesn't matter any more - would you value that persons love for you? You might say that some matching ideas and values surrounding marriage and children, if any (and more things besides these) and the continuing value of them, as things which are unchangeable by emotional state would play into what I consider an adult love (as opposed to a childish crush or infatuation). In fact without feeling they were agreed to and likely to be kept to by a woman I think many men would find the emotional connection you speak of impossible, I would. If a woman came to me and told me they she longer cared about anything she claimed she would value and live her life by I would certainly think less of her capacity to love (as I see and value it), and if it was done to me by a woman I loved I would be beyond furious, I make no apology for that. As for attraction I was just using the term loosely as interchangeable with affection (or even sometimes just toleration) - that is that the person is still "attractive" as having as a spouse. Less so in the physical sense, I definitely dont think women are dumping their hubbies by and large for not being the hottest thing in the room lol. If you dont mind explaining further, out of curiosity I wonder what you are calling the original feminism? The original feminism as a term was just an idea thought up by a Russian proto communist man in the 1800's. The early suffragettes/ists and all the other various groups who campaigned for women having the vote and a few other things weren't by and large feminists of any kind - nor did most have much thought on gender equality beyond wanting the vote or whatever specific thing they were advocating for. The feminists of the 50's and 60's of course came from a time when women had less opportunity - so womens struggles from the time are more sympathetic - however if you read any of the feminist academics from the time like Greer or whoever else, you will find theories and statements just as extreme and insane as anything in the 4th wave. Actually it's easy to see how they lead into the dogmatic one sided (and sometimes just bizzare) current iteration of popular 4th wave feminism. Actually your ideas of being equally valued while not attempting to force sameness on all sound more like some sort of Ying and Yang balance being found between the sexes - but for the modern world - than any definition of feminism I've heard. I just wonder why it's necessary (or even productive) to have an over arching idiology and movement such as feminism which is meant to solve all problems? After all - you and I are talking here and discussing things between the sexes with respect for both - does this discussion fall within the confines of what you would describe as feminism? Because I don't consider myself a feminist and nor would any feminists. And if feminism means so many different things to so many different people - then why define yourself by the term, when it cant accurately define you? Why the attachment to the word? I realise that many people feel a pull to belong to an ideological country, so to speak, but in this case feminism seems to confine you rather than accurately define you. If your purpose doesn't match the original purpose of the movement and you dont share the philosophy of the current feminist scene - then why confine yourself within the term? Just a few rambling thoughts. Any way I'm not sure exactly how all this will play out, but I am sure that men and women will make that journey of discovery into the future together. And even if it's only on a personal level, both can find understanding, if they want it.
2
@Dammy.xo.xo10 I wouldn't say its a lot worse, it's also bad and embarrassing. And both are forcing something on people who don't want it - through law. But that doesn't matter because I'm not for forcing people to remain married. I'm for forcing the laws to change to fault based custody and joint asset/property division. Because obviously, if who leaves and who is at fault for divorce have no bearing on those things then having such a high ratio of divorce initiated by women to the point it's a societal expectation is unsustainable in the long term, in light of the fact they will be the ones constantly making use of their laws by choice (not to mention unfair and illogical). This is obvious.
2
Sounds like what the woke do every second
2
@martyyymarttt thanks for proving my point. It's a small minority who are tho lol
2
@martyyymarttt Y'all w u woke sure make smart comments 😭😭
2
In the West women initiate divorce at a rate of 85% - and the laws reward them for doing so. That is totally unsustainable as a method of relationships and child rearing as men won’t enforce laws which so negatively affect them (against their choice) for ever. Divorce needs to be stigmatised, it’s the only way. Otherwise things fall apart - as u will see
2
@SaloniSingh19 Bad analogy as the option you actually want is the captain who's been thru storms without capsizing and drowning everyone. You dont wan't advice from someone who's wrecked all their relationships on how to have good relationships - unless they tell you to do the opposite of what they have. Teal Swan is a somewhat clever neurotic who sees things from her own particular point of view which tends to be female centric (which is fine as at least she's not some feminist type) However the reason she's had so many divorces isn't because she's so wise - it's because she probably has a f'd up personality unsuitable for marriage irl.
1
@SaloniSingh19 It wont be 4 divorces thanks to Teal Swan. You can look forward to that
1
@BA-qn7xj No - I'm not talking about those fleeing abuse - but those that initiate divorce for no fault reasons because they fall out of love. Which is statistically a far greater percentage of women (who also campaigned for no fault laws which award this). This is an unsustainable way of doing things.
1
@StarryxNight5 Of course it matters LMAO! Because if women choose to divorce at far greater rates than men (which they do) you are basically telling men and boys that if they enter into a marriage relationship with a woman, have children, own property together - effectively build a desirable life and future for themselves with another - that the other person (the woman) will be the one who wants to leave this relationship and take (at least) half of what has been built AND raise their children independently from them at least half the time (possibly with another father figure) despite both parties (man and woman) entering into the agreement believing and promising that this wouldn't be the case. Basically you are asking men to enter into a life with a woman and possibly children knowing that life will be ended against their wishes and their situation will be made worse than the one they've worked toward (when the woman divorces) but your saying they should provide and work towards it anyway - without laws protecting them if and when their partner leaves. And that they should enforce the laws that enable this. It's like asking someone to enter into a business contract with a crackhead they know will break it! Why on earth would men do this in the long term? What's the incentive? Laughable that you would think this doesn't matter. And why are you so sure it's a "complex societal factor"? Maybe it's not - maybe it's just natural that women tire of their partner and want to end marriages more than men do and nothing can change that. Maybe not, but I doubt it's men's fault as many would try to make it seem. And your hair brained idea of people "pseudo-marrying" with an exclusive relationship would also need laws that would govern would would happen in regards to child custody and asset division when a couple broke up, if the couple couldn't agree on these points (such as exists in common law) - so your really just describing marriage without calling it marriage smh🤦‍♂️. Actually your describing the whole reason marriage and it's laws came into existence in the first place. You can't abolish marriage even if you dont call it marriage - there will always be laws that govern things like child custody and assets both during and after a relationship has ended - so in essence marriage. If they're werent these laws then women would end up with nothing when couples split 100% of the time - that's why they came to exist in the first place. Have you thought about any of this at all? Polygamy has only ever existed when one man basically owns a bunch of wives and even then it makes for an unstable society. If you really believe most people are going to want to raise children and live in polygamous communities your even dumber than the rest of you comment made you seem. I mean really, your comment is half baked idiocy.
1
Natasha Warden Right so leave the marriage BUT if you leave accept that you have broken the marriage contract and as such will receive less in the asset division and the other partner will have the option of primary custody of children (if any). Given that women initiate 85% of all divorces and half of marriages end in divorce, it's only fair that the laws are changed like this, otherwise the expectation for men entering marriage is that there's a 40% chance their wife will get sick of them and dump them and take the kids and the assets will be split. Seriously you can't expect that men will continue to enter into an agreement like that and put their efforts into working toward jointly owned property and assets if they know they're going to be split against their wishes. Why bother?
1
@Dammy.xo.xo10 I mean that they can be rewarded/awarded through the law with assets/property which they previously possessed with their spouse under the agreement of possessing such together. And worse that they could recieve primary or equal custody of children which they had previously raised together with a spouse (under the understanding this would always be the case) and as such permanantly alter the spouse being left's relationship with said children for the worse - and possibly even choose another surrogate type father figure for them. Once again - if women were willing to accept not being the primary parent or receiving an equal share of assets if they initiate divorce then maybe a society where women initiated divorce at such a greater rate would be sustainable, but if they can't then it's not. And I don't think they ever could willingly simply based on the understanding of it being unfair.
1
@claireelizabeth9431 You son't seem to understand the point at all I'm afraid - it's not about laws favouring women thru their content, it's about them being utilized by women more and so favouring womens instinct or desire (however you describe it, it doesn't matter) to initiate divorce more. In this way the laws can theoretically be completely gender neutral but in reality favour women in the extreme. And as we have seen over the decades which show women initiating divorces in the vast majority of cases, this is the undisputed reality. Because it means men are entering into a situation of marriage expecting that these laws will utilized against them against there wishes and everything they have worked towards - wheras for women they can be seen as a protection should said women wish to initiate divorce. Desire (on a statistical gender wide basis) to use the laws is everything here. When you say you wish custody could go to whichever person is best fit to raise the child (often hard if not impossible to know) and the finances could be divided up in a fair way (which could be complicated if one person stays home, which they almost always do to one extent) - you have basically described the exact failing system we have now, just made a little fairer in practice. Again you haven't taken into account how women initiating divorce at greater rates affects anything into the long term. It doesn't matter if you make every law perfectly gender neutral and even after the fact - if men are expecting the possibility of "fairly" losing child custody or significant assets when their wives divorce them AND are expecting it is far more likely their wives will divorce them than the other way around - then the most gender neutral no fault laws could still never work in long term practice. To be frank, that otherwise seemingly reasonably intelligent women have such a problem wrapping their heads around this concept is a problem. I find it hard to believe they would have such difficulty understanding it if the same logical argument was made about anything that didn't involve their own sex (and therefore them) possibly losing some of their gendered privelege.
1
@arrow2589 Lol calling what I'm saying "sexism" isn't any argument, it's an attempt to shut down argument with a label I'm supposed to be afraid of getting. The reality is women are initiating divorce far more than men, that's a fact and a problem, what part of that is not true? Is it wrong to point out when men's actions cause societal problems for women and as such the whole of society? No and I would do so as well. So why is it wrong to point out the same for women? In your mind should men simply put up with any problems or things they don't agree with because god forbid women don't like what they're saying? And guess what? Many women have no problem with what I'm saying and either agree or aren't offended by it even if they don't. Sorry that the only women in your life have you so terrified to speak your own mind.
1
@Siddhima Singh Reality is India is going to go down the same failing system as the west marriage wise if theres no stigma of divorce - where women initiate 85% of divorce and the system is collapsing because of it. Youll see
1
@Siddhima Singh No go ahead and leave - but if women are the ones who want to leave 85% of the time then in the long term men wouldnt enforce laws which give women custody or split assets if they do so. After all why would you expect men to go into marriage knowing their wives will eventually just leave them and they'll be punished for it (the men)? I'm just saying - there are consequences and more consequences to follow.
1