Wednesday, August 25, 2010

These Boots Were Made For Divorcing

The Citizen Renegade blog writes:
As it is, our society is at a fork in the road. We can go one of two ways if an end to the divorce industrial complex is your goal:

1. Rescind feminism.

Basically, turn back the clock on the so-called “improvements” in divorce litigation. Put divorce lawyers out of business. Custody of children would be split evenly, half the time with mom and half the time with dad, unless solid evidence of extenuating fault could be found, such as pedophilia or physical abuse. End all affirmative action and favoritism, explicit or implicit, for women. This means no more maternal leave or sexual harassment workshops. Return shame to its rightful place as a molder of human behavior.

2. Follow feminism to its logical conclusion.

Completely gut the traditional notion of marriage by legally establishing polygamy and assorted polyamorous relationships as equally valid unions. (Should be easier now that there is legal justification for gay marriage.) Make divorce as easy as buying a gallon of milk. Reform marriage so that it better reflects the evolutionary disposition of people to fall out of love after seven years (or approximately the time the kids are old enough to function without constant parental supervision.) If we are biologically designed by evolution to weary of our partners after seven to ten years, then why is marriage not arranged in such a way that acknowledges this reality? After all, we don’t force gay men against their biological disposition to marry or screw women.
He favors the second option, because of the greater availability of beautiful women for the alpha males to seduce and discard.

He is right. It is odd that there is so little discussion of these long-term trends, as they have the potential to remake our society.

1 comment:

Dan Brewington said...

I have a pretty good third option; common sense. If there isn't any evidence of dangerous or abusive behavior on the part of either parent, there should be no need for psychologists and other court professionals. Rather than look for petty reasons to rationalize why the children would be better off with less or no contact with a parent, just assume that they are better off having the chance to have substantial contact with their parent. With the scrutiny that society places on parents these days (i.e. arrest for spanking children at malls, investigations of parents conducted by doctors after everyday accidents, educators on alert, etc...) why leave it up to the courts to overprotect children when there are so many protections in place?

Here's an idea, some states (KY) place caps on what lawyers can make on worker's comp cases. What if there were caps put on divorce attorneys as well. That would cut down on litigation. It would also help to protect the future assets of the children. Another idea would be to go to jury trials if there are allegations of unfit parents. That would reduce the amount of fraudulent accusations and it would protect the rights of the accused parent and the children. If a jury finds that the parent is innocent of the accusations, the other parent would be required to pay the court costs. OR judges could simply tell irresponsible parents to quit making S%*T up and award sole custody to the parent who isn't using the children for personal gain. There's a novel idea.