The SDL came across a jezebel who expressed a fear about Republicans ending no-fault divorce. As it happens, Ms. Cheung's general point is reasonable. If you're going to protect babies from murder, why not protect them from the family courts as they grow up? Therefore, it behooves one to look at the arguments offered in defense of no-fault, and their rather shaky logical foundations, which is exactly what I intend to do here.
Before I begin, a brief note about style. While I announced a vivisection in the title, I will stay away from harshness and other unbiblical ways to treat women, because a) God will judge me for what I write here and b) I hold out hope that jezebels will have their hearts softened when they see how men are supposed to conduct themselves around women. Please see the bottom of the post for the Bible references.
Let us get to it then, emphasis being mine:
No-fault divorce, which was first enacted in California in 1969, has always been a feminist issue. It’s allowed domestic abuse victims to leave a bad marriage without onerous barriers,
That's the thing about the Western legal system. The idea of 'innocent until proven guilty' is an onerous barrier indeed. To be fair, asking a Cheung to comprehend, let alone agree with, Western anything may be an undue burden.
empowers women and all people to escape legally binding situations with someone they don’t love.
Love is a choice. That's why spouses promise to love one another til death do them part. They can promise this because they can choose to do it. For instance, I cannot promise that I'll be hungry when I come to someone's house for dinner, because I cannot choose my feelings. I can promise to eat a light lunch, because what I eat for lunch is a choice. It's an important distinction. Food for thought: ask yourself how pretending that love is not a choice helps other evil causes like baby murder, fake-and-gay marriage, even pedophilia.
One would think no-fault divorce is a no-brainer
I do not think that Ms. Cheung meant to insinuate that it takes an absence of brain to support no-fault, but that would make the above sentence correct.
Pool says, “The courts are heavily biased in favor of women to an insane degree, especially with children.” (Notably, one woman in Louisiana briefly lost custody of her daughter to her rapist, and was forced to pay him child support earlier this year.)
Here we are treated to a classical jezebel argument: the attempt to counter a general assertion with a single outlier. I would accuse Ms. Cheung of attempting to deceive the reader, but the state of public education makes it possible that she, at age 24, is not numerate enough to know that one case means precisely nothing in a country of 300 million people. For instance, I know a guy who fishtailed across three lanes of a congested Chicago highway without hitting anything whatsoever. Nobody got hurt. Does that mean that all of us should drive 80 mph around a curve in a snowstorm?
In the same episode on Pool’s show, conservative commentator Ian Crossland adds, “We live in this culture where no-fault divorce is the law of the land… If young folks know they’re in an environment where divorce is not an option, I firmly believe they’re going to be more careful about who they choose to marry.”
Does anyone think that being careful whom you marry is a bad idea? What exactly is the problem about being careful with whom you vow to spend the rest of your life? Do you think the Louisiana woman above would have benefited from a social and legal environment where people are real careful about whom they marry?
The more analytically inclined will notice that this specific quote is inserted seemingly at random, without leading to a point that Ms. Cheung is trying to make. Is it possible that the quote is the point, that jezebels have legitimate reason to be concerned about potential husbands becoming more selective?
It’s tempting to write off Crowder’s words as an obvious projection of his own insecurities that no woman would ever marry him for love, but unfortunately, there’s something more sinister afoot.
Here is another tactic you will run into in your dealing with jezebels: woefully underinformed remote psychoanalysis. Of course, such an accusation will never come with detailed connections between a long-term record of the accused's behavior and the relevant DSM-V definitions, so don't pay any attention to it. However, I am tempted to wonder why Ms. Cheung's mind immediately jumps to peoople projecting their insecurities. Seems oddly specific, does it not?
When women’s abusive partners or other adults harm their children, laws in some states criminalize the mother—there have been several recent high-profile cases of this, including Rebecca Hogue in Oklahoma and Melissa Lucio in Texas.
In this case, it makes sense to cite isolated cases, since child murder is now a fairly rare crime, courtesy of overturning Roe v. Wade. The specific crime that Ms. Hogue was convicted of, the crime that Ms. Cheung finds it objectionable to prosecute, is failure to protect. This shows that it is not about the 'rights' of specific parties to a marital contract, but about removing protections for children.
Here be the Bible verses: Colossians 3:19, 1 Peter 3:7, Ephesisans 4:32 for style. Finally, Hebrews 13:4 shows that defending marriage is a good idea by itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment