Marriage – why “no-fault” divorce is one of our most dangerous social experiments

Anti-feminist policies - Reviving the patriarchal model by deconstructing the Western European matriarchal systems

I’ll be the first to admit that there are many sensible feminist policies. The goal should obviously not be to reverse ALL feminist policies just for the sake of it. Ignore these sensible feminist policies, and instead focus on the destructive policies.

Fact: 60-70% of all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists are women. This partly explains why the gradual feminist revolution is directly linked to the implementation of multiculturalist doctrines. These feminist cultural Marxists do not only want more benefits and rights for themselves. They want it all, and have more or less been awarded with everything they could ever dream of achieving. They now have complete matriarchal supremacy domestically and exercise substantial influence in politics. The current matriarchy in Western European countries is partly the cause of the symptoms that have become increasingly prevalent. To counter the symptoms it is required to fix the underlying flaws of our systems. One of the primary flaws is the matriarchal supremacy we see in several arenas.

The primary trait and value that a majority of women propagate is “compassion”. While compassion is not always a negative thing it can severely cripple fields/committees who rely on a minimum degree of cynicism such as the following fields:

· Discipline at school (penal policies)

· Discipline in the community (penal policies for criminals, rehab policies for drug addicts)

· Immigration policies

· Defence policies

· Business polices (international trade)

· Church

· Education sector (feminisation of boys)

· Domestic polices (the father must always be the head of the family and the laws of the country must reflect this especially relating to custody rights, in relation to divorce etc.

No-fault divorce laws were introduced in Western Europe and other industrialised countries during the 1970s and are being expanded into other regions of the world today.

The spouse who divorces or otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the costs or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly. In all other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to compensate their partner, but under a system of 'no fault' divorce, this essential element of contract law is abrogated."

In fact, the legal implications go farther, since the courts actively assist the violator. The law generally supports the spouse seeking the divorce, even if that spouse was the wrongdoer." "No-fault" did not really remove fault, therefore; it simply allowed judges to redefine it however they pleased. It introduced the novel concept that one could be deemed guilty of violating an agreement that one had, in fact, not violated. According to therapeutic precepts, the fault for marital breakup must be shared, even when one spouse unilaterally seeks a divorce. Many husbands and wives who did not seek or want divorce were stunned to learn that they were equally 'at fault' in the dissolution of their marriages.

While lamenting the high divorce rate is conventional piety among family advocates, most have refused to challenge the divorce laws. The standard rationalisation is that to control divorce we must first change the culture. But no one suggests that changing the culture is a prerequisite for preventing, say, abortion. While cultural forces certainly contribute, the divorce epidemic has proceeded directly from a legal system which permits and even encourages it.

Furthermore, it is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it. Gays to do not want marriage in the traditional mold (1950 version marriage), only the watered-down version that exists today.

Дата добавления: 2015-05-31