So called "good wives" and NAWALT

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

I don’t have evidence to prove wether or not a ‘good wife’ exists anymore. Without the concept of marriage (which no longer serves its original intended purpose anyway), we cease to be wives and husbands and just go back to being good or bad people. How about we abandon the concept of wives and husbands altogether, and just look for good people vs bad people?

If marriage as a template for a relationship no longer existed, each person would necessarily go his/her own way, unless they sat down and forged their own social contract specifically for themselves. Who brings what, who does what and who gets what have to be determined for each individual relationship. And these determinations are none of the governments (or anyone else’s business). The attempt to impose the one-size-fits-all template of marriage onto every committed hetero’ relationship no longer works. When it has been attempted, it has failed on about 50% of first attempts and something like 70% of subsequent attempts. It doesn’t work at all for gays, lesbians, the trans’ crowd, the swinger crowd, and has benefitted no one other than straight women and the divorce industry. And for men, it’s a socioeconomic disaster.

Just ditch this crap already. A 50% failure rate is unacceptable for cars, bridges, electronics and anything else on which anything of significance depends. We wouldn’t accept 50% failure rates from a damn button on a shirt.

Removed from the artificially imposed template of an obsolete, unreliable contract for relationships, there might be a few women with whom some reasonable arrangements could be made. But for as long as the option for the unreasonable and completely one sided set of terms in the marriage contract template continues to be an option, settling for reasonable, fair arrangement will never be a first choice for women.

I guess my point here is that there may or may not be good women out there somewhere. But you can’t expect them to be good wives for as long as there is maintained that gigantic financial incentive for them to be crappy ones. The terms of the marriage contract and the way in which the courts enforce those terms essentially pays them to be crappy wives and to default on their end of that contract.

It’s still true that you get what you pay for. We just have this screwed up system that provides women the biggest payout for being the worst wives. I’m not so naive to think that they would all be unicorns if marriage disappeared. But at least men could offer them an option where their biggest payout would come from being better people.

I know I’m dreaming here, and will not likely see this disappearance of marriage in my lifetime. But refusing to accept that screwed up part of the world into my own life is the only reasonable thing I can do. If they ever do become better wives in greater numbers, I probably won’t live long enough to see it. But I’m not volunteering to pay them to be at their worst…

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Snake wrote:

You are misunderstanding, it isn’t about reversing gender roles, it is about a woman performing a major selfless act for a significant other.

So what would be a qualifying event? Like I mentioned in the other thread I know a woman who spent decades financially supporting and physically taking care of a husband with a degenerative disease…the response? AWALT. As far as selfless acts in a marriage that I’ve seen over my lifetime that woman probably ranks #1.

BrainPilot wrote:

I guess my point here is that there may or may not be good women out there somewhere. But you can’t expect them to be good wives for as long as there is maintained that gigantic financial incentive for them to be crappy ones. The terms of the marriage contract and the way in which the courts enforce those terms essentially pays them to be crappy wives and to default on their end of that contract.

I agree sir. I realize some women are s~~~ no matter what situation you put them in, but with current divorce laws we literally encourage gold digging and wonder why women file for divorce so often. If laws were written so it was easier to maintain separate assets during marriage/divorce so if a woman wanted access to your assets she had to keep you happy enough to actually want to be with her, a lot of women would suddenly find themselves a lot less divorce happy as keeping you happy and around would be more beneficial. Just imagine if alimony and child support were abolished and the kids by default went to whichever parent was better able to provide for them financially rather than the mother by default. I don’t think it would suddenly turn all women into unicorns but I do think it would cut way down on divorces if divorce didn’t end up generally being financial rape and loss of children for a man and a payday for a woman.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22589]

Let is put this in perspective. Not all women are bitches (Bs), but almost all women are bitch enablers (Bes).

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

I’m more in a narwhal camp than Snake camp.

And while it was customary to have arranged marriages, give women no agency and no responsibility, and OK using abuse to keep them in line – remember this was during times when women had no education, no skills and no options in life other than being a housewife. But I don’t see this as “good wife” – I see this as oppressive patriarchy. I wouldn’t want to have a wife who hates me but can’t do anything against me.

I do, however, see a “good wife” as a family member committed until death. Just like parents, children and siblings, who married you because of mutual love and respect. She doesn’t have to have dowry or be a virgin, and I don’t have to slap her around to keep her in line. She’d have to be raised in a similar loving stable family, and listens to her husband. OK, this is not a “good wife”, but a “basic wife” I guess. A society-wide accepted cultural standard – a foundation for starting a family. If she’s not a bitch, treats you well and doesn’t nag or emotionally abuse you – she’s an “above average wife” then. A “good wife” is everything listed above plus she cares about you, good mother to your kids and good hostess for your house.

What we have now is society where a wife sees her husband only as a temporary and conditional member of a family unlike parents children and siblings do. And that’s the rosetta stone of all our problems as husbands. So it’s not really a “wife” – it’s more like a “step-wife”. She can be a “good step-wife” on a temporary and conditional basis, but this is not really a “wife” at all. We keep using the word, but the meaning has been lost.

Wife – husband relationships only work long term when both see each other as immediate non-negotiable family. Call me a tradcon – but that’s how I see it. But I understand this is no longer possible in current culture. We’d have to abolish no fault divorce, overturn Rowe-Wade, ban birth control, return to traditionalism (or implement forced patriarchy like Sharia law) and wait for 3 generations to turn this bitch around.

We just have to forget about the concept of having a spouse in a family structure – kinda like only children have to forget about a concept of having a sibling. This “good wife” concept no longer exist. We might as well come up with some other word to describe this “temporal conditional step-wife” concept.

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

Russky wrote:

We might as well come up with some other word to describe this “temporal conditional step-wife” concept.

I’ve always been a fan of calling things as they are in the simplest, least equivocal terms.

I vote for: ‘Limited Term Vaginal Contractor’

‘Gold Digger’ is a bad term. It could be confused with a real gold miner, which involves WAY too much actual physical effort and risk.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

BrainPilot wrote:

Russky wrote:

We might as well come up with some other word to describe this “temporal conditional step-wife” concept.

I’ve always been a fan of calling things as they are in the simplest, least equivocal terms.

I vote for: ‘Limited Term Vaginal Contractor’

‘Gold Digger’ is a bad term. It could be confused with a real gold miner, which involves WAY too much actual physical effort and risk.

“LTVC”? Too long and cumbersome. I was thinking of something shorter
I kinda like a “wifestitute” term Terrence Popp came up with. But maybe it’s a little derogatory anywhere outside manosphere. “Wifescort” seems like a better option. “Contract wife”, “subwifactor”, “temp-wife”, “1099” – don’t know, nothing better pops in mind right now. Have to think about it

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Author]

Posts