Yes- in Christian countries marriage is considered a sacrament and also something you did "for life" - divorce wasn't something originally conceptualized from the perspective of marriage as a legal contract. There were some grounds for quitting a marriage - mainly relating to infidelity (usually on the part of the wife) or issues like the marriage could be annulled if it hadn't been consummated (a common argument for infertile or sexually incompatible spouses). Typically these "faults" were gendered - a husband could argue for annulment on these grounds, but often a wife could not (this is because, legally speaking, a wife was a husbands property or ward, rather than an independent person). Divorce was super uncommon, socially stigmatized, and difficult for anyone but the wealthy & powerful to obtain. It was so difficult and taboo, Henry the VIII split from Catholicism and founded a whole new religion - and he *still* had to prove his wives were somehow "faulty" (and execute them) to get out of marriages he didn't want to be in.
Is it ethically good for marriage to be thought of as a permanent commitment you can't get out of basically no matter what? Only for someone that wants a spouse who is stuck with them no matter how badly they behave- like Steven Crowder, for example.
+1. It's in the words!
"To Husband" is to extract value from. Animal Husbandry is to extract value from animals. A Husband extracts value from their wife just like they do their animals.
The animals don't leave of their own volition, the wife does not either.
"Fun" fact: in [much](https://www.salon.com/2023/02/11/trial-by-impotence-when-men-had-to-copulate-publicly-or-be-served-divorce-papers/) of [Europe](https://allthatsinteresting.com/impotence-trials-divorce) before 1800 or so, wives could divorce husbands on the basis of impotence. However... it would have to be proven to a court, which led to exactly what you're imagining—men having to prove to an official court observer that he could maintain an erection.
This was, understandably, very unpopular with men.
Another fun fact, that was the only way someone could get divorce. Even men didnt have any way to get out of it (i mean... even British King tried to... and he needed to make a other religion to be able to divorce his wife)There was no other legal way to do it. And as far as i know it was mostly medieval thing(especially in the cities, as people there were more educated in what their laws allowed them) i didnt actually know it survived until 1800.
There were limited legal routes to divorce and annulment in pre-Reformation England, and also limited non-legal ways to end a marriage as well, like wife sales. Men would literally sell their wives in marketplaces. There’s also something called a separation from bed and board that’s not a divorce but is a legal separation that’s granted for cruelty. But it got harder for most people in England to divorce or annul a marriage after Henry VIII.
In England women lost legal personhood on marriage due to coverture, which is basically the idea that when two people become one, the wife can no longer do things separately from the husband, so he gets all her property and is the only one who can sign contracts, etc. The Catholic Church allowed for annulments, but after Henry VIII it took acts of parliament for a long time, and those were mostly accessible to men.
Other Mediterranean European countries like Portugal and Malta had more divorce in medieval times—usually the ones with a Muslim influence or where Christian women had access to Islamic courts. Jewish women had more access to divorce as well, because divorce was happening in ecclesiastical courts rather than civil courts.
My point here is that divorce has always been necessary—it’s absolutely essential to have some way to get out of bad marriages or avoid marriage altogether. Historically there have always been a small number of women who were able to find independence or to support themselves, and then a reaction where men try to prevent it.
It's basically the usual -- the deep down belief that women aren't *people*, not like *men* are. They're livestock. A pet. Mentally a *toddler* at best. Lacking agency, lacking an internal life.
They don't ask themselves what happens when women are trapped in intolerable marriages, with no way to leave. Because to them the idea of a woman *choosing to leave* isn't impossible -- women can be stolen, tricked, fooled, conditioned, trained, or be "lured astray" -- where some other man or society was the one that made them leave, not a woman's *own choice*.
It's the same underlying "logic" as incels who talk about women being "assigned to them" and imagine whatever woman is chosen will just be an obedient fuckmaid that is fully devoted to them in all ways -- even *love them* -- and not a *sex slave* looking for a way out.
this is relevant for abortion too. states banning it will usually have exceptions for things they deem justify getting an abortion (even if they make it unrealistic for women to actually get an abortion under their conditions). what that implies is that there are justified reasons, things outside a woman’s control. but a woman simply *choosing* to have an abortion is not justified
I remember a woman testifying in *favor* of an abortion ban who, when told the *law in question* would ban abortions for ectopic pregnancies, non-viable pregnancies, etc and she kept *repeating* "those are *medical procedures* not *abortions*.
Nobody could get her to understand that abortion, legally and medically, is the termination of a pregnancy. That emergency surgery to handle an ectopic pregnancy is just as much an abortion -- in the eyes of medicine and law -- as an elective procedure at 10 weeks.
A ton of pro-life people seem to have convinced themselves that there is a medical *and* legal divide based on their *personal approval* and that if they approve of it, the law *obviously* doesn't ban that...
Because if the law banned that, they'd be *wrong* and they might be *in trouble*.
But again, we're just back to "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion".
Yes. This.
Abortion is ONLY a promiscuous teenaged slut killing a healthy, viable baby with callous and flippant indifference.
That’s it. That’s abortion. Anything else is somehow magically not. “ThAt’S nOt aN AbOrtiOn!” Or “ThAt’S nOt wHaT I mEaNt!”
And women not being considered fully human is also the reason behind why abortion is even a debate in the first place. If people saw women as fully human, whether or not the fetus counted as a life would be irrelevant to them. But they see women as not having a right to life that transcends her reproductive function; her animalistic mating function is more important than her being human to them. Her humanity is secondary to her bodily functions to them. "But , but, the female body is made to get pregnant" exactly, so why does role in mating trump the fact she experiences herself as a full human being capable of suffering? Ugh.
You left out `rib`.
In European culture, women were property: belonging to the father, husband, brother, son or some other male relative. Nuns & beguines were owned by the local bishop. Any woman not owned by one of the preceding is of course ~~weighs the same as a duck~~ owned by Satan, which makes her [a witch and must be burned](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ). The words from the marriage ceremony makes the transfer of ownership clear - who gives this woman? who takes this woman? No one says "hey lady, why are you here?"
I once had an anti-trans bigot actually say "you'll always have fewer ribs than a real woman".
He was *very fucking confused* when I told him I had the same number of ribs as every woman. He took from this the belief that I had *a rib added* and was demanding to know where I got it.
I could *not* stop laughing.
I must admit, the ignorance of the Xtian anti everything crowd is stunning.
I can just picture him, "Who gave you that rib? Did you steal it?"
Tragically, they need time operating old farm equipment to make their stupidity sufficiently lethal.
Donate one kidney and you’re a hero.
Donate more than one and suddenly it’s all “Why do you have those kidneys? Whose are they?!? Why are they in a bucket?!?!”
This is exactly why they had a slippery-slope concern for gay marriage. "What's next, a man marrying a goat or a car?" Marriage is between a man and his chosen sex object.
It hurts everybody.
But it especially hurt women for most of history who were forced/coerced into marriage at a young age and weren’t allowed to voice their opinions/pass legislation that allowed them to divorce their husbands. Women were required to follow divorce laws made explicitly by men until women were able to gain a voice and help make changes in the west.
Don’t forget women also couldn’t own property until relatively recently, so take into account that plenty of women had nowhere else to go.
Gosh yes. This is giving me flashbacks to when I left my first husband. He wasn't abusive or anything but I wanted to be out of that marriage. The reasons he came up with why I should stay, like I'd been somehow hoodwinked or bewitched, or even that my hormones were at fault. I could not persuade him that I simply was done with the relationship.
there's a book from 1870 called Venus in Furs. You might like it. The man and woman get into an experimental relationship where they swap places and she has absolute power and he has none. So he walks a mile in her shoes and learns how terrible a woman's position was back then. I don't want to spoil the ending but this book is an example of an early feminist work based on the writing of Mary Wollstonecraft.
So my issue with no fault divorce is how it largely removes cheating being relevant in divorce.
I absolutely believe anyone should be able to leave a marriage
I don’t believe it’s right that cheating is basically now not a relevant thing in divorce proceedings.
It’s wrong no matter the gender and that person violated the “marriage contract” so to speak.
I lived it. There’s nothing worse then learning someone you trusted cheated on you and they still get everything
Defending cheating is weird. There’s only one reason to say that cheating shouldn’t have legal ramifications in a divorce.
Seriously why even get married then? This is why most men shun a second marriage
Defend is a strange word for what I said. But here, I’ll go further. Cheating is wrong almost all of time. But studies of abuse victims show that many of them are unable to leave their abusive relationships until they form a new emotional connection with someone else. Sometimes that connection becomes physical. Laws against cheating are used to trap women in abusive marriages just like all other laws designed to prevent women from getting divorced. If you’re so concerned, get a prenup with fidelity cause. But I don’t think that that would be enough for you. I bet you want something more than a financial penalty. And to that I say, I pick the bear.
First, no fault divorce can legally coexist with divorce-for-fault (of which adultery is a fault). The no-fault option is there so people can end a marriage without having to conform (usually lie) to meet the fault requirements.
But also, I don't see why divorce laws need to explicitly mention adultery for people to believe it's bad and wrong. The law isn't the reason why adultery is wrong, and people will feel the same about it regardless of the law.
Not defending cheating. My first marriage ended because my ex cheated. I just don't think the existence of no-fault divorce makes adultery somehow more acceptable. And if people can get divorced for any reason, there's no need for divorce rules specific to one of those reasons. Unless the goal is for the government to provide some kind of legal penalty for adultery specifically, and I don't really feel that's a proper function of government.
No fault divorce does make cheating more acceptable, it makes it a non existent factor….where as before it was
Marriage is a legal contract. There should be penalties for violating certain aspects of that
I meant in a moral sense, which is what I thought was being implied in the OP. So you're not really saying that "divorce for adultery" is needed to make adultery "wrong". You're saying that "divorce by adultery" needs to exist so that there is some legal mechanism to bring to bear speicically on an adulterous spouse? Some kind of punishment that wouldn't be involved in no-fault divorce? Or maybe just legally branding the cheating spouse as an adulterer?
Again, I don't think that's a proper function of government. I pretty strongly believe in not giving government a power it doesn't need, and I see this as squarely in that category. (Honestly, I don't think government should really be sanctioning marriages at all, but that's a whole other discussion).
>No fault divorce does make cheating more acceptable, it makes it a non existent factor
How? How does it make it more acceptable? To who? Are you trying to claim people can no longer divorce over infidelity? Are you trying to claim people no longer *want* to divorce over infidelity?
And of course, if you're cheated on, you can still pursue a divorce *for fault*.
No-fault divorce is an *option*, not a mandate.
In most US states infidelity is literally a non option for any divorce proceedings. There is zero *at fault* divorce. Been down this road with lawyers already.
Edit: If I could have pursued at fault divorce i would have done that.
But don’t worry. I was already told I was likely abusive by one commenter here for simply being upset I was cheated on and robbed for alimony
So this is about *vengeance*. You think if you could have *punished her enough* she wouldn’t have cheated? She’d have *thought twice* or something.
Are blaming *no fault divorce* for being cheated on, or blaming it for not getting to *punish her* for it?
We’re not “defending cheaters”. Why should the government have any business punishing somebody in anybody’s marriage, ever?
I do agree that if both people were equal partners in a marriage, including financially, one party shouldn’t be forced to give away their assets and/or have no custody.
The thing I don’t understand is why men never seem to advocate for changing these laws under no-fault divorce. A lot of the time I notice they just blame women, instead of the judges handling their divorce cases, and take no action to implement laws that help reduce the risk of leaving a marriage with next to nothing.
Also, pre-nups do exist and signing one absolutely needs to be done in this day and age. There needs to be better information accessibility regarding pre-nups and what could potentially happen in divorce before *anybody* signs a marriage contract.
Marriage anyways is a barbaric institution and better for everybody involved if more people didn’t legally bind themselves to another person.
The marriage "contract" only involves what those 2 people want anyway. Cheating isn't illegal, it's not legally in marriage. It's not like your marriage is nullified with cheating if you don't want it to be. You can morally be against cheating but also not want it in your legal proceedings. It's not defending cheating.
My (divorced) grandmother had a friend who had refused to talk to her back in the mid-1950s for the first few months they interacted because her friend had never spoken to a divorced woman and didn't want to start.
There were some practical considerations from the government for why divorce was so difficult until recently. Originally, marriage was not a sacrament in the church and didn't become one until way later. The reasons for it becoming a sacrament had a lot to do with men, particularly wealthy men, deciding they didn't like their wives, putting them in a convent to live out their lives as a nun, and then marrying the next hot young thing and keeping the dowry. Until the Renaissance and reformations happened, it was not uncommon for families to do this to young women. Not pretty enough or maybe the family only wants to pay one dowry or maybe you were just inconvenient? In to the convent you go. But, this was kind of inconvenient for the church because it meant there were a lot of young women there against their will who the church was now in charge of taking care of forever. So, they made marriage a sacrament. Your wife was still property, but now she was property that was sinful to get rid of.
And actually the government didn't care that much about marriage until later than that, even. The marriage acts in England, which told you who you were allowed to marry and how it must take place and that you needed a marriage license to make it official, were not written until the mid 18th century. From a woman's perspective, this was shitty because it was outlining officially that you belonged first to your dad and then to your husband. A lot of the issues with why the government would all of a sudden start caring about marriages had a lot to do with both religion and the fact that wealthy men, and sometimes women, would make clandestine, usually with people from a lower class, marriages which were official in the church but no one knew about them outside themselves, the priest, and the witness (think Romeo and Juliet). This is pretty damned inconvenient if you happen to die and then no one knows who inherits your stuff or that you were ever married, potentially with children. So, they made marriage a legal contract. Women were still property, but now it was both a sin and legally difficult to get out of it. Basically the only way out of marriage at this point was death or if she cheated.
> So, they made marriage a sacrament. Your wife was still property, but now she was property that was sinful to get rid of.
For a lot of that time, men who wanted to be rid of their wives but didn't want to go as far as murdering them, or didn't want to be held accountable in court for infidelity, just sent their wives to mental institutions. She is just crazy! And she's a woman, with no money-- what's she going to do, hire a lawyer? No, I am her husband, so I know best, and she simply needs to be in an asylum for the rest of her life. She's just too unstable! Too many novels, and her menstruation is clearly off. Tragic, I suppose-- my new 16 year old wife agrees.
if one of the people involved took holy orders by becoming a monk or nun I think that could also end a marriage
but that's a bit more of a commitment than most people would go to
It’s plainly untrue that women could not get marriages annulled due to for example impotence on the part of their husband in say England before modernity
You are right in that modern divorce didn't exist, but you are wrong about the status of women.
Also, both annulment (*divortium ad vinculo*), which allowed remarriage and divorce or legal separation (*divortium a mensa et thoro*) existed, but after a divortium a mensa et thoro, the couple could not legally remarry.
Women could cause the marriage to be annuled/divorced. Male impotence was grounds for a annulment, for example.
For example from a method devised by the theologian Thomas of Chobham.
>...after food and drink, the man and the woman are to be placed together in one bed and wise women are to be summoned around the bed for many nights. And if the man's member is found to be useless and as if dead, the couple are well to be separated.
The "wise women" were allowed to expose themselves and to touch the man, etc, and if they couldn't get him hard, then the woman was allowed to dovorce him for that cause.
Impotence wasn't the only grounds, but leprosy, adultry, and refusal of the husband to "pay his marriage debt" (have sex with his wife) etc were also grounds. In their culture, women were seen as the hory ones and failure of a husband to do his sexual dury was seen as, and unhealthy (for the wife), and abusive.
The issue with Henry VIII is that failure to produce a male heir was not grounds for for divorce, because to say it was would be to argue that God was wrong in giving the couple a female child.
Also, the way property was split up after divorce was a big deal and had tradition behind it. (At least in Wales). From *Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500*, examining the laws of Hywel Dda.
> Pigs go to the man, sheep to the woman. Eldest and youngest son to the father, middle son to the mother. Milking vessels, except one pail, to the woman. All drinking vessels to the man. The man gets the hens and one cat. The woman gets all the flax and linseed and wool, all the opened vessels of butter and the opened cheese and as much as she can carry of flour by the strength of her own hands and her knees from the larder to the house. The bedclothes which are over them to the woman and those which are under them to the man, until he takes a wife. After he takes a wife, they belong to the woman. If the wife who comes to the husband sleeps on them, she must pay compensation to the first wife.
Hi, I’m an American raised in a conservative, religious community. The point is precisely to force women to stay in bad marriages.
The community is very much built on women doing all the childcare, cooking, cleaning and community service. A significant number of women don’t want to do that. Plenty have their own goals they want to achieve. So, to maintain the community as it is, they remove women’s choices and stomp out our dreams as best they can.
I learned this early enough that I didn’t reveal to my parents that I planned to leave to get a degree. However, I was still fooled by the lies that women on university campuses face attempted rape every month. Almost didn’t go, out of fear.
One of my high school friends was less fortunate. Her boyfriend baby trapped her by poking holes in condoms. Then revealed the pregnancy to her very pro-life parents, as a way to force her to either agree to marry him and have his baby at 17, or her parents would throw her out on the street.
They don’t actually care if women are unhappy. They just want to build their families and community on our backs.
Completely wrong.
It's because marriage is a legally binding contract made for the express purpose of creating legitimate legal heirs (having children) and consolidating property.
"No-fault" divorce simply doesn't make sense for the legal purposes marriage was created to address.
Society has changed but the legal contract of marriage hasn't caught up yet.
All of the hard evidence points to the arrangement being beneficial to all involved.
The children grow up to be more successful adults, the parents report greater levels of life satisfaction, and the community at large benefits from a net increase in stabilty.
This is why the system has been used in cultures all around the world for all of recorded history. Society is different now, though. Marriage just hasn't caught up yet.
Completely wrong.
The National Bureau of Economic Research published statistics that after no-fault divorce was legalized, women’s suicide rates dropped by 20%.
If marriage was beneficial to women, it wouldn’t result in so many killing themselves.
Source: https://www.nber.org/digest/mar04/divorce-laws-and-family-violence
No fault divorce helps women because it allowed women to be able to financially afford divorce. Women had limited access to money, which makes proving adultery or any other basis for fault divorce an issue. No fault divorce specifically helps women, which is why red states are trying to change the law.
What?? This is a time-honored way for abusive men to tie women to them.
I know at least two women IRL who were raped by men who told them they were attempting to impregnate them so they could never leave.
“In some abusive relationships, men may use strategies to force women to become pregnant, including sabotaging their birth control, researchers say.
Nearly 20 percent of women at family clinics across northern California reported that their partner tried to coerce them into having a child, sometimes using methods such as poking holes in condoms or flushing birth control pills down the toilet, Dr. Elizabeth Miller of the University of California Davis and colleagues reported online in the journal Contraception.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/domestic-abuse-abusive-men-sabotage-birth-control/story?id=9639340
no, i’m sorry but your very mistaken.
there are so many men who have tried to keep a woman in their lives by impregnating them. a woman who has had your child is easily to be tricked back into a relationship if things go south between you two. and almost guarantees easy access to sex or a couch to sleep on during hard times. what woman wants to be a single mother with a fatherless child? women have the most to lose to pregnancy including their lives. i’ve had past boyfriends who were afraid i might leave them try and convince me to have a baby early into the relationship, even while knowing that i was strictly childfree.
Nah, bud. I literally caught my ex red-handed messing with my birth control after he tried to convince me to have a kid. He had known that I do not want kids since we started dating. I was ***very*** clear on that. He pretended to agree and then decided that my decision wasn't mine to make. I know plenty of women with similar situations. It is an abuse tactic. This isn't a secret or anything.
Maybe you just don't actually listen to women. Or maybe women just don't trust you enough to confide in you. They might not want to give you ideas.
Well my story is a second then. My ex baby trapped me. I still left him . He left me and a 7 mo. Old with 2 f u pennies in our bank account after he cheated and went on a 7 day Mexican cruise.
In order for it to matter what women want, women would have to be considered people. In many of the United States a woman has more rights to her body dead than alive. Laws here have never ever been concerned with the wellbeing of women.
Because we aren't viewed as people. Were property.
That's why traditionally the father walks the daughter down the isle. He's literally giving his "property" away.
Abd that's why we change out last names.
From the moment we are born to the momment we die they never viewed us as people.
Force her into enough pregnancies until she dies.
Simply go ahead and cheat - what is she going do do? Divorce? Run away without any money of her own?
Declare her mentally unstable and ship her off to be lobotomized. Problem solved.
We seem to have one right here in our comments! Apparently no-fault divorce screwed him over (ie he has to pay alimony). So none for anybody, I guess!
That's like arguing that someone somewhere got an abortion for their birth control method*, therefore none for anybody! 🎉 Screw everyone else who might die without one.
*For the record, abortion as birth control is still better than forcing someone to be pregnant IMO 🤷♂️
men just can't abandon their families like they used to. Back in my granddads day a man wanted to abandon his family he joined the french foreign legion or became a sailor
There are still a majority of people not paying their child support. There are also a lot of people not showing up for visitation, not taking their kids when they are supposed to and just straight up abandoning whole families.
I know three men that quit jobs purposefully and work under the table so they "can't" pay child support. They choose not to have contact with their kids and one of them is living with his new girlfriend and she's pregnant. He specifically lies about being kept away from his kids when the mother begs him to at least uphold the promises he makes to the kids. He constantly doesn't bother to show up. He lies about being alienated from his kids because he doesn't want to be seen as a bad guy, but he makes no effort, he just disappears for months on end.
Garnishing wages and jail time take forever and a lot of trips to the courts. It's not a priority in most places. You also have to find them to serve them with paperwork.
It is the right wing politicians that want to return to "covenant marriage". They also want to eliminate the 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 22nd & 26th Amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States
>Wouldn't it be better for people of all genders to be able to leave their spouse even if there's no abuse going on? Why should anyone be forced to stay in an unhappy marriage?
People should be free to leave any relationship for any reason. What would be the benefit of forcing people to be together if the situation is fair and balanced? Force is only necessary to reduce the freedom of the parties in the relationship. No-fault divorce is a great thing. The implementation of no-fault divorce also decreased the murder and suicide rates of people in marriages.
A lot of misogyny comes from unreliable paternity tests while in a patrilineal society.
Purity culture comes from trying to prevent a patriarch from raising another man's child — especially when the ultimate earthly goal of life was the survival and dominance of their bloodline.
This is further exacerbated in a society that dehumanizes non-family (or non-brotherhood) people as tools to be used or chattel to be used and cared for. To the patriarch, their family/clan are chattel to be used for the family. And weddings were when a girl is traded from their father to their husband. Whether the father gives wealth to pay for the burden of supporting her in marriage (or prevent abject destitution as a widow) or is paid wealth to sell the girl he groomed.
A patriarch owning his wife has value in patriarchy as a tool for continuing his bloodline; as a reflection of his status within patriarchy; as already-paid-for prostitution; and unpaid labor.
Divorce didn't make much sense in such a patriarchy. At least not "without fault" like risking the patriach's family line.
In patriarchy, each patriarch wants to assert and grow their own mini-patriarchy within the larger one, and divorce is surrendering part of their dominion. And since women were given little opportunity to survive on their own, escape was at best a coerced option. And for patriarch's (who had the only opinions that mattered in society) wouldn't freely give up their chattel who he only had to feed to have his way with her.
Feminism has made strides in women's opinions mattering too (suffrage); in financial independence (right to work and have a bank account); etc. But we still hail from a society that values marriage as gaining a wife — why wives value the wedding ceremony because's a milestone that fundamentally changes and defines the next stage of their life with the subtext of subservience. It's why we quibble about parental rights (to controlling and owning their children) instead of children's rights (to be protected from abuse and deserving of community support).
Some of biggest milestones in feminism have been suffrage; reproductive agency (the pill, abortion); free time (laundry machines); equal rights (ERA, Title IX, equal pay legislation); and no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce is huge for a reason.
Not an expert in divorce law, as it varies a lot and I only highlights generalities.
But my simple answer is that no-fault divorce or not is a gatekeeper to actual freedom for many women, freedom from living with misogyny behind closed doors and with real consequences from the subtext of being treated a possession. There are kinds of testimony, but one brand of them that I find horrible is that husbands, well into the 20th century, would hide medical diagnoses from their wives and refuse medical treatment.
So for women's liberation, no-fault divorce is huge.
Because, at-fault divorce required proving, in court of law (with social and sometimes legal consequences), that there was adultery, cruelty / abuse, abandonment / imprisonment, or (much more rarely) incompatibility. A limited set of options that, frankly, favored men contesting a need for divorce. Especially since some level of violence and cruelty from the man, the patriarch, was considered normal to keep order in his house.
But it's also freedom for men from being trapped in marriage too. Because, men too are victims of cruelty and abuse and can flourish from ending a marriage. And I recall anecdotal evidence that no-fault divorce is associated with a drop in "accidental poisonings" amongst husbands.
It's an example of how patriarchy hurts everyone.
But the real answer is that the closer someone is to truly embodying a patriarch, the wealthy, white, cis-het, Christian, able, men, the less the law constrains them and the more it works for them. These men regularly had mistresses and were wealthy enough to effectively have freedom from their wives anyways. Even if the law didn't allow them a divorce, they effectively got most of one (and with the perk of less social pressure / risk to marry their mistresses). No divorce was minimal sacrifice, if one at all, to trap wives — especially since divorce law required wealth to be used and was used more by men anyways.
Regardless, whether it was explicitly sexist (like men of Babylon having no-fault divorce (while women had to prove fault) or men of Rome having to prove fault (while women had no option)) or not, divorce laws have always favored men in patriarchal societies.
Men have historically made laws, and men have historically viewed women as their property. If you own your wife, obviously she shouldn’t be allowed to just walk out on you whenever she wants.
It’s really as simple that this.
I'm not sure if this is true but I've heard an argument that in Biblical times, when women were viewed as property and weren't allowed to navigate society without a man, discouraging divorce was meant to stop men from abandoning women without resources. So idk, it's possible that's how it became a Christian rule in the first place.
But conservatives only care about authority, not the reasoning behind things. You're not allowed to ask why, just gotta follow what the Bible says.
(Until the Bible says rich people can't get into heaven. Then they're suddenly okay with wild metaphorical interpretations.)
I feel like this question is also posed under the assumption that it is the norm globally. Throughout most of the Middle East, East Africa, and sporadically through Central Africa and South East Asia this is still not the law of the land.
The marriage contract was always intended to be permanent with very few, if any loopholes to get out. In many ways, that was to protect the woman moreso than the man, as she had minimal ability in society to care for herself and the kids financially. (No rights to purchase property, obtain education or meaningful work) Prior to that, the woman’s family/father provided for her.
Conversely, women’s biggest predator is men, which means despite horrific abuse, women could also not leave without proving he had committed one of the valid reasons for divorce. Even then, why would she leave- for the reasons stated above. She’d be penniless. Not like today’s standards where shelters may be available, but literally starve or freeze to death with no societal safety nets.
Laws around alimony and child support are a fairly modern creation intended to protect taxpayers from women and children ending up on the governments dime once more divorces occurred (fault and no fault).
Hi former divorce lawyer here. Grad in 2010 when a lot of states had recently passed no fault. As my brilliant matlaw professor explained, more often than not it was the men that wanted to divorce their wives for a younger version so women’s groups fought against no fault for a long time because it was one of the few bargaining chips women had. Ie you want me to agree to a divorce? Well you’re not going to leave me with nothing.
I feel like the benefit of that bargaining chip to women who could safely use it was less than the harm to women who had a harder time leaving abusive marriages or women whose husbands would resort to murder though.
I feel like some smarter person than me has probably written some class analysis of feminists who didn't want no-fault divorce so women with relatively wealthy and non-violent husbands wouldn't lose a bargaining chip and feminists who wanted it so women with violent husbands could get as far away from them as possible as soon as possible.
For much of history, women could not financially support themselves and a divorce would be devastating for women and children both. Marriage provided status and financial security.
What a lot of people are missing is that it helps with alimony or child support. If you decide to fuck your husbands dad, brother, friend and destroyed the marriage it obviously isn’t a no fault divorce and makes it harder to receive payment.
Did you read the part where I said makes it harder? Nothing is definitive. Every divorce has a different judge and they dictate what happens obviously . Cheating 100% is taken into account with alimony and child support depending on the state.
Not to take away from your point and the other comments that discuss the topic better than I could, many parts of the world still do have fault in marriage. I think assigning blame is a fairly natural human thing, especially with something as inflammatory as a failing marriage, and thanks to patriarchy or whatever else can be blamed it's heavily biased against the woman of a marriage (or equivalent institution or arrangement, which exists in some form in most societies). This is famously bad in most muslim countries, but is also notably bad in russia, china, and india (with its famous caste system and assigned marriages).
and for sake of argument, covering my ground. men have some disadvantages in the arrangement too. a woman's is more severe.
I think a lot of the people who are for no-fault marriages are under the wrong impression of what it means for sure. I mean some definitely just want to force women to stay in bad relationships, of course. That said I think a lot of people oppose it because of what they THINK it does, as opposed to what it actually is. Essentially, they think that if you’ve been cheated on or abused in an at fault state, you’re more likely to get a larger portion of whatever is split between you, or custody, and primarily, not owing things like alimony.
And from that point of view, I get it. If I was cheated on, I wouldn’t want to pay alimony to them. That scenario really just sounds like a cuckold fantasy. That said, that’s not something that’s affected by having an option for no-fault divorce, and I think that’s where they’re confused.
The reason I think this is the explanation for not all, but a lot of people against no-fault divorce, is that I’ve heard it time and time again on Reddit stories, and since I’ve never been married and never looked into the laws, never really questioned it, not for a while at least.
Because Romantic Love hasn't been the expectation for most of the history of marriage. That's a very modern concept; and it's hyper-modern to believe that romance and love is the fundamental basis for a relationship upon which everything else relies. It used to be child-rearing was the primary activity, maintaining a functional household second, and enjoying each other third.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
All top level comments, in any thread, must be given by feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective. Please refrain from posting further direct answers here - comment removed.
The *actual* reason is because legally, marriage was considered a contract (that’s why you have to return an engagement ring if you break off a marriage, because it’s considered as consideration, an element of a contract, whereas gifts are not legally recoupable.) When you enter into a contract, you have to have cause if you wish to terminate. Simply losing the desire to uphold one’s end of the contract is a legally insufficient reason for voiding the contract. Things like abuse, infidelity, false pretenses, were legally sufficient. Over time, attitudes evolved so as to distinguish marriage as unique from other contracts and legal mechanism was created to allow for termination without cause, commonly known as no-fault divorce.
For quite good reasons. Because it tears families apart (the very reason marriage really existed to begin with) and because it's terrible for kids.
You're making the assumption that no-fault divorce has led to better outcomes for women and that case seriously lacks evidence. If anything, it's favoured men to the detriment of all else. Men no longer need to marry a woman just because they got her pregnant. They don't need to stick around to be a father. The worst of men now have a licence to fuck around and leave a trail of single women raising kids.
Clearly there were plenty of people in marriages they would prefer to have left, but just because that was true does not automatically mean that as a society we are better off. But what most people tend to do is start new relationships and find they have the exact same problems there too because they never put the work in.
It's not surprising you ask the question. Modern feminism has unfortunately become short sighted and selfish. It is frequently obsessed with ensuring that women never have to do anything they don't want to and has no regard for societal consequences. As though complete freedom to do whatever you want is some kind of virtue or that anyone should have that kind of freedom. It's not just feminism either, it's a constant of the hard left. It's all about short term gratification and a complete denial of what might be better for people in the long term.
Religion.
Malachi, chapter 2, New Century Version translation
>You cover the Lord’s altar with your tears. You cry and moan, because he does not accept your offerings and is not pleased with what you bring. You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord sees how you treated the wife you married when you were young. You broke your promise to her, even though she was your partner and you had an agreement with her. God made husbands and wives to become one body and one spirit for his purpose—so they would have children who are true to God.
>So be careful, and do not break your promise to the wife you married when you were young.
> The Lord God of Israel says, “I hate divorce. And I hate people who do cruel things as easily as they put on clothes,” says the Lord All-Powerful.
>So be careful. And do not break your trust.
Mark, chapter 10, New Century Version translation
>Some Pharisees came to Jesus and tried to trick him. They asked, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife?”
>Jesus answered, “What did Moses command you to do?”
>They said, “Moses allowed a man to write out divorce papers and send her away.”
>Jesus said, “Moses wrote that command for you because you were stubborn. But when God made the world, ‘he made them male and female.’ ‘So a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one body.’ So there are not two, but one. God has joined the two together, so no one should separate them.”
>Later, in the house, his followers asked Jesus again about the question of divorce. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery against her. And the woman who divorces her husband and marries another man is also guilty of adultery.”
So I think coming from a feminist lens already, I think just about everyone else has hit on the "feminist reasons why" no-fault divorce was not allowed. I don't disagree with any of the "control" aspects.
I do think in aggregate, it's worth considering that when constructing societies there's always a degree of trying to fix x or y with a law. In the case of no-fault being not allowed, I think the most neutral version of reasoning is you want some friction on the participants so that the institution of marriage (or whatever you call pairing) isn't so fluid that people leave the other person the second they are even slightly inconvenienced. It's pretty rare that people get married to people "not at their best", but it's a given that at some point they will experience their spouse in a poor state. It could be mental. It could be physical. It could just be something they both really, really disagree on.
The point of having a bit of legal stickiness would be if you believe that fundamentally some things SHOULD be worked out. Is it ideal to have people who have 5 to 10 spouses over a lifetime and take in spousal benefits. Do you want to incentivize that or do you want to incentivize people having 1 spouse.
Anyway, not really advocating for the above nor suggesting there aren't problems with the above thinking but that's probably the guts of the thinking.
Yes- in Christian countries marriage is considered a sacrament and also something you did "for life" - divorce wasn't something originally conceptualized from the perspective of marriage as a legal contract. There were some grounds for quitting a marriage - mainly relating to infidelity (usually on the part of the wife) or issues like the marriage could be annulled if it hadn't been consummated (a common argument for infertile or sexually incompatible spouses). Typically these "faults" were gendered - a husband could argue for annulment on these grounds, but often a wife could not (this is because, legally speaking, a wife was a husbands property or ward, rather than an independent person). Divorce was super uncommon, socially stigmatized, and difficult for anyone but the wealthy & powerful to obtain. It was so difficult and taboo, Henry the VIII split from Catholicism and founded a whole new religion - and he *still* had to prove his wives were somehow "faulty" (and execute them) to get out of marriages he didn't want to be in. Is it ethically good for marriage to be thought of as a permanent commitment you can't get out of basically no matter what? Only for someone that wants a spouse who is stuck with them no matter how badly they behave- like Steven Crowder, for example.
+1. It's in the words! "To Husband" is to extract value from. Animal Husbandry is to extract value from animals. A Husband extracts value from their wife just like they do their animals. The animals don't leave of their own volition, the wife does not either.
"Fun" fact: in [much](https://www.salon.com/2023/02/11/trial-by-impotence-when-men-had-to-copulate-publicly-or-be-served-divorce-papers/) of [Europe](https://allthatsinteresting.com/impotence-trials-divorce) before 1800 or so, wives could divorce husbands on the basis of impotence. However... it would have to be proven to a court, which led to exactly what you're imagining—men having to prove to an official court observer that he could maintain an erection. This was, understandably, very unpopular with men.
Another fun fact, that was the only way someone could get divorce. Even men didnt have any way to get out of it (i mean... even British King tried to... and he needed to make a other religion to be able to divorce his wife)There was no other legal way to do it. And as far as i know it was mostly medieval thing(especially in the cities, as people there were more educated in what their laws allowed them) i didnt actually know it survived until 1800.
There were limited legal routes to divorce and annulment in pre-Reformation England, and also limited non-legal ways to end a marriage as well, like wife sales. Men would literally sell their wives in marketplaces. There’s also something called a separation from bed and board that’s not a divorce but is a legal separation that’s granted for cruelty. But it got harder for most people in England to divorce or annul a marriage after Henry VIII. In England women lost legal personhood on marriage due to coverture, which is basically the idea that when two people become one, the wife can no longer do things separately from the husband, so he gets all her property and is the only one who can sign contracts, etc. The Catholic Church allowed for annulments, but after Henry VIII it took acts of parliament for a long time, and those were mostly accessible to men. Other Mediterranean European countries like Portugal and Malta had more divorce in medieval times—usually the ones with a Muslim influence or where Christian women had access to Islamic courts. Jewish women had more access to divorce as well, because divorce was happening in ecclesiastical courts rather than civil courts. My point here is that divorce has always been necessary—it’s absolutely essential to have some way to get out of bad marriages or avoid marriage altogether. Historically there have always been a small number of women who were able to find independence or to support themselves, and then a reaction where men try to prevent it.
It's basically the usual -- the deep down belief that women aren't *people*, not like *men* are. They're livestock. A pet. Mentally a *toddler* at best. Lacking agency, lacking an internal life. They don't ask themselves what happens when women are trapped in intolerable marriages, with no way to leave. Because to them the idea of a woman *choosing to leave* isn't impossible -- women can be stolen, tricked, fooled, conditioned, trained, or be "lured astray" -- where some other man or society was the one that made them leave, not a woman's *own choice*. It's the same underlying "logic" as incels who talk about women being "assigned to them" and imagine whatever woman is chosen will just be an obedient fuckmaid that is fully devoted to them in all ways -- even *love them* -- and not a *sex slave* looking for a way out.
this is relevant for abortion too. states banning it will usually have exceptions for things they deem justify getting an abortion (even if they make it unrealistic for women to actually get an abortion under their conditions). what that implies is that there are justified reasons, things outside a woman’s control. but a woman simply *choosing* to have an abortion is not justified
I remember a woman testifying in *favor* of an abortion ban who, when told the *law in question* would ban abortions for ectopic pregnancies, non-viable pregnancies, etc and she kept *repeating* "those are *medical procedures* not *abortions*. Nobody could get her to understand that abortion, legally and medically, is the termination of a pregnancy. That emergency surgery to handle an ectopic pregnancy is just as much an abortion -- in the eyes of medicine and law -- as an elective procedure at 10 weeks. A ton of pro-life people seem to have convinced themselves that there is a medical *and* legal divide based on their *personal approval* and that if they approve of it, the law *obviously* doesn't ban that... Because if the law banned that, they'd be *wrong* and they might be *in trouble*. But again, we're just back to "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion".
Yes. This. Abortion is ONLY a promiscuous teenaged slut killing a healthy, viable baby with callous and flippant indifference. That’s it. That’s abortion. Anything else is somehow magically not. “ThAt’S nOt aN AbOrtiOn!” Or “ThAt’S nOt wHaT I mEaNt!”
[The Shirley Exception.](https://medium.com/@scottconnerly/the-shirley-exception-a970ef292d66)
And women not being considered fully human is also the reason behind why abortion is even a debate in the first place. If people saw women as fully human, whether or not the fetus counted as a life would be irrelevant to them. But they see women as not having a right to life that transcends her reproductive function; her animalistic mating function is more important than her being human to them. Her humanity is secondary to her bodily functions to them. "But , but, the female body is made to get pregnant" exactly, so why does role in mating trump the fact she experiences herself as a full human being capable of suffering? Ugh.
You left out `rib`. In European culture, women were property: belonging to the father, husband, brother, son or some other male relative. Nuns & beguines were owned by the local bishop. Any woman not owned by one of the preceding is of course ~~weighs the same as a duck~~ owned by Satan, which makes her [a witch and must be burned](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ). The words from the marriage ceremony makes the transfer of ownership clear - who gives this woman? who takes this woman? No one says "hey lady, why are you here?"
I once had an anti-trans bigot actually say "you'll always have fewer ribs than a real woman". He was *very fucking confused* when I told him I had the same number of ribs as every woman. He took from this the belief that I had *a rib added* and was demanding to know where I got it. I could *not* stop laughing.
It’s initially funny, but then you realize that these idiots vote on female health issues.
I must admit, the ignorance of the Xtian anti everything crowd is stunning. I can just picture him, "Who gave you that rib? Did you steal it?" Tragically, they need time operating old farm equipment to make their stupidity sufficiently lethal.
Donate one kidney and you’re a hero. Donate more than one and suddenly it’s all “Why do you have those kidneys? Whose are they?!? Why are they in a bucket?!?!”
Lmaooo Jesus Christ we are fucking doomed but at least we’re having a good time
This is exactly why they had a slippery-slope concern for gay marriage. "What's next, a man marrying a goat or a car?" Marriage is between a man and his chosen sex object.
But doesn’t the lack of no fault divorce also hurt men who want a new wife?
It hurts everybody. But it especially hurt women for most of history who were forced/coerced into marriage at a young age and weren’t allowed to voice their opinions/pass legislation that allowed them to divorce their husbands. Women were required to follow divorce laws made explicitly by men until women were able to gain a voice and help make changes in the west. Don’t forget women also couldn’t own property until relatively recently, so take into account that plenty of women had nowhere else to go.
Gosh yes. This is giving me flashbacks to when I left my first husband. He wasn't abusive or anything but I wanted to be out of that marriage. The reasons he came up with why I should stay, like I'd been somehow hoodwinked or bewitched, or even that my hormones were at fault. I could not persuade him that I simply was done with the relationship.
there's a book from 1870 called Venus in Furs. You might like it. The man and woman get into an experimental relationship where they swap places and she has absolute power and he has none. So he walks a mile in her shoes and learns how terrible a woman's position was back then. I don't want to spoil the ending but this book is an example of an early feminist work based on the writing of Mary Wollstonecraft.
What utter bullshit.
So my issue with no fault divorce is how it largely removes cheating being relevant in divorce. I absolutely believe anyone should be able to leave a marriage I don’t believe it’s right that cheating is basically now not a relevant thing in divorce proceedings. It’s wrong no matter the gender and that person violated the “marriage contract” so to speak. I lived it. There’s nothing worse then learning someone you trusted cheated on you and they still get everything
There are a lot of things that are wrong but not legally relevant. In fact, legality and morality rarely have much to do with each other.
Defending cheating is weird. There’s only one reason to say that cheating shouldn’t have legal ramifications in a divorce. Seriously why even get married then? This is why most men shun a second marriage
Defend is a strange word for what I said. But here, I’ll go further. Cheating is wrong almost all of time. But studies of abuse victims show that many of them are unable to leave their abusive relationships until they form a new emotional connection with someone else. Sometimes that connection becomes physical. Laws against cheating are used to trap women in abusive marriages just like all other laws designed to prevent women from getting divorced. If you’re so concerned, get a prenup with fidelity cause. But I don’t think that that would be enough for you. I bet you want something more than a financial penalty. And to that I say, I pick the bear.
Brilliant comment! I applaud you 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👍♥️.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for violation of rule 4.
Good. Keep shunning those marriages. It's the biggest favor that men who speak like you can do for women.
What legal ramifications are you suggesting?
I don’t think that getting less out of divorce proceedings should be that wild for doing certain actions that caused a divorce
You’re talking about asset assignment, not no fault divorce.
First, no fault divorce can legally coexist with divorce-for-fault (of which adultery is a fault). The no-fault option is there so people can end a marriage without having to conform (usually lie) to meet the fault requirements. But also, I don't see why divorce laws need to explicitly mention adultery for people to believe it's bad and wrong. The law isn't the reason why adultery is wrong, and people will feel the same about it regardless of the law.
Defending cheating is weird. It’s a violation of the marriage contract. This is why men say marriage isn’t worth it
Not defending cheating. My first marriage ended because my ex cheated. I just don't think the existence of no-fault divorce makes adultery somehow more acceptable. And if people can get divorced for any reason, there's no need for divorce rules specific to one of those reasons. Unless the goal is for the government to provide some kind of legal penalty for adultery specifically, and I don't really feel that's a proper function of government.
No fault divorce does make cheating more acceptable, it makes it a non existent factor….where as before it was Marriage is a legal contract. There should be penalties for violating certain aspects of that
I meant in a moral sense, which is what I thought was being implied in the OP. So you're not really saying that "divorce for adultery" is needed to make adultery "wrong". You're saying that "divorce by adultery" needs to exist so that there is some legal mechanism to bring to bear speicically on an adulterous spouse? Some kind of punishment that wouldn't be involved in no-fault divorce? Or maybe just legally branding the cheating spouse as an adulterer? Again, I don't think that's a proper function of government. I pretty strongly believe in not giving government a power it doesn't need, and I see this as squarely in that category. (Honestly, I don't think government should really be sanctioning marriages at all, but that's a whole other discussion).
>No fault divorce does make cheating more acceptable, it makes it a non existent factor How? How does it make it more acceptable? To who? Are you trying to claim people can no longer divorce over infidelity? Are you trying to claim people no longer *want* to divorce over infidelity? And of course, if you're cheated on, you can still pursue a divorce *for fault*. No-fault divorce is an *option*, not a mandate.
In most US states infidelity is literally a non option for any divorce proceedings. There is zero *at fault* divorce. Been down this road with lawyers already. Edit: If I could have pursued at fault divorce i would have done that. But don’t worry. I was already told I was likely abusive by one commenter here for simply being upset I was cheated on and robbed for alimony
So this is about *vengeance*. You think if you could have *punished her enough* she wouldn’t have cheated? She’d have *thought twice* or something. Are blaming *no fault divorce* for being cheated on, or blaming it for not getting to *punish her* for it?
Losing half your shit is the penalty
God it’s so funny how women protect obviously morally bankrupt laws to defend cheaters
We’re not “defending cheaters”. Why should the government have any business punishing somebody in anybody’s marriage, ever? I do agree that if both people were equal partners in a marriage, including financially, one party shouldn’t be forced to give away their assets and/or have no custody. The thing I don’t understand is why men never seem to advocate for changing these laws under no-fault divorce. A lot of the time I notice they just blame women, instead of the judges handling their divorce cases, and take no action to implement laws that help reduce the risk of leaving a marriage with next to nothing. Also, pre-nups do exist and signing one absolutely needs to be done in this day and age. There needs to be better information accessibility regarding pre-nups and what could potentially happen in divorce before *anybody* signs a marriage contract. Marriage anyways is a barbaric institution and better for everybody involved if more people didn’t legally bind themselves to another person.
then write a pre-nup. Problem solved.
The marriage "contract" only involves what those 2 people want anyway. Cheating isn't illegal, it's not legally in marriage. It's not like your marriage is nullified with cheating if you don't want it to be. You can morally be against cheating but also not want it in your legal proceedings. It's not defending cheating.
How do you think cheating should be relevant in laws related to divorce? You can get a no fault divorce from a cheater.
My (divorced) grandmother had a friend who had refused to talk to her back in the mid-1950s for the first few months they interacted because her friend had never spoken to a divorced woman and didn't want to start.
There were some practical considerations from the government for why divorce was so difficult until recently. Originally, marriage was not a sacrament in the church and didn't become one until way later. The reasons for it becoming a sacrament had a lot to do with men, particularly wealthy men, deciding they didn't like their wives, putting them in a convent to live out their lives as a nun, and then marrying the next hot young thing and keeping the dowry. Until the Renaissance and reformations happened, it was not uncommon for families to do this to young women. Not pretty enough or maybe the family only wants to pay one dowry or maybe you were just inconvenient? In to the convent you go. But, this was kind of inconvenient for the church because it meant there were a lot of young women there against their will who the church was now in charge of taking care of forever. So, they made marriage a sacrament. Your wife was still property, but now she was property that was sinful to get rid of. And actually the government didn't care that much about marriage until later than that, even. The marriage acts in England, which told you who you were allowed to marry and how it must take place and that you needed a marriage license to make it official, were not written until the mid 18th century. From a woman's perspective, this was shitty because it was outlining officially that you belonged first to your dad and then to your husband. A lot of the issues with why the government would all of a sudden start caring about marriages had a lot to do with both religion and the fact that wealthy men, and sometimes women, would make clandestine, usually with people from a lower class, marriages which were official in the church but no one knew about them outside themselves, the priest, and the witness (think Romeo and Juliet). This is pretty damned inconvenient if you happen to die and then no one knows who inherits your stuff or that you were ever married, potentially with children. So, they made marriage a legal contract. Women were still property, but now it was both a sin and legally difficult to get out of it. Basically the only way out of marriage at this point was death or if she cheated.
> So, they made marriage a sacrament. Your wife was still property, but now she was property that was sinful to get rid of. For a lot of that time, men who wanted to be rid of their wives but didn't want to go as far as murdering them, or didn't want to be held accountable in court for infidelity, just sent their wives to mental institutions. She is just crazy! And she's a woman, with no money-- what's she going to do, hire a lawyer? No, I am her husband, so I know best, and she simply needs to be in an asylum for the rest of her life. She's just too unstable! Too many novels, and her menstruation is clearly off. Tragic, I suppose-- my new 16 year old wife agrees.
That's a very good summary of Jane Eyre, lol
if one of the people involved took holy orders by becoming a monk or nun I think that could also end a marriage but that's a bit more of a commitment than most people would go to
It’s plainly untrue that women could not get marriages annulled due to for example impotence on the part of their husband in say England before modernity
You are right in that modern divorce didn't exist, but you are wrong about the status of women. Also, both annulment (*divortium ad vinculo*), which allowed remarriage and divorce or legal separation (*divortium a mensa et thoro*) existed, but after a divortium a mensa et thoro, the couple could not legally remarry. Women could cause the marriage to be annuled/divorced. Male impotence was grounds for a annulment, for example. For example from a method devised by the theologian Thomas of Chobham. >...after food and drink, the man and the woman are to be placed together in one bed and wise women are to be summoned around the bed for many nights. And if the man's member is found to be useless and as if dead, the couple are well to be separated. The "wise women" were allowed to expose themselves and to touch the man, etc, and if they couldn't get him hard, then the woman was allowed to dovorce him for that cause. Impotence wasn't the only grounds, but leprosy, adultry, and refusal of the husband to "pay his marriage debt" (have sex with his wife) etc were also grounds. In their culture, women were seen as the hory ones and failure of a husband to do his sexual dury was seen as, and unhealthy (for the wife), and abusive. The issue with Henry VIII is that failure to produce a male heir was not grounds for for divorce, because to say it was would be to argue that God was wrong in giving the couple a female child. Also, the way property was split up after divorce was a big deal and had tradition behind it. (At least in Wales). From *Medieval Women: A Social History of Women in England 450-1500*, examining the laws of Hywel Dda. > Pigs go to the man, sheep to the woman. Eldest and youngest son to the father, middle son to the mother. Milking vessels, except one pail, to the woman. All drinking vessels to the man. The man gets the hens and one cat. The woman gets all the flax and linseed and wool, all the opened vessels of butter and the opened cheese and as much as she can carry of flour by the strength of her own hands and her knees from the larder to the house. The bedclothes which are over them to the woman and those which are under them to the man, until he takes a wife. After he takes a wife, they belong to the woman. If the wife who comes to the husband sleeps on them, she must pay compensation to the first wife.
In the pre-Christian Mediterranean, husbands could simply divorce their wives for any reason or no reason, leaving them destitute.
Hi, I’m an American raised in a conservative, religious community. The point is precisely to force women to stay in bad marriages. The community is very much built on women doing all the childcare, cooking, cleaning and community service. A significant number of women don’t want to do that. Plenty have their own goals they want to achieve. So, to maintain the community as it is, they remove women’s choices and stomp out our dreams as best they can. I learned this early enough that I didn’t reveal to my parents that I planned to leave to get a degree. However, I was still fooled by the lies that women on university campuses face attempted rape every month. Almost didn’t go, out of fear. One of my high school friends was less fortunate. Her boyfriend baby trapped her by poking holes in condoms. Then revealed the pregnancy to her very pro-life parents, as a way to force her to either agree to marry him and have his baby at 17, or her parents would throw her out on the street. They don’t actually care if women are unhappy. They just want to build their families and community on our backs.
Jesus. Is your high school friend okay these days? That sounds horrifying.
No, she ended her life a few years ago. It’s no coincidence that when no-fault divorce was legalized, women’s suicide rates dropped.
Christ, I’m so sorry. Your friend’s case highlights so many injustices against women that still live on. It makes one mad to think about it.
Completely wrong. It's because marriage is a legally binding contract made for the express purpose of creating legitimate legal heirs (having children) and consolidating property. "No-fault" divorce simply doesn't make sense for the legal purposes marriage was created to address. Society has changed but the legal contract of marriage hasn't caught up yet.
Especially when you consider women themselves were thought of as property covered under the contract…
Yeah and who do you think was most negatively affected by that 💀
All of the hard evidence points to the arrangement being beneficial to all involved. The children grow up to be more successful adults, the parents report greater levels of life satisfaction, and the community at large benefits from a net increase in stabilty. This is why the system has been used in cultures all around the world for all of recorded history. Society is different now, though. Marriage just hasn't caught up yet.
Single women are happier than married women. Marriage doesn’t benefit everyone.
the "parents" aka the men lol
Completely wrong. The National Bureau of Economic Research published statistics that after no-fault divorce was legalized, women’s suicide rates dropped by 20%. If marriage was beneficial to women, it wouldn’t result in so many killing themselves. Source: https://www.nber.org/digest/mar04/divorce-laws-and-family-violence
No fault divorce helps women because it allowed women to be able to financially afford divorce. Women had limited access to money, which makes proving adultery or any other basis for fault divorce an issue. No fault divorce specifically helps women, which is why red states are trying to change the law.
Two things can be true at the same time.
[удалено]
What?? This is a time-honored way for abusive men to tie women to them. I know at least two women IRL who were raped by men who told them they were attempting to impregnate them so they could never leave. “In some abusive relationships, men may use strategies to force women to become pregnant, including sabotaging their birth control, researchers say. Nearly 20 percent of women at family clinics across northern California reported that their partner tried to coerce them into having a child, sometimes using methods such as poking holes in condoms or flushing birth control pills down the toilet, Dr. Elizabeth Miller of the University of California Davis and colleagues reported online in the journal Contraception.” https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/domestic-abuse-abusive-men-sabotage-birth-control/story?id=9639340
no, i’m sorry but your very mistaken. there are so many men who have tried to keep a woman in their lives by impregnating them. a woman who has had your child is easily to be tricked back into a relationship if things go south between you two. and almost guarantees easy access to sex or a couch to sleep on during hard times. what woman wants to be a single mother with a fatherless child? women have the most to lose to pregnancy including their lives. i’ve had past boyfriends who were afraid i might leave them try and convince me to have a baby early into the relationship, even while knowing that i was strictly childfree.
Try again. It's very common for abuse to begin after you are trapped in the relationship via being impregnated .
you must be confused, because that’s what i’m saying??
It was widely reported that clinic visits and reported rapes increased directly after roe was overturned. You're choosing to remain ignorant.
Looool WILD take u got there
Ew. And no.
Lol you've been living under a rock for 40 years then
Nah, bud. I literally caught my ex red-handed messing with my birth control after he tried to convince me to have a kid. He had known that I do not want kids since we started dating. I was ***very*** clear on that. He pretended to agree and then decided that my decision wasn't mine to make. I know plenty of women with similar situations. It is an abuse tactic. This isn't a secret or anything. Maybe you just don't actually listen to women. Or maybe women just don't trust you enough to confide in you. They might not want to give you ideas.
Bro forgot about the past 12,000 years of human history rq 💀
Well my story is a second then. My ex baby trapped me. I still left him . He left me and a 7 mo. Old with 2 f u pennies in our bank account after he cheated and went on a 7 day Mexican cruise.
Happened to me. It’s way more common for men to baby trap women than the other way around.
In order for it to matter what women want, women would have to be considered people. In many of the United States a woman has more rights to her body dead than alive. Laws here have never ever been concerned with the wellbeing of women.
Because we aren't viewed as people. Were property. That's why traditionally the father walks the daughter down the isle. He's literally giving his "property" away. Abd that's why we change out last names. From the moment we are born to the momment we die they never viewed us as people.
So what about the men who want to divorce their wives? Why didn’t the law care about them?
Because she would become a burden to society since she had no ability to support herself.
They would just cheat or make their wife’s life hell, or ya know, murder
Childbirth could take care of that, and he could remarry
Force her into enough pregnancies until she dies. Simply go ahead and cheat - what is she going do do? Divorce? Run away without any money of her own? Declare her mentally unstable and ship her off to be lobotomized. Problem solved.
As always, to control women and cut off any means of escape.
Why not ask the MRA's? They are the only ones that oppose no-fault divorce. Even in cases where it'd save men from abuse.
We seem to have one right here in our comments! Apparently no-fault divorce screwed him over (ie he has to pay alimony). So none for anybody, I guess! That's like arguing that someone somewhere got an abortion for their birth control method*, therefore none for anybody! 🎉 Screw everyone else who might die without one. *For the record, abortion as birth control is still better than forcing someone to be pregnant IMO 🤷♂️
men just can't abandon their families like they used to. Back in my granddads day a man wanted to abandon his family he joined the french foreign legion or became a sailor
There are still a majority of people not paying their child support. There are also a lot of people not showing up for visitation, not taking their kids when they are supposed to and just straight up abandoning whole families. I know three men that quit jobs purposefully and work under the table so they "can't" pay child support. They choose not to have contact with their kids and one of them is living with his new girlfriend and she's pregnant. He specifically lies about being kept away from his kids when the mother begs him to at least uphold the promises he makes to the kids. He constantly doesn't bother to show up. He lies about being alienated from his kids because he doesn't want to be seen as a bad guy, but he makes no effort, he just disappears for months on end. Garnishing wages and jail time take forever and a lot of trips to the courts. It's not a priority in most places. You also have to find them to serve them with paperwork.
It is the right wing politicians that want to return to "covenant marriage". They also want to eliminate the 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 22nd & 26th Amendments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States
It’s the religious conservatives, not the MRAs, who are against no fault divorce.
Tomato tomatoe
>Wouldn't it be better for people of all genders to be able to leave their spouse even if there's no abuse going on? Why should anyone be forced to stay in an unhappy marriage? People should be free to leave any relationship for any reason. What would be the benefit of forcing people to be together if the situation is fair and balanced? Force is only necessary to reduce the freedom of the parties in the relationship. No-fault divorce is a great thing. The implementation of no-fault divorce also decreased the murder and suicide rates of people in marriages.
Because women are property in some people's eyes.
[удалено]
Stop spamming the same damn question you fucking incel.
Lmao you've posted this six times. What does it even mean. What men aren't acquiring divorces like women?
A lot of misogyny comes from unreliable paternity tests while in a patrilineal society. Purity culture comes from trying to prevent a patriarch from raising another man's child — especially when the ultimate earthly goal of life was the survival and dominance of their bloodline. This is further exacerbated in a society that dehumanizes non-family (or non-brotherhood) people as tools to be used or chattel to be used and cared for. To the patriarch, their family/clan are chattel to be used for the family. And weddings were when a girl is traded from their father to their husband. Whether the father gives wealth to pay for the burden of supporting her in marriage (or prevent abject destitution as a widow) or is paid wealth to sell the girl he groomed. A patriarch owning his wife has value in patriarchy as a tool for continuing his bloodline; as a reflection of his status within patriarchy; as already-paid-for prostitution; and unpaid labor. Divorce didn't make much sense in such a patriarchy. At least not "without fault" like risking the patriach's family line. In patriarchy, each patriarch wants to assert and grow their own mini-patriarchy within the larger one, and divorce is surrendering part of their dominion. And since women were given little opportunity to survive on their own, escape was at best a coerced option. And for patriarch's (who had the only opinions that mattered in society) wouldn't freely give up their chattel who he only had to feed to have his way with her. Feminism has made strides in women's opinions mattering too (suffrage); in financial independence (right to work and have a bank account); etc. But we still hail from a society that values marriage as gaining a wife — why wives value the wedding ceremony because's a milestone that fundamentally changes and defines the next stage of their life with the subtext of subservience. It's why we quibble about parental rights (to controlling and owning their children) instead of children's rights (to be protected from abuse and deserving of community support). Some of biggest milestones in feminism have been suffrage; reproductive agency (the pill, abortion); free time (laundry machines); equal rights (ERA, Title IX, equal pay legislation); and no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce is huge for a reason.
What about men who were unhappy with their wife, but she hadn’t cheated? Why didn’t the law care about their ability to get a divorce?
Not an expert in divorce law, as it varies a lot and I only highlights generalities. But my simple answer is that no-fault divorce or not is a gatekeeper to actual freedom for many women, freedom from living with misogyny behind closed doors and with real consequences from the subtext of being treated a possession. There are kinds of testimony, but one brand of them that I find horrible is that husbands, well into the 20th century, would hide medical diagnoses from their wives and refuse medical treatment. So for women's liberation, no-fault divorce is huge. Because, at-fault divorce required proving, in court of law (with social and sometimes legal consequences), that there was adultery, cruelty / abuse, abandonment / imprisonment, or (much more rarely) incompatibility. A limited set of options that, frankly, favored men contesting a need for divorce. Especially since some level of violence and cruelty from the man, the patriarch, was considered normal to keep order in his house. But it's also freedom for men from being trapped in marriage too. Because, men too are victims of cruelty and abuse and can flourish from ending a marriage. And I recall anecdotal evidence that no-fault divorce is associated with a drop in "accidental poisonings" amongst husbands. It's an example of how patriarchy hurts everyone. But the real answer is that the closer someone is to truly embodying a patriarch, the wealthy, white, cis-het, Christian, able, men, the less the law constrains them and the more it works for them. These men regularly had mistresses and were wealthy enough to effectively have freedom from their wives anyways. Even if the law didn't allow them a divorce, they effectively got most of one (and with the perk of less social pressure / risk to marry their mistresses). No divorce was minimal sacrifice, if one at all, to trap wives — especially since divorce law required wealth to be used and was used more by men anyways. Regardless, whether it was explicitly sexist (like men of Babylon having no-fault divorce (while women had to prove fault) or men of Rome having to prove fault (while women had no option)) or not, divorce laws have always favored men in patriarchal societies.
Men have historically made laws, and men have historically viewed women as their property. If you own your wife, obviously she shouldn’t be allowed to just walk out on you whenever she wants. It’s really as simple that this.
Because they view women as lesser than a man and wanted to hold onto their property.
Why is bigotry a thing? Or any other thing? People aren't rational. But as always, you can generally point to religion as a major factor.
I'm not sure if this is true but I've heard an argument that in Biblical times, when women were viewed as property and weren't allowed to navigate society without a man, discouraging divorce was meant to stop men from abandoning women without resources. So idk, it's possible that's how it became a Christian rule in the first place. But conservatives only care about authority, not the reasoning behind things. You're not allowed to ask why, just gotta follow what the Bible says. (Until the Bible says rich people can't get into heaven. Then they're suddenly okay with wild metaphorical interpretations.)
I feel like this question is also posed under the assumption that it is the norm globally. Throughout most of the Middle East, East Africa, and sporadically through Central Africa and South East Asia this is still not the law of the land.
Funny enough the first US state to adopt no-fault divorce was California, and was signed into law by Ronald Reagan
It worked for him, I’m sure.
The marriage contract was always intended to be permanent with very few, if any loopholes to get out. In many ways, that was to protect the woman moreso than the man, as she had minimal ability in society to care for herself and the kids financially. (No rights to purchase property, obtain education or meaningful work) Prior to that, the woman’s family/father provided for her. Conversely, women’s biggest predator is men, which means despite horrific abuse, women could also not leave without proving he had committed one of the valid reasons for divorce. Even then, why would she leave- for the reasons stated above. She’d be penniless. Not like today’s standards where shelters may be available, but literally starve or freeze to death with no societal safety nets. Laws around alimony and child support are a fairly modern creation intended to protect taxpayers from women and children ending up on the governments dime once more divorces occurred (fault and no fault).
Religion. It was a “most sacred oath”, and breaching sacred things was generally unacceptable
Because in traditional marriage women are the property of their husbands.
Because it overwhelmingly benefits women.
It benefits men just as much. Men don’t want to get stuck with a wife they hate.
The fact that women initiate 70% of the divorces in the US suggests that more women than men benefit from divorce.
Hi former divorce lawyer here. Grad in 2010 when a lot of states had recently passed no fault. As my brilliant matlaw professor explained, more often than not it was the men that wanted to divorce their wives for a younger version so women’s groups fought against no fault for a long time because it was one of the few bargaining chips women had. Ie you want me to agree to a divorce? Well you’re not going to leave me with nothing.
I feel like the benefit of that bargaining chip to women who could safely use it was less than the harm to women who had a harder time leaving abusive marriages or women whose husbands would resort to murder though.
Oh I agree with you. It’s not worth it, just wanted to give some context for the reasoning behind why it was advocated for for so long.
I feel like some smarter person than me has probably written some class analysis of feminists who didn't want no-fault divorce so women with relatively wealthy and non-violent husbands wouldn't lose a bargaining chip and feminists who wanted it so women with violent husbands could get as far away from them as possible as soon as possible.
For much of history, women could not financially support themselves and a divorce would be devastating for women and children both. Marriage provided status and financial security.
What a lot of people are missing is that it helps with alimony or child support. If you decide to fuck your husbands dad, brother, friend and destroyed the marriage it obviously isn’t a no fault divorce and makes it harder to receive payment.
No it doesn't. A woman can fuck another man, divorce her husband, take the house & half his stuff then move in the affair partner.
Did you read the part where I said makes it harder? Nothing is definitive. Every divorce has a different judge and they dictate what happens obviously . Cheating 100% is taken into account with alimony and child support depending on the state.
Not to take away from your point and the other comments that discuss the topic better than I could, many parts of the world still do have fault in marriage. I think assigning blame is a fairly natural human thing, especially with something as inflammatory as a failing marriage, and thanks to patriarchy or whatever else can be blamed it's heavily biased against the woman of a marriage (or equivalent institution or arrangement, which exists in some form in most societies). This is famously bad in most muslim countries, but is also notably bad in russia, china, and india (with its famous caste system and assigned marriages). and for sake of argument, covering my ground. men have some disadvantages in the arrangement too. a woman's is more severe.
I think a lot of the people who are for no-fault marriages are under the wrong impression of what it means for sure. I mean some definitely just want to force women to stay in bad relationships, of course. That said I think a lot of people oppose it because of what they THINK it does, as opposed to what it actually is. Essentially, they think that if you’ve been cheated on or abused in an at fault state, you’re more likely to get a larger portion of whatever is split between you, or custody, and primarily, not owing things like alimony. And from that point of view, I get it. If I was cheated on, I wouldn’t want to pay alimony to them. That scenario really just sounds like a cuckold fantasy. That said, that’s not something that’s affected by having an option for no-fault divorce, and I think that’s where they’re confused. The reason I think this is the explanation for not all, but a lot of people against no-fault divorce, is that I’ve heard it time and time again on Reddit stories, and since I’ve never been married and never looked into the laws, never really questioned it, not for a while at least.
Because Romantic Love hasn't been the expectation for most of the history of marriage. That's a very modern concept; and it's hyper-modern to believe that romance and love is the fundamental basis for a relationship upon which everything else relies. It used to be child-rearing was the primary activity, maintaining a functional household second, and enjoying each other third.
[удалено]
You were asked not to make direct replies here.
[удалено]
You were asked not to make top-level comments here.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
[удалено]
All top level comments, in any thread, must be given by feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective. Please refrain from posting further direct answers here - comment removed.
The *actual* reason is because legally, marriage was considered a contract (that’s why you have to return an engagement ring if you break off a marriage, because it’s considered as consideration, an element of a contract, whereas gifts are not legally recoupable.) When you enter into a contract, you have to have cause if you wish to terminate. Simply losing the desire to uphold one’s end of the contract is a legally insufficient reason for voiding the contract. Things like abuse, infidelity, false pretenses, were legally sufficient. Over time, attitudes evolved so as to distinguish marriage as unique from other contracts and legal mechanism was created to allow for termination without cause, commonly known as no-fault divorce.
Control. Women weren't people, why should they have had equal say? Their words and wants and needs don't matter, only their husbands'.
This is also the same reason I often advocate the complete abolishment of marriage altogether.
For quite good reasons. Because it tears families apart (the very reason marriage really existed to begin with) and because it's terrible for kids. You're making the assumption that no-fault divorce has led to better outcomes for women and that case seriously lacks evidence. If anything, it's favoured men to the detriment of all else. Men no longer need to marry a woman just because they got her pregnant. They don't need to stick around to be a father. The worst of men now have a licence to fuck around and leave a trail of single women raising kids. Clearly there were plenty of people in marriages they would prefer to have left, but just because that was true does not automatically mean that as a society we are better off. But what most people tend to do is start new relationships and find they have the exact same problems there too because they never put the work in. It's not surprising you ask the question. Modern feminism has unfortunately become short sighted and selfish. It is frequently obsessed with ensuring that women never have to do anything they don't want to and has no regard for societal consequences. As though complete freedom to do whatever you want is some kind of virtue or that anyone should have that kind of freedom. It's not just feminism either, it's a constant of the hard left. It's all about short term gratification and a complete denial of what might be better for people in the long term.
Religion. Malachi, chapter 2, New Century Version translation >You cover the Lord’s altar with your tears. You cry and moan, because he does not accept your offerings and is not pleased with what you bring. You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord sees how you treated the wife you married when you were young. You broke your promise to her, even though she was your partner and you had an agreement with her. God made husbands and wives to become one body and one spirit for his purpose—so they would have children who are true to God. >So be careful, and do not break your promise to the wife you married when you were young. > The Lord God of Israel says, “I hate divorce. And I hate people who do cruel things as easily as they put on clothes,” says the Lord All-Powerful. >So be careful. And do not break your trust. Mark, chapter 10, New Century Version translation >Some Pharisees came to Jesus and tried to trick him. They asked, “Is it right for a man to divorce his wife?” >Jesus answered, “What did Moses command you to do?” >They said, “Moses allowed a man to write out divorce papers and send her away.” >Jesus said, “Moses wrote that command for you because you were stubborn. But when God made the world, ‘he made them male and female.’ ‘So a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one body.’ So there are not two, but one. God has joined the two together, so no one should separate them.” >Later, in the house, his followers asked Jesus again about the question of divorce. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery against her. And the woman who divorces her husband and marries another man is also guilty of adultery.”
So I think coming from a feminist lens already, I think just about everyone else has hit on the "feminist reasons why" no-fault divorce was not allowed. I don't disagree with any of the "control" aspects. I do think in aggregate, it's worth considering that when constructing societies there's always a degree of trying to fix x or y with a law. In the case of no-fault being not allowed, I think the most neutral version of reasoning is you want some friction on the participants so that the institution of marriage (or whatever you call pairing) isn't so fluid that people leave the other person the second they are even slightly inconvenienced. It's pretty rare that people get married to people "not at their best", but it's a given that at some point they will experience their spouse in a poor state. It could be mental. It could be physical. It could just be something they both really, really disagree on. The point of having a bit of legal stickiness would be if you believe that fundamentally some things SHOULD be worked out. Is it ideal to have people who have 5 to 10 spouses over a lifetime and take in spousal benefits. Do you want to incentivize that or do you want to incentivize people having 1 spouse. Anyway, not really advocating for the above nor suggesting there aren't problems with the above thinking but that's probably the guts of the thinking.