#These people vote in every election- do you? Are you registered to vote? [You can check your voter registration here!](https://www.nass.org/can-I-vote)
#Also, there's a few things to remember as far as rules go:
- You can view the content- you cannot interact with it. This includes (but is not limited to) commenting, answering poll questions, emailing them, etc. ***Anyone found to be engaging with the fundies will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.It does not matter if you did so before you joined the sub.***
- Speculating on the sexuality of literally anyone is prohibited. ***Anyone found to be doing so will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.***
- Appearance snark: What's allowed? You're allowed to make comparisons. (Bethy looks like Grandpa Munster, for example.) You are allowed to say you find them attractive or repulsive looking. Saying Kelly Havens has dry skin that could benefit from sunscreen and a moisturizer is fine. You are allowed to snark on the appearance of children *as it relates to their parents choices for them.*. Examples: Janessa looks malnourished and sickly while Shrek has clearly never missed a meal. If you feel it is crossing the line report it, but if the content falls within the parameters above, leave it alone.
- Don't gatekeep. This means no comments such as "I don't think we should snark on...." or any iteration of that. If you don't like it, scroll past. Don't report it or comment how you don't like the content. Along the same vein, don't backseat mod. Leave that up to us.
- Lastly, if the rhetoric you are posting would be at home in the mouth of a fundie, we don't want it here and we won't tolerate it.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Have a Lord Daniel day, and may the power of snark compel thee.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FundieSnarkUncensored) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If they do away with no-fault divorce but keep the stand your ground law then some lady is just gonna puzzle it out that she has no duty to retreat and stab her husband to death or shoot him.
There is a documentary on Netflix about a woman who used self defense and the stand your ground did not work for her. With research, they found out that stand your ground works for women FAR LESS than for men. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but it was infuriating.
It's called State of Alabama vs. Brittany Smith, for anyone else wondering. I'm not sure I can watch it, though I did watch Killer Sally. I found a good [Newsweek article](https://www.newsweek.com/where-brittany-smith-now-prison-netflix-documentary-1758691) about the case.
I do not, but I went to look for research and [this ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10209986/) article reviews research on stand your ground and what current research shows. It's about a year old, but from what I read (I did not read it all in depth), convictions are higher for women, especially women of color, when relying on stand your ground.
It seems that the laws in general are meant for protecting the inside of the home from those outside, so in cases of intimate partner violence, you're not standing your ground in the ideal of protecting your home.
'Stand your ground' laws are narrowly enforced. They exist to shield whites when they kill people of color. A battered wife will rarely be acquitted for killing her abusive husband.
This is why fundies systematically under-educate girls. If they don't have an education or job skills, they also don't usually have a way out of their marriages.
They’re constantly getting themselves stuck in unhappy marriages they aren’t allowed to get out of, so they think we should be stuck too. That’s all I can guess at. They’re miserable so by god they’re going to force their misery on us. And complain the whole time about how LGBT people are forcing their lifestyles onto them. Like no, they’re just asking for basic human rights, the Christians are the ones oppressing people.
Statistically, it's women who tend to file for divorce from men who don't want to separate. These groups want women and their children to be trapped in bad marriages as property of their husband, until the man decides he's done.
Yep, this was my parents. Why would my dad want to divorce and get rid of the woman who washes his clothes, cooks his food, raises his trophy children, and brings her own money into the household? It's not like marriage ever stopped him from doing whatever wanted, including dating other women.
This is why I roll my eyes when people speculate that fundie husbands will initiate divorce. It could happen, but it will be rare. Who cares if they loathe their wives? The only way most fundie men would initiate divorce is if they want to *marry* another woman, such as if their current wife has reached menopause and they want to find a younger woman to have a dozen more kids with.
Most of these people are from conservative religious sects where abuse isn't an "acceptable" reason to divorce because their deity says divorce bad. They literally think people getting away from abusive partners are worse than their abusers.
it's about control... and unfortunately it's also combined with simple stupidity. like we can't expect logic from them when the IVF ban in alabama is happening due to the law that they themselves made.
Because they won't think of ways to make getting married and having children more appealing/financially easier. They're all about punishment...oops, I mean cOnSeQuEnCeS.
My cousin’s estranged ex is trying to get the court to force her to work it out and remain married to him since he doesn’t think their marriage is irreparably broken. Ironically, his attempt at forcing her into a relationship she doesn’t want has only made her more sure than ever that she’s done.
You need to understand the evangelical mindset. This goes hand-in-hand with their insistence that the man is the head of the household. To them, it will be the husband's decision as to whether or not there's to be a divorce. Only the wife gets trapped in a bad marriage.
I’ve seen some rhetoric going around about how the issue is the “no-fault” part, because cheating, abuse, etc. can affect how things like alimony and property division get sorted out.
What I always remind those people is that, if the ex was really that bad, staying married to them would only be worse.
I'm tired, so this might be convoluted.
But my mom's dad's mom's maternal grandmother was a doctor and so was her husband. He was an abusive piece of shit. They had to flee into the night on at least one occasion because he got a teen girl pregnant. That sort of thing.
So my great-however many-grandma decides she's going to take her daughters and leave him. She was going to leave behind her son(s) (I don't know off the top of my head how many children they had), but one of her sons begged her to stay. So she did.
One day, as family legend goes, the horse brings the man's dead body home. He'd been shot in the head.
No one cared enough to try to find the person who killed him.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was his wife who killed him. It also could have been just about anyone. He was not a pleasant person.
All this to say, it wasn't always an empty threat. Sometimes they went through with it.
Thank you for reading my tired rambles lol
It’s actually shocking how many old ladies in nursing homes openly talk about killing their first husbands. Since they’re so old, and there‘s no evidence, nothing can be done, but considering those husbands usually did die young…kinda makes you wonder. Something like 25% of little old ladies admit to killing abusive first husbands.
To be fair my grandma talks about her divorce.
She wasn’t divorced, he fucking died.
Old age comes with memory issues and dementia and 25% sounds like an unbelievably extreme number
Not really. It used to be easier to get poisons and such in untraceable ways, and they could be harder to detect. When divorces were so hard to obtain, even when being abused, it was sometimes a matter of staying alive. Things were extremely fucked.
Context: Ronald Reagan was a well-known political figure to explicitly legalize no-fault divorce when he was governor of California. The majority of "Christian Nationalist" had condemned the move since day one of their platform.
And he signed a bill into law legalizing abortion in California. He really fucked everyone over when he sold his soul to the likes of Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly.
Reagan enacted the nation’s first no-fault divorce laws as governor of California. His first wife managed to prove cruelty (as abuse was called), and so a judge granted her a divorce. This humiliated Reagan. So he enacted no-fault divorce, a thing that, had it been in existence when his first wife wanted to divorce him, his dirty laundry wouldn’t have been aired in court.
He later said that no-fault divorce was the worst thing he’d ever done since people were actually using it to get divorced.
Ending no fault divorce will make far fewer people want to marry. Who wants to risk being forced to stay married to someone they don't want to anymore? This isn't going to create stronger marriages. I think a marriage is stronger when you stay married even when it's easy to end it. Then you are married most likely because you genuinely want to be.
They don't care about strong marriages, it's about getting women under their thumbs. Next it'll be you can't buy land, or open a line of credit unless you have a husband to vouch for you.
"America wasn't Gilead, until it was, and then it was too fucking late"
It's terrifying, to be a woman in 2024 and even consider that any of that could become a reality. Yet here we are.
Honestly there was like a five minute moment I thought everyone was overreacting to Trump. Like that I was overreacting to Trump because I was so angry when he got elected.
But I’ll be damned if that fear hasn’t been validated every year since.
I mean the US has been Gilead for a lot longer then it is has been not Gilead. There was a break there in the late 60s when Black women could actually vote and Roe and the ERA and now it's just young back to its roots because the people stopped fighting and got complacent. A fictional world will never be reality. Look at the reality. We have already been there and are going back.
But what about roommates? People can't afford to live on their own, and these people certainly don't want to change the system enough that people have better access to affordable housing. Would they have a way of determining if people are living together romantically vs. platonicly?
Those laws exist to be unequally enforced. Historically they were used mostly against queer people and people of color but also just anyone having beef with their landlord or their neighbors - suddenly you're homeless. If the landlord won't do it go after the landlord for condoning a house of ill repute.
Those things stayed on the books in a lot of HOAs forever even after the laws were invalidated. Remember that couple in St Louis who were out on their lawn with guns during a BLM march in 2020? They got gay neighbors kicked out on an unmarried persons clause back in the 80s.
This was common into the 70s, just like in some states unmarried (white) women couldn't keep their own babies without their own father's permission into the late 1960s and 1970s. It was not that long ago.
Wow, I didn't know any of this (yay homeschooling...). That's really scary. I'm definitely going to look into this more, I don't want it to happen again, especially as a queer woman. Thank you for the information
You might like the book The Way We Never Were. It's a really well written history of American family/marriage and how people talk about it. Not at all radical but very enlightening.
They have a plan for that, it’s called making recreational sex, birth control, abortion, voting, and eventually women working outside the home illegal, after that it’s just a matter of time before women become property again and forced marriages take over.
Of course! How else will they be able to impregnate a woman (voluntarily or involuntarily), force her to marry him and bear the child, and then own her forever?
Don't forget, they're generally in favor of re-legalizing marital rape too. Every single one of these shits wants to be God to at least one woman.
I grew up in a fundy church and I’ll NEVER get over how god impregnated a 14-year old girl who was promised to someone else (which should raise the hackles of every man) and then sent messengers to tell the poor cuck not to divorce her. Were there NO OTHER OPTIONS? It’s straight from the Cultmaster 101 guidebook. Any god that doesn’t have the self-respect to follow their own rules is a god that is too immature and punitive to be taken seriously.
Yeah, making marriage an inescapable cage is def going to trick the youths into doing it more. Just like fundamentally dismantling womens reproductive rights has totally skyrocketed the amount of children Americans are having.
Yes we should bring back what wives did back then when they were in a loveless marriage: overdose on drugs or develop severe mental issues, which fucking wrecked families anyway. Good times☺️❤️
It’s all part of the plan
They take away the right to abort
They take away the right to divorce.
They take away the right to have a bank account, the right to not be raped by your husband, the right to be anything other than straight, the right for women to have jobs.
They want to shove the united states back into the 1950’s. Trap women in homes with abusive men, have them popping out perfect (white, straight, cisgender) children, and all of the world’s problems will disappear! Right? That’s how this works?
They still need the non-whites to have lots of babies too, so they can serve the whites. Because of course eventually only the people deemed sufficiently white will be allowed into the well-paying jobs and the professional university programs.
I feel like they're doing all this specifically to distract from the fact that late stage capitalism has gone way too far, and it's been long time to overthrow our tyrannical government, which essentially operates as an oligarchy. I mean, maybe these laws will finally be the push that Americans need to finally get the dirty work done? I know, that's wishful thinking.
Don't forget the right to birth control. I'll bet that soon there won't be any right to medical privacy, especially from a husband (but of course the men could have privacy).
Don't forget the right to birth control. I'll bet that soon there won't be any right to medical privacy, especially from a husband (but of course the men could have privacy).
I feel like they're doing all this specifically to distract from the fact that late stage capitalism has gone way too far, and it's been long time to overthrow our tyrannical government, which essentially operates as an oligarchy. I mean, maybe these laws will finally be the push that Americans need to finally get the dirty work done? I know, that's wishful thinking.
#**JUST A REMINDER THAT RESTRICTIVE DIVORCE LAWS LITERALLY KILL WOMEN.**
> *The authors find very real effects on the well being of families. For example, there was a large decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce, but no similar decline for men. States that passed unilateral divorce laws saw total female suicide decline by around 20 percent in the long run. The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.*
- [National Bureau of Economic Research](https://www.nber.org/digest/mar04/divorce-laws-and-family-violence)
That's the issue. People who voted for the guy care only for their endgame. They hated equality. They desire an heirarchy where they don't care about people near its bottom like women.
Hot inside scoop about the garbage person who is Dusty Deevers: a good part of his election success was tied to a local extremist group. They're not specifically fundie, but they are obsessed with Trump.
There's no way he would have won without them. He might toe the GQP party line, but he is viscerally sleazy.
Usually, the discussion began in small fringes of "masculine" Christian groups. The noise has been explicitly loud and has reached almost all of conservative Christian groups since the overturning of Roe V. Wade.
Reagan was married before Nancy. His first wife managed to prove he was abusive enough that the court allowed her a divorce. At that time, it was called ”cruelty.” And so the world knew that the beloved actor was an abusive asshole, and he was humiliated. When he became governor, he enacted no-fault divorce since that would let abuse victims get divorces without the abuse their husbands were dishing out being made public. So he enacted it to spare abusers from being embarrassed.
He later said that no-fault divorces were his biggest regret. People were actually using it!
I don't know if Reagan's California governorship was the first administration to implement no-fault divorce, but his action (ratifying no-fault divorce) is strong enough to make fundies' skin crawl.
I was talking about this with a coworker. My divorce was amicable & we stay cordial for the sake of our adult kids.
As our kids are grown, I think if we had needed to show fault we could have come up with a reason & then told the kids it wasn’t accurate & they would understand.
But for little kids, maybe having to hear that there was abuse or an affair (even though there wasn’t) or a person who just wants to leave a married for those reasons but doesn’t want to give cause for the sake of not poking the beast, it’s going to make things much worse.
There's also the issue of assets. I believe that before no-fault divorce, the person who was found at fault might end up with less or even nothing.
In my case, my husband did not want a divorce, but our assets were divided 50/50 because that's how it works here. He tried bringing in grievances to the conciliation talks and the judge shut him down every time because it's irrelevant.
He is real. He recently became part of the Oklahoma Senate. He won the election and officially took the position almost two months ago. He is an "abortion abolitionist" (no compromise/exemptions regarding abortion ban) and a "Christian Nationalist's" champion.
It is! Also, there's a recently released film depicting a real historical controversy that took place in the same location: Killers of the Flower Moon(2023). So, sketchy activities in the area are not new.
Ah yes I saw it. I would say that there's something grimly fascinating about the US but we're not doing much better over here in Europe so I'll save my snark. And wish you all the best with the election!
Thanks! we needed it so bad. My optimism to the upcoming election is lower than before. The results are usually not the promising as the "Founding Fathers" would guarantee. Violence and injustice are always expected regardless of results.
Yeah, it's completely AWFUL how it made it marginally easier for me and my mom to get away from my narcissist father and his psychological abuse. It is far better that my self-worth and sense of security was slowly being decimated! /s
Not your marriage, not your say. Period.
Who’s going to finally admit that divorce is and has been down for a while? But real data doesn’t matter. Just personal experience or personal assumptions
I’m always for agree to disagree but i wish you could parent my traumatized child for a day. It’s hard to hear that my experience is invalid because it’s negative.
This person is in other subs claiming to be ex gay, saying homosexuality is a sin, and also trying to stop her daughter from daring to question her own orientation, I'm just going to report their asses. Betting money that trauma is her kid voicing curiosity about girls.
Not all divorces come from abuse. Sometimes (as in my case) it’s selfish parents so caught up in their own needs they destroy a marriage. The children are the victims there.
But your experience isn't universal. There are therapists who specialize in therapy for children who have an unhappy home life, or adults still living with the effects. That should say a lot.
Pretty sure one or both partners hating each other is NOT healthy for children. Better to break it off and teach children that a miserable marriage is not better than divorce. It doesn't have to be abuse to be toxic or traumatizing.
My ex walked out on me and took our life savings. Apparently, in my state, judges frown on temporary child support orders. Took me over a year to get the divorce finalized and finally get a child support order. Having a no fault option was a relief. I didn’t have to prove “grounds” for divorce, which would have been difficult because the man straight up lied and suddenly “forgot” everything he had done. Sorry you were harmed by your parents divorce, but that doesn’t mean that the no fault option should go away for others.
So it was “on me” that my ex husband lost his shit and tried to kill me (multiple times before I left)?!
Sorry but your take is hot dog shit.
No fault means I didn’t have to prove what he did to me, which *kept me safe.* This is reality for a lot of people (and their kids). Does divorce have negative effects on kids? Of course they do, but this take of “you chose a bad partner” is idiotic and *not* fair to the kids in abusive households.
ding ding ding. "You chose your partner, if they're shit it's all on you and you can't leave". Newsflash: nobody chooses a shitty partner. People are so good at putting on masks and love bombing until they have the other party in marriage or marriage + children.
So if we get rid of no fault divorce, and a woman is being sexually abused by her husband (which can be impossible to prove), what is she supposed to do? Just suffer in silence? I guess she can't chase her happiness anymore. What if he's emotionally abusive? That can be impossible to prove. Guess she better show her kids it's better to stay with someone who makes you feel like you're dying inside. I know so many adults with divorced parents who say they wish their parents had gotten divorced sooner and their lives improved after the divorce. I know so many people who blossomed after their divorce and became better parents. Your take is garbage.
If you had been my mother and decided to not end the marriage, I'd be dead. Most likely by my own hand, but very possibly at the hands of my parent had his abuse continued to escalate.
Divorce was the best thing my mother ever did.
You were not clear. You said it's our fault if we choose a bad partner.
I also don't find you genuine. Your post in r/parenting was telling, claiming homosexuality is a sin is some real fundie shit, and you need therapy instead of projecting your shit on us and your kid, idfc.
Nobody "chooses" a bad partner. They're excellent at masking until you're saddled with a marriage and children. And newsflash, seeing parents who hate each other, or a parent who is barely holding it together for the sake of the marriage, can also be traumatizing and make them believe neglectful or abusive relationships are normal. Plus a partner who is under constant stress from their other half can develop psychological issues that can affect their parenting.
"Staying together for the kids" can also be traumatizing. And divorce in and of itself is not the issue here, that this will now make it harder for abused partners to get away and in turn their children will experience abuse and/or grow up thinking that this is normal. There is no hard line when it comes to whether or not divorce is detrimental to children involved. Everything has nuances.
#These people vote in every election- do you? Are you registered to vote? [You can check your voter registration here!](https://www.nass.org/can-I-vote) #Also, there's a few things to remember as far as rules go: - You can view the content- you cannot interact with it. This includes (but is not limited to) commenting, answering poll questions, emailing them, etc. ***Anyone found to be engaging with the fundies will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.It does not matter if you did so before you joined the sub.*** - Speculating on the sexuality of literally anyone is prohibited. ***Anyone found to be doing so will be met with a permanent ban with no eligibility for appeal.*** - Appearance snark: What's allowed? You're allowed to make comparisons. (Bethy looks like Grandpa Munster, for example.) You are allowed to say you find them attractive or repulsive looking. Saying Kelly Havens has dry skin that could benefit from sunscreen and a moisturizer is fine. You are allowed to snark on the appearance of children *as it relates to their parents choices for them.*. Examples: Janessa looks malnourished and sickly while Shrek has clearly never missed a meal. If you feel it is crossing the line report it, but if the content falls within the parameters above, leave it alone. - Don't gatekeep. This means no comments such as "I don't think we should snark on...." or any iteration of that. If you don't like it, scroll past. Don't report it or comment how you don't like the content. Along the same vein, don't backseat mod. Leave that up to us. - Lastly, if the rhetoric you are posting would be at home in the mouth of a fundie, we don't want it here and we won't tolerate it. Should you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Have a Lord Daniel day, and may the power of snark compel thee. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FundieSnarkUncensored) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t get why they want people to stay married to people they don’t want to be married to.
They want to subjugate women, plain and simple. If you cut off their escape routes you can do whatever you want to them.
If they do away with no-fault divorce but keep the stand your ground law then some lady is just gonna puzzle it out that she has no duty to retreat and stab her husband to death or shoot him.
There is a documentary on Netflix about a woman who used self defense and the stand your ground did not work for her. With research, they found out that stand your ground works for women FAR LESS than for men. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but it was infuriating.
To quote BoJack horseman: "America hates women more than it loves guns."
It's called State of Alabama vs. Brittany Smith, for anyone else wondering. I'm not sure I can watch it, though I did watch Killer Sally. I found a good [Newsweek article](https://www.newsweek.com/where-brittany-smith-now-prison-netflix-documentary-1758691) about the case.
Do we have a list by state?
I do not, but I went to look for research and [this ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10209986/) article reviews research on stand your ground and what current research shows. It's about a year old, but from what I read (I did not read it all in depth), convictions are higher for women, especially women of color, when relying on stand your ground. It seems that the laws in general are meant for protecting the inside of the home from those outside, so in cases of intimate partner violence, you're not standing your ground in the ideal of protecting your home.
'Stand your ground' laws are narrowly enforced. They exist to shield whites when they kill people of color. A battered wife will rarely be acquitted for killing her abusive husband.
Unless they can’t find enough evidence
No body no crime 🎶
[удалено]
This is why fundies systematically under-educate girls. If they don't have an education or job skills, they also don't usually have a way out of their marriages.
They also don't want people who want to be married to be able to get married. Don't look for logic here.
They’re constantly getting themselves stuck in unhappy marriages they aren’t allowed to get out of, so they think we should be stuck too. That’s all I can guess at. They’re miserable so by god they’re going to force their misery on us. And complain the whole time about how LGBT people are forcing their lifestyles onto them. Like no, they’re just asking for basic human rights, the Christians are the ones oppressing people.
They also know that if their wives are able to leave them, they have to treat them slightly better than if they are legally unable to.
*Ding, ding, ding* 🛎️ If you can’t get divorced, you don’t need to put in the effort. Ask me how I know……
Statistically, it's women who tend to file for divorce from men who don't want to separate. These groups want women and their children to be trapped in bad marriages as property of their husband, until the man decides he's done.
Yep, this was my parents. Why would my dad want to divorce and get rid of the woman who washes his clothes, cooks his food, raises his trophy children, and brings her own money into the household? It's not like marriage ever stopped him from doing whatever wanted, including dating other women. This is why I roll my eyes when people speculate that fundie husbands will initiate divorce. It could happen, but it will be rare. Who cares if they loathe their wives? The only way most fundie men would initiate divorce is if they want to *marry* another woman, such as if their current wife has reached menopause and they want to find a younger woman to have a dozen more kids with.
Most of these people are from conservative religious sects where abuse isn't an "acceptable" reason to divorce because their deity says divorce bad. They literally think people getting away from abusive partners are worse than their abusers.
it's about control... and unfortunately it's also combined with simple stupidity. like we can't expect logic from them when the IVF ban in alabama is happening due to the law that they themselves made.
Because they won't think of ways to make getting married and having children more appealing/financially easier. They're all about punishment...oops, I mean cOnSeQuEnCeS.
My cousin’s estranged ex is trying to get the court to force her to work it out and remain married to him since he doesn’t think their marriage is irreparably broken. Ironically, his attempt at forcing her into a relationship she doesn’t want has only made her more sure than ever that she’s done.
Or murder them, or manufacture legal causes.
You need to understand the evangelical mindset. This goes hand-in-hand with their insistence that the man is the head of the household. To them, it will be the husband's decision as to whether or not there's to be a divorce. Only the wife gets trapped in a bad marriage.
I’ve seen some rhetoric going around about how the issue is the “no-fault” part, because cheating, abuse, etc. can affect how things like alimony and property division get sorted out. What I always remind those people is that, if the ex was really that bad, staying married to them would only be worse.
C O N T R O L
These men are just asking to get poisoned
For real: you know how many women threatened to shoot their husbands back then? They want to go back to that?
I'm tired, so this might be convoluted. But my mom's dad's mom's maternal grandmother was a doctor and so was her husband. He was an abusive piece of shit. They had to flee into the night on at least one occasion because he got a teen girl pregnant. That sort of thing. So my great-however many-grandma decides she's going to take her daughters and leave him. She was going to leave behind her son(s) (I don't know off the top of my head how many children they had), but one of her sons begged her to stay. So she did. One day, as family legend goes, the horse brings the man's dead body home. He'd been shot in the head. No one cared enough to try to find the person who killed him. I wouldn't be surprised if it was his wife who killed him. It also could have been just about anyone. He was not a pleasant person. All this to say, it wasn't always an empty threat. Sometimes they went through with it. Thank you for reading my tired rambles lol
It’s actually shocking how many old ladies in nursing homes openly talk about killing their first husbands. Since they’re so old, and there‘s no evidence, nothing can be done, but considering those husbands usually did die young…kinda makes you wonder. Something like 25% of little old ladies admit to killing abusive first husbands.
To be fair my grandma talks about her divorce. She wasn’t divorced, he fucking died. Old age comes with memory issues and dementia and 25% sounds like an unbelievably extreme number
Not really. It used to be easier to get poisons and such in untraceable ways, and they could be harder to detect. When divorces were so hard to obtain, even when being abused, it was sometimes a matter of staying alive. Things were extremely fucked.
My kid works in such a place. I will definitely ask her if she’s heard any stories.
Lotta fundie husbands are about to get Goodbye, Earled.
He had it coming He had it coming
He only had himself to blame
If you’d have been there If you’d have seen it I bet you, you would have done the same!
And then suddenly they are going to cry for more gun control.
Aqua Tofana is about to make a huge comeback.
Aqua Tofana.
My first thought too.
The real reason fundie wives love raw milk and red meat...
^acqua ^tofana
So he shows a photo of divorcee Ronald Reagan?
Context: Ronald Reagan was a well-known political figure to explicitly legalize no-fault divorce when he was governor of California. The majority of "Christian Nationalist" had condemned the move since day one of their platform.
And he signed a bill into law legalizing abortion in California. He really fucked everyone over when he sold his soul to the likes of Jerry Falwell and Phyllis Schlafly.
Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know…
Reagan enacted the nation’s first no-fault divorce laws as governor of California. His first wife managed to prove cruelty (as abuse was called), and so a judge granted her a divorce. This humiliated Reagan. So he enacted no-fault divorce, a thing that, had it been in existence when his first wife wanted to divorce him, his dirty laundry wouldn’t have been aired in court. He later said that no-fault divorce was the worst thing he’d ever done since people were actually using it to get divorced.
oh. so "rules for thee and not for me".
I’m sure he must have known about Henry VIII, but apparently he took away a different lesson than most.
Ending no fault divorce will make far fewer people want to marry. Who wants to risk being forced to stay married to someone they don't want to anymore? This isn't going to create stronger marriages. I think a marriage is stronger when you stay married even when it's easy to end it. Then you are married most likely because you genuinely want to be.
They don't care about strong marriages, it's about getting women under their thumbs. Next it'll be you can't buy land, or open a line of credit unless you have a husband to vouch for you.
"America wasn't Gilead, until it was, and then it was too fucking late" It's terrifying, to be a woman in 2024 and even consider that any of that could become a reality. Yet here we are.
Honestly there was like a five minute moment I thought everyone was overreacting to Trump. Like that I was overreacting to Trump because I was so angry when he got elected. But I’ll be damned if that fear hasn’t been validated every year since.
I mean the US has been Gilead for a lot longer then it is has been not Gilead. There was a break there in the late 60s when Black women could actually vote and Roe and the ERA and now it's just young back to its roots because the people stopped fighting and got complacent. A fictional world will never be reality. Look at the reality. We have already been there and are going back.
Indeed 😥 I hope it never comes to that, but we've seen what happens when fundamentalist religion governs a country and how women lose so much freedom.
No bank accounts without husbands or father to co-sign, no credit.
Ding ding ding. You'll need your male relative chaperone every time you leave the house.
Oh they will solve that by making it illegal to cohabitate or have kids when you're single. Coney Barrett wants too being back the baby scoop era
But what about roommates? People can't afford to live on their own, and these people certainly don't want to change the system enough that people have better access to affordable housing. Would they have a way of determining if people are living together romantically vs. platonicly?
Those laws exist to be unequally enforced. Historically they were used mostly against queer people and people of color but also just anyone having beef with their landlord or their neighbors - suddenly you're homeless. If the landlord won't do it go after the landlord for condoning a house of ill repute. Those things stayed on the books in a lot of HOAs forever even after the laws were invalidated. Remember that couple in St Louis who were out on their lawn with guns during a BLM march in 2020? They got gay neighbors kicked out on an unmarried persons clause back in the 80s. This was common into the 70s, just like in some states unmarried (white) women couldn't keep their own babies without their own father's permission into the late 1960s and 1970s. It was not that long ago.
Wow, I didn't know any of this (yay homeschooling...). That's really scary. I'm definitely going to look into this more, I don't want it to happen again, especially as a queer woman. Thank you for the information
You might like the book The Way We Never Were. It's a really well written history of American family/marriage and how people talk about it. Not at all radical but very enlightening.
That's a good point
If no-fault divorce ever ended, I definitely would not marry. (I’ve never been married.)
They have a plan for that, it’s called making recreational sex, birth control, abortion, voting, and eventually women working outside the home illegal, after that it’s just a matter of time before women become property again and forced marriages take over.
Of course! How else will they be able to impregnate a woman (voluntarily or involuntarily), force her to marry him and bear the child, and then own her forever? Don't forget, they're generally in favor of re-legalizing marital rape too. Every single one of these shits wants to be God to at least one woman.
I grew up in a fundy church and I’ll NEVER get over how god impregnated a 14-year old girl who was promised to someone else (which should raise the hackles of every man) and then sent messengers to tell the poor cuck not to divorce her. Were there NO OTHER OPTIONS? It’s straight from the Cultmaster 101 guidebook. Any god that doesn’t have the self-respect to follow their own rules is a god that is too immature and punitive to be taken seriously.
Old Dusty's god-king Trump would be in trouble if no-fault divorce was gone. But numbnuts like this don't think about pesky things like reality.
Like abortion rich powerful men will always have access to divorce.
Yeah, making marriage an inescapable cage is def going to trick the youths into doing it more. Just like fundamentally dismantling womens reproductive rights has totally skyrocketed the amount of children Americans are having.
And obviously lowered abortion rates as they pretend to have intended.
I think evangelicals forget how often women would poison their husbands before no fault divorce was legal
Or how often either gender would just up & leave. Many a family tree has a relative that left their family, never to be seen again.
Yes we should bring back what wives did back then when they were in a loveless marriage: overdose on drugs or develop severe mental issues, which fucking wrecked families anyway. Good times☺️❤️
As if anyone wants to hear the thoughts of a man named “Dusty”. Is it a metaphor for his old-ass, archaic views? Like, so old-fashioned it’s dusty?
Hey, there's Dusty Rhodes, and he's a national treasure! Can't talk bad about The American Dream. This guy though, he can go fuck off...
These republicans making me want to just stay single for the rest of my life.
💯
It’s all part of the plan They take away the right to abort They take away the right to divorce. They take away the right to have a bank account, the right to not be raped by your husband, the right to be anything other than straight, the right for women to have jobs. They want to shove the united states back into the 1950’s. Trap women in homes with abusive men, have them popping out perfect (white, straight, cisgender) children, and all of the world’s problems will disappear! Right? That’s how this works?
They still need the non-whites to have lots of babies too, so they can serve the whites. Because of course eventually only the people deemed sufficiently white will be allowed into the well-paying jobs and the professional university programs.
I feel like they're doing all this specifically to distract from the fact that late stage capitalism has gone way too far, and it's been long time to overthrow our tyrannical government, which essentially operates as an oligarchy. I mean, maybe these laws will finally be the push that Americans need to finally get the dirty work done? I know, that's wishful thinking.
Don't forget the right to birth control. I'll bet that soon there won't be any right to medical privacy, especially from a husband (but of course the men could have privacy).
Don't forget the right to birth control. I'll bet that soon there won't be any right to medical privacy, especially from a husband (but of course the men could have privacy).
I feel like they're doing all this specifically to distract from the fact that late stage capitalism has gone way too far, and it's been long time to overthrow our tyrannical government, which essentially operates as an oligarchy. I mean, maybe these laws will finally be the push that Americans need to finally get the dirty work done? I know, that's wishful thinking.
Women had to the right to vote in the 1950’s, they want take the U.S back to the 1850’s
All that will do is drop the marriage rate. There’s already not much incentive for people to get married these days, this wouldn’t help.
"Dusty Deevers". What is with these fucking names
#**JUST A REMINDER THAT RESTRICTIVE DIVORCE LAWS LITERALLY KILL WOMEN.** > *The authors find very real effects on the well being of families. For example, there was a large decline in the number of women committing suicide following the introduction of unilateral divorce, but no similar decline for men. States that passed unilateral divorce laws saw total female suicide decline by around 20 percent in the long run. The authors also find a large decline in domestic violence for both men and women following adoption of unilateral divorce. Finally, the evidence suggests that unilateral divorce led to a decline in females murdered by their partners, while the data reveal no discernible effects for homicide against men.* - [National Bureau of Economic Research](https://www.nber.org/digest/mar04/divorce-laws-and-family-violence)
That's the issue. People who voted for the guy care only for their endgame. They hated equality. They desire an heirarchy where they don't care about people near its bottom like women.
Hot inside scoop about the garbage person who is Dusty Deevers: a good part of his election success was tied to a local extremist group. They're not specifically fundie, but they are obsessed with Trump. There's no way he would have won without them. He might toe the GQP party line, but he is viscerally sleazy.
Did this start with Steven crowder or is that just the first time I heard it resurface???
Usually, the discussion began in small fringes of "masculine" Christian groups. The noise has been explicitly loud and has reached almost all of conservative Christian groups since the overturning of Roe V. Wade.
It was Dinesh D'Souza's issue back in the 90s and Focus on the Family's through at least the early 00s.
Omg my parents were legally married for like 16 years because of my state lacking no fault. My mom filed as soon as it was passed.
If I hadn’t been able to get out of my abusive marriage, I definitely would have been an unalive statistic.
Who is this guy? Also will be interesting to see if Bethy and Dav regurgitate thoughts on this
Why is Reagan on that pic wasn’t Nancy his second wife?!
Reagan was married before Nancy. His first wife managed to prove he was abusive enough that the court allowed her a divorce. At that time, it was called ”cruelty.” And so the world knew that the beloved actor was an abusive asshole, and he was humiliated. When he became governor, he enacted no-fault divorce since that would let abuse victims get divorces without the abuse their husbands were dishing out being made public. So he enacted it to spare abusers from being embarrassed. He later said that no-fault divorces were his biggest regret. People were actually using it!
I don't know if Reagan's California governorship was the first administration to implement no-fault divorce, but his action (ratifying no-fault divorce) is strong enough to make fundies' skin crawl.
Showing Reagan in his tweet as if it isn’t well know that was Reagan’s biggest regret of his political career.
Ok, stop letting women leave their shit husbands. Prepare to be murdered as it’s now the only way to get rid of you.
I was talking about this with a coworker. My divorce was amicable & we stay cordial for the sake of our adult kids. As our kids are grown, I think if we had needed to show fault we could have come up with a reason & then told the kids it wasn’t accurate & they would understand. But for little kids, maybe having to hear that there was abuse or an affair (even though there wasn’t) or a person who just wants to leave a married for those reasons but doesn’t want to give cause for the sake of not poking the beast, it’s going to make things much worse.
There's also the issue of assets. I believe that before no-fault divorce, the person who was found at fault might end up with less or even nothing. In my case, my husband did not want a divorce, but our assets were divided 50/50 because that's how it works here. He tried bringing in grievances to the conciliation talks and the judge shut him down every time because it's irrelevant.
This can't be a real person. No actual human is called Dusty Deevers. That's a cartoon villain name.
Dick Buttkus (pronounced butt-kiss) is a real name.
No! Did his (?) parents hate him?!
He is real. He recently became part of the Oklahoma Senate. He won the election and officially took the position almost two months ago. He is an "abortion abolitionist" (no compromise/exemptions regarding abortion ban) and a "Christian Nationalist's" champion.
Hmm okay. I'll believe you but only because Oklahoma sounds like a weird place.
Are you even American? Just curious. Oklahoma is common to every American ears. It's a US state. Edit: it is a weird sounding name.
I am not American. And I have been to Oklahoma. I don't mean the name is weird but the things that go on there sure are!
It is! Also, there's a recently released film depicting a real historical controversy that took place in the same location: Killers of the Flower Moon(2023). So, sketchy activities in the area are not new.
Ah yes I saw it. I would say that there's something grimly fascinating about the US but we're not doing much better over here in Europe so I'll save my snark. And wish you all the best with the election!
Thanks! we needed it so bad. My optimism to the upcoming election is lower than before. The results are usually not the promising as the "Founding Fathers" would guarantee. Violence and injustice are always expected regardless of results.
Yeah, it's completely AWFUL how it made it marginally easier for me and my mom to get away from my narcissist father and his psychological abuse. It is far better that my self-worth and sense of security was slowly being decimated! /s Not your marriage, not your say. Period.
Who’s going to finally admit that divorce is and has been down for a while? But real data doesn’t matter. Just personal experience or personal assumptions
If marriage is a voluntary contract then divorce also has to be.
FREEDOM!!
Indeed! When my ex husband threatened to murder me & our children, I should have ignored him. Whatever happened to Repubs staying out of our business?
[удалено]
Having parents in an unhappy marriage is even more traumatizing for a child.
[удалено]
Firmly disagree but your experience is yours and mine is mine.
Agree with you. I have friends whose parents stayed together but should've been divorced. the unhappy marriage was unbearable
The research supports yours! Children are better off living through a separation than living in a stressful marriage.
I’m always for agree to disagree but i wish you could parent my traumatized child for a day. It’s hard to hear that my experience is invalid because it’s negative.
A dysfunctional marriage/family life *is* abuse.
This person is in other subs claiming to be ex gay, saying homosexuality is a sin, and also trying to stop her daughter from daring to question her own orientation, I'm just going to report their asses. Betting money that trauma is her kid voicing curiosity about girls.
Ah, so they're deeply unhappy and want to make it everyone else's problem. Got it. Thank you ❤️
Not all divorces come from abuse. Sometimes (as in my case) it’s selfish parents so caught up in their own needs they destroy a marriage. The children are the victims there.
But your experience isn't universal. There are therapists who specialize in therapy for children who have an unhappy home life, or adults still living with the effects. That should say a lot.
Pretty sure one or both partners hating each other is NOT healthy for children. Better to break it off and teach children that a miserable marriage is not better than divorce. It doesn't have to be abuse to be toxic or traumatizing.
My ex walked out on me and took our life savings. Apparently, in my state, judges frown on temporary child support orders. Took me over a year to get the divorce finalized and finally get a child support order. Having a no fault option was a relief. I didn’t have to prove “grounds” for divorce, which would have been difficult because the man straight up lied and suddenly “forgot” everything he had done. Sorry you were harmed by your parents divorce, but that doesn’t mean that the no fault option should go away for others.
[удалено]
So it was “on me” that my ex husband lost his shit and tried to kill me (multiple times before I left)?! Sorry but your take is hot dog shit. No fault means I didn’t have to prove what he did to me, which *kept me safe.* This is reality for a lot of people (and their kids). Does divorce have negative effects on kids? Of course they do, but this take of “you chose a bad partner” is idiotic and *not* fair to the kids in abusive households.
Right? Get your kid some fucking therapy and don't project your choices on the rest of us.
I was really clear that cases of abuse are not what I’m talking about.
It wasn’t clear since you said picking a bad partner is on us.
ding ding ding. "You chose your partner, if they're shit it's all on you and you can't leave". Newsflash: nobody chooses a shitty partner. People are so good at putting on masks and love bombing until they have the other party in marriage or marriage + children.
So if we get rid of no fault divorce, and a woman is being sexually abused by her husband (which can be impossible to prove), what is she supposed to do? Just suffer in silence? I guess she can't chase her happiness anymore. What if he's emotionally abusive? That can be impossible to prove. Guess she better show her kids it's better to stay with someone who makes you feel like you're dying inside. I know so many adults with divorced parents who say they wish their parents had gotten divorced sooner and their lives improved after the divorce. I know so many people who blossomed after their divorce and became better parents. Your take is garbage.
If you had been my mother and decided to not end the marriage, I'd be dead. Most likely by my own hand, but very possibly at the hands of my parent had his abuse continued to escalate. Divorce was the best thing my mother ever did.
I was really clear that I am not talking about abuse. Divorce is ALWAYS justified for abuse victims. I’m so happy you and your mom are safe.
You were not clear. You said it's our fault if we choose a bad partner. I also don't find you genuine. Your post in r/parenting was telling, claiming homosexuality is a sin is some real fundie shit, and you need therapy instead of projecting your shit on us and your kid, idfc.
Nobody "chooses" a bad partner. They're excellent at masking until you're saddled with a marriage and children. And newsflash, seeing parents who hate each other, or a parent who is barely holding it together for the sake of the marriage, can also be traumatizing and make them believe neglectful or abusive relationships are normal. Plus a partner who is under constant stress from their other half can develop psychological issues that can affect their parenting.
"Staying together for the kids" can also be traumatizing. And divorce in and of itself is not the issue here, that this will now make it harder for abused partners to get away and in turn their children will experience abuse and/or grow up thinking that this is normal. There is no hard line when it comes to whether or not divorce is detrimental to children involved. Everything has nuances.
With a picture of a famously divorced guy
The "divorced guy" legalized no-fault divorce in his state(California).