Feminist family law attorney Sherri Donovan, National Counsel for the National Organization for Women, is urging women to greet their husbands this Valentine's Day with the words "Happy Valentine's Day -- Let's Get Divorced!!"
Donovan asserts that "the average woman experiences a forty-five percent drop in her standard of living after divorce," even though this statistic--produced by Lenore Weitzman in the mid1980s--has been discredited for over a decade, with Weitzman herself admitting her error.
2007-10-08 19:13:49 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
tlc:I'm not applying this feminist to most women... i'm applying it as i stated - "feminist leader"... please, don't try to twist my words out of context, thanks.
Ash: Who's being cruel? Try and be objective once in a blue moon...
2007-10-08 19:41:50 · update #1
tlc: When I split from my ex, my standard of living went down, while hers went up. I'm not saying a woman's never goes down (even though the feminist did admit an error in her calculations), but i'm saying it happens to BOTH... but, as ever, feminists only care about one side and couldn't care how it affects the otherside, even if it destroys his means of seeing his kids - money money money.
2007-10-08 19:45:40 · update #2
I wonder how many feminists will make up excuses for Donovan's sexist, misandrist, anti-male behavior.
And many of these feminists here will still deny that there exists a sizeable percentage of feminists that hate men.
"What? I've never met a misandrist woman in my life. And I work with thousands of women at my job."
"Misandry is a fabricated term. It doesn't exist."
"The women that say they hate men are just joking; they're really reacting in the spur-of-the-moment because they just got out of a bad relationship with their ex-boyfriend."
^Actual paraphrased sentiments said by feminists on this forum.
EDIT: Teeleecee, who said "all women are misandrists"? I searched my entire post, the post above me, and the Asker's entire question, and couldn't find that statement. Could you please direct us to where this statement was said?
2007-10-08 19:27:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 3⤋
Feminism's main goal is to destroy the family that is why they support laws that make it easier for a woman to divorce and still get nearly everything. Why do you think they support unfair child ransom laws and do not fight against biased family and criminal courts. It's not about equality for the big feminist groups it is about hate and the supremacy of women. Heck they aren't even smart enough to know that by doing things like this they only hasten their demise. Every divorce where the man gets the shaft send anti feminists a new person to help us in the fight and many of those same men are bringing their friends along before the same can happen to them. So keep supporting the vile feminist cause if you dare. With every biased sexist law you get passed you create more men and women like me. And the angrier we get at feminist nonsense the quicker and harder feminism will fall. The ship is sinking feminists I would get off of it when the rest of the rats do.
2007-10-08 22:00:52 · answer #2 · answered by Chevalier 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I had read about all that in the papers.
It's disgusting but what else can you expect from the NOW crazies? After all, NOW is part of the feminista high command.
We already know that feminism is an ugly, hypocritical, nazi cult. Sadly, even many of those who still call themselves feminists have not yet got the message. They're still in denial and into that "that's not what feminism is about" mode.
Feminists - Wake up to the reality. You have nothing to lose except the chains around your minds.
2007-10-09 00:55:25 · answer #3 · answered by celtish 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
If that's the case, then, those who are the custodial parent to the children will have to find other means to supplement the missing income into the household. Custodial parents shouldn't be depending on child support, spousal support and/or marital assets as a means for supplemental income. Because in reality, the supplemental income on the afore mentioned, wouldn't come close to what they were receiving in the first place, when they were married. Unless they are financially set in their own right, or the marital assets is of an enormous liquidation.
I for one, had to supplement my income with a higher paying job by means of a promotion. In which, it still fell a little short, but not as short as the position I had prior to divorce. I would have been significantly in the red.
There's always sacrifices that we must make when getting a divorce. No matter how big or small.
2007-10-08 19:42:57 · answer #4 · answered by Smahteepanties 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Oh, her words make me ill. Its people like her who give both feminists and lawyers a bad name and image. It reminds me of the joke about how lawyers send out 100 valentine cards to the male half of 100 couples on valentines day to obtain 100 more clients. Why someone like her who has been taught professional ethics directly against such issues would promote divorce for her selfish needs is beyond me.
2007-10-08 19:45:30 · answer #5 · answered by Lighthouse 5 · 9⤊ 1⤋
That's really romantic. I certainly hope that this woman comes around and admits it's an early April Fool joke. That is so not funny. Any woman that does that has got to be stupid; I mean literally get the divorce.
2007-10-08 20:45:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Personally, I think it's disgusting that she's promoting the valentines day divorce thing. But to then move on and say oh, all women are misandrist is ridiculous. This is radical, and I'm sure 99.9% of women would think it's cruel and stupid. I don't understand why these types of things are then applied to all women by some posters. As for the standard of living dropping, that was definitely my experience. But hey, whatever. Whatever you can use to substantiate the notion of all feminists hating men, keep on keeping on. This woman does not speak for me, and I do not agree with what she's promoting. And I am a feminist.
2007-10-08 19:34:28 · answer #7 · answered by teeleecee 6 · 4⤊ 7⤋
Do you have a link to this, or any idea why she said that? it seems really strange and out of context. I'm mystified more than anything else.
Advocating just straqight out divorce with no reason? It's foolish and a waste of the civil courts time. talk about tying up the system.
2007-10-08 20:28:35 · answer #8 · answered by bluestareyed 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Dont follow the faminist leader. Trust your instinct and follow your heart. You might not earn money than her but you are happier than her.
2007-10-08 23:04:40 · answer #9 · answered by Tanyachanok T 1 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Uh . . . what? What's the use of an idea like THAT? It's hardly as if all marriages necessitate an end.
2007-10-09 05:39:26 · answer #10 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋