Here's an interesting distinction between our two countries. Prostitution has been legal here for a long time, but marijuana is still illegal here^[1].

In case you really don't know why...

Women in general are the ones who gave up their careers in order to raise children mutually in good faith with their husbands. When they mutually agree to separate for whatever reason, the women in this case are at a serious disadvantage because they personally gave up status for the benefit of their relationship. The ex-husband is now paying back that virtual loan, usually until the last child is an adult.

In cases where the women were the providers, then they have to pay the man support.

In cases where they were equal, then nobody pays anybody.

I would agree with you that it seems whenever there is disagreement on the above classifications that the woman gets the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the men should be better negotiators? Everybody gets to argue in court. I sort of get the feeling that the men want out more desperately than the women, so they are more willing to concede faster to get it over with.

It's a bit interesting because divorce is basically the point where most people stop thinking about the relationship as a holy matrimony, but as a failed business partnership where you are claiming royalty stake to each other's intellectual property that you believe was only possible because of your contributions.

It appears you're the one that doesn't know why.

You're partly correct in that marriage is essentially a business transaction. You're mistaken assuming that women are sacrificing careers/income/prosperity in order to partner up with a man. Ultimately, for both men and women the only real purpose in life is to have a family. Nothing else will really make you happy. Money truly cannot buy happiness. A lifelong marriage is a sensible trade for both partners. It provides the stability needed to raise a healthy family. Typically the man is the provider, earning most of the money required for the family to survive, and the woman is either staying at home or working part-time so that she can nurture the kids and take care of the home.

A marriage that isn't lifelong really isn't worthwhile for men. Your investment in that woman/family goes with her. The courts will likely assign the house that she can't afford to her, and give her enough of your money to pay for it. The courts assign the kids to her, and you'll be lucky to get to see them every other weekend. They'll take your wages in order to pay her to live comfortably. Money that the court demands you give her to take care of the children is entirely in her control. She can use it to buy herself things and let the kids suffer. Nobody is going to ensure that she actually takes good care of the children. If you're lucky there will be enough left over for a comfortable house of your own, but often men are stuck with a shitty apartment because that's all they can afford on what's left.

Marriage is a lifelong agreement. That the law does not uphold that anymore is largely responsible for the moral decay of our society. The current decay of marriage has made it a very bad deal for men, and that's why the MGTOW movement is growing. Men increasingly see marriage as a lose-lose scenario. This is really bad for society as a whole because it means fewer healthy families. Split families produce unhealthy children who grow up to become unhealthy adults. I myself was very much wary of marriage, and still am. It was a huge risk for me to buy into it, but I was already partway in due to the circumstances that lead my then girlfriend to move in with me (her family threw her out, and she would have been homeless or couch surfing if I hadn't taken her in). Due to common law though she was pretty much already married to me in part by the time we did get married.

What this basically equates to though is that women are a burden on men. Either on their fathers, husbands, or the state. Our society doesn't believe in socialism and so the state providing for them is always a last resort. We prefer to hook an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband into the deal instead if possible. And so you have common law and divorce courts to make a man continue to provide for a woman even after she leaves him. Nevermind that she had basically nothing to bring to the relationship, and basically earned very little throughout the relationship. We either have to make that man continue to be responsible for her, or she becomes the state's problem, and men will collectively have to foot the bill. It's an easier pill to swallow to make one man suffer instead of spreading the burden on all of us. It's not fair that that one man has to provide for her. Not in any possible way. Often he's the victim.

This social experiment we've been doing for the past 50 - 70 years hasn't been going very well. In societies where women are the most free you find the largest gender gaps. In societies where women are the least free you find the closest thing to parity that exists so far. When women are truly free to choose they choose families, children, and being housewives. It's only when women need to step up to support their families that you find them doing so (e.g., women in STEM is much more common in those societies, but it's not that women are doing STEM because they're most passionate about it, but because it's the best way for those women to help support their families). In a freer society they might choose to work part-time to earn some extra spending money and get out of the house, but you won't likely find them working 40 hours a week at a difficult job. None of that surprises scientists. It all makes perfect sense. It just happens to completely contradict the politically correct feminist ideology.

It's not that women can't do STEM. It's that they choose not to. Not only are they qualified to do STEM, but they're also qualified to do other things and they typically are more fulfilled doing other things (working with people instead of machines and numbers).

The women that I went to high school with have pretty much all settled down as wives and mothers as far as I know. Most of them would have brought debt with them into their marriage from post-secondary school. My wife owes something like $20,000 in student debt that she wouldn't be able to afford if she was living on her own. She was finally able to graduate living under my roof, but she's only just making more than minimum wage with the diploma that she got and there's really no career advancement in her field. All of that debt was for nothing. That seems more common than not.

You're completely wrong. Do you not know anybody that has gone through divorce? The laws are biased in favor of women (see below). We all know the real reason for that. Women don't want to work hard to take care of themselves. They prefer to be taken care of.

From a female family court attorney, who runs a mostly female firm, defending men in family court. The laws are unjust and unfair. Men do a terrible job of standing up for themselves, that's true.

That's largely a social construct. We teach men that good men make sacrifices to take care of others and don't complain. Men that don't take care of women don't provide for a family we call bums. Women that do the same are just victims. Essentially men are the slaves in a society that supports women. Must be that filthy patriarchy at work!

If I'm wrong I wish you'd explain how. Claiming that I'm wrong without discussing it is very disingenuous.

I'm not even sure what point of mine you're arguing against.

I'm considering extending acc.js to support automatic in/out substitutions when reading and submitting a post. It seems like sometimes we're saying the same thing in incompatible ways.

{"name":"0fc.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/2\/12ad34708a6ebfaa0719f7cd53fd25b7.gif","w":350,"h":261,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/2\/12ad34708a6ebfaa0719f7cd53fd25b7"}

Are we changing the subject?

I need drain the energy of @Erin Maus for my games.

You can use a option for change the interface. You already have the two.

{"name":"612718","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/5\/f5fef73ad44d70610b9dfe38c44696d1.gif","w":500,"h":500,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/5\/f5fef73ad44d70610b9dfe38c44696d1"}

New song

@NiteHackr

It depends on where you read your news I suppose. This article just happened to come up in my FB news feed: https://www.post-gazette.com/local/2020/10/13/Pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-requests-2-6-million-registered-voters-PA-2020/stories/202010130153?fbclid=IwAR2z2aBxAmz9gUiv9C2wHcZO_VEnUb-PeFeD1CMJCJ_tS4p5BvGDSscykF0

And it states that 2.6 million ballots were mailed out in Pennsylvania.

As to who is telling the truth or not, I don't know. Luckily for me, I don't care either.

Does anyone consider Snopes.com biased? I found this. And can someone twit Doug Mastriano the reference please? He wants to know where the votes came from.

Edgar thinks CNN is good journalism. Stick to coding, son.

It's too bad we don't have a system where you can argue your case in front of a panel of professional people nominated by past Republican Presidents who can judge the merits of your claims based on the evidence you provide.