Crowder divorce

[Aimless]

I've been wondering about the weird American conservative discourse around "no fault divorce" that flares up from time to time, most recently sparked by the highly publicized divorce of Hilary Crowder from her dipshit husband, MRA superstar Steven Crowder. Ridiculous though it may seem, Crowder has a massive global platform, through which he can effortlessly reach millions of boys and men all over the world—and affect their views on all things in life, such as their relationships with women. He's been using that platform to discredit his wife and bolster his own image, in the wake of the divorce announcement.

Some say there are always two sides to every divorce story, but sometimes one side is dispositive all on its own (nb: video of disturbing abusive behavior):

https://yashar.substack.com/p/exclus...steven-crowder

This is the kind of man shaping the near future of our civilization. He may have adoring fans on this forum; he almost certainly has fans among your family, friends, and acquaintances. If the occasion ever arises, let them see who he is behind closed doors.

[Aimless]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ce-1234727777/

Last year, the Republican Party of Texas added language to its platform calling for an end to no-fault divorce: “We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.”

Just so sad and pathetic.

[Lewkowski]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ce-1234727777/



Just so sad and pathetic.

Yeah I agree, the less the government is involved the better. Frankly we should just get rid of marriage as a legal institution all together.

[Hazir]

It makes more sense to get religious institutions out of marriage.

[Lewkowski]

It makes more sense to get religious institutions out of marriage.

Why should the state give favorable treatment to specific formations of couples?

[Aimless]

Yeah I agree, the less the government is involved the better. Frankly we should just get rid of marriage as a legal institution all together.

I think the real issue here is that conservative heroes are inevitably found out to be abusive misogynists desperate to possess women.

[Lewkowski]

I think the real issue here is that conservative heroes are inevitably found out to be abusive misogynists desperate to possess women.

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People

Policy regarding marriage is far more interesting to discuss than random niche personalities.

[Nessus]

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People

Doesn't using this quote automatically place one in the last category, since the quote itself is about people?

Although I guess we could debate and discuss what can or cannot be a mind. I say cats and dogs count as minds, but they're not really people who discuss things.

[Lewkowski]

Doesn't using this quote automatically place one in the last category, since the quote itself is about people?

Although I guess we could debate and discuss what can or cannot be a mind. I say cats and dogs count as minds, but they're not really people who discuss things.

Sometimes you have to meet people where they are. What policy should be is always going to matter more than what a personality does.

[Aimless]

Great Minds Discuss Ideas; Average Minds Discuss Events; Small Minds Discuss People

Policy regarding marriage is far more interesting to discuss than random niche personalities.

This thread is about the broader issue of conservative culture embracing misogyny and abuse as being central to their conception of ideal masculinity (and also about the broader issue of them being losers who want to make it illegal for women to leave them).

[Hazir]

Why should the state give favorable treatment to specific formations of couples?

Because the state should not limit itself to keep the shop open for today. Quite aside from how you want society to function, there's no denying that personal choices make a difference on a larger scale.

[Nessus]

Sometimes you have to meet people where they are. What policy should be is always going to matter more than what a personality does.

I think you're right that policies will matter more since they apply to all citizens (or people living within in that jurisdiction I suppose), but it still seems a bit odd to me just dismiss the influence of personalities. I don't want to de-rail this thread, but purely as another example, Tucker Carlson was the most prominent cable teevee personality, and it seems implausible that his words and shows didn't have any impact on the minds of his millions of viewers.

With the Internet, and fucking smart phones, morons like this Crowder can also reach millions of people (I'm taking Minx at their word here), and clearly there is a "cultural demand" for misogyny and other forms of hate speech. And hate speech can encourage viewers/listeners to radical actions, too. (The gentleman in my avatar picture certainly thought so, and based his career on it) I would say it is societally important to talk about! As Minx says, it seems worrysome that conservative culture is radicalizing, and obviously some of that is driven by personalities who make their living talking smack on Youtube or whatever. And if these folks also bother voting, it will inevitably reflect on potential legislative acts in the future, and now we've squared the circle and wound up back where we started from: Personalities are what make legislation, in the end.

Not to put a too fine a point on it, but the US has had several presidents by now who were media personalities before their political careers, and I think Saint Ronnie even explicitly said his time as a media man helped him be an effective campaigner. I don't really believe in political determinism per se, but it's not impossible IMO that some of these hate-speech-careerists would end up in a state senate seat or whatever once they figure out that's a useful extension to their grift projects. So can we really separate the conversation about conservative culture and its figures from discussions about policy results, in the long run?

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah I agree, the less the government is involved the better. Frankly we should just get rid of marriage as a legal institution all together.

Even if we did that, it would have zero bearing for all these situations because all the things involved in the divorce would remain civil legal proceedings. The state is involved because it's about the legal division of assets and legal obligation and responsibilities between two commingled economic entities. All those things are going to come from two people together even without a marriage license. They can and do come with all sorts of different interpersonal relationships (familial, platonic, commercial, etc) and dissolving/disposing of them frequently involves lawyers and courts.

[Dreadnaught]

I never heard of this person at all.