Apr 142010

A comment was written that should get more visibility:

By the way, here is a chart of mortgage debt as a percentage of GDP :


Most of these are herb men being forced by their wives to buy a house bigger than they need, just to ‘keep up with the Joneses’. Just to correct back to the level of the 1990s, Mortgage debt has to shrink from 70% to 45% of GDP, which would mean a loss of $3 Trillion. This will take all the way until 2020 or 2025.

We keep seeing article about how ‘divorces are delayed due to the economy’. This means that the woman does not want to divorce when the net worth is negative (since she would get half of the debt, rather than the customary half of a positive net worth).

The good news is that homeowners will be locked into a negative net worth for the next decade or more (which I have been warning about since 2006), making many women stay in marriages they would otherwise have ended. By the time they are back to a positive net worth, a lot of women who live in houses today will be well past their Wile E. Coyote moment. They will have invested their 30s in a situation of their own making that produced no net worth.

So this is an example of the costs of misandry transferring back to women (and rightly so).

No kidding.  The Washington Post recently had an article about these problems divorcing couples are facing.  There are couples who would be separated on their way to getting a divorce living together while they get their divorce.  The house the couple owns can’t be sold to split the assets because the mortgage on the house is more than it is worth.  Beyond that there are no assets to split in a lot of these cases.  Usually, when we think of divorce, there is some split of joint assets allowing the woman to “cash out” of the marriage.  That’s nearly impossible in a lot of cases since if the couple has more debt than assets, there are no assets to divide.  Instead of cashing out, the debt is being divided.

Some women will forgo divorce.  Others will do it anyway.  Either way they are more likely to have the costs of their own misandry transferred back on them.

  14 Responses to “Transferring the Costs of Misandry Back on to Women”

  1. Heinlein told us that there’s no such thing as a free lunch (TNSTAAFL). The one fringe benefit of the mancession and trend toward gradual male withdrawal from the ranks of the taxed is that the cost of Federal income transference schemes that benefit women would be increasingly borne by them.

    In this way would the cost of a woman’s misandry…or at least, her anti-male, pro female discrimination…would be borne by her and her female progeny.

    • Not yet. Right now the costs are being borne by Chinese and other foreign men. Of course, they will refuse to continue supporting American women or will be unable to or the situation will collapse due to its instability.

  2. The sins of the mother shall be visited upon the…

    slightly unrelated but the mortgage system is flawed.

  3. Instead of cashing out, the debt is being divided.
    This line gave me the mental picture of a judge handing a woman her bill for the debt. As she read the paper, her face fell, confused about where her reward was for being so good to the Sisterhood. And I couldn’t help but laugh.

    Silliness aside, EW raises an excellent point. We got killed on taxes this year thanks to my ambitious earning efforts last year and I’m rather irritated to think of all the social programs I’m being forced to pay for. (I’d say ‘we’ but my husband was deployed for most of last year, meaning he hardly paid taxes on his income). Blah. When MovingTarget gets back from his training, I should tell him we need to adopt ten children so we can get child tax credits to make our next tax return more pleasant. 😉

    • One thing I forgot to mention is that even if the debt is split, the creditors will still go after both the husband and the wife even after a divorce. The position that all creditors take is, “we’re not a party to the divorce agreement.” Throw in the mancession so the ex-husband has no money so regardless of the debt split, creditors will go after the ex-wife for the full amount since both names are on all debt incurred during the marriage.

      • This is a factor I hadn’t considered. I don’t know much about debt, so if I may ask an ignorant question. When it comes to divorce, is debt seen as belonging to both parties, even if the credit card or car loan was only in the name of one spouse? As in say wifey has a credit card in her name alone, one that she opened during the course of the marriage. Can her husband he held responsible for this debt?

        • A lawyer could give a better answer on this, but the short answer is “It depends”. Some states are community property states where yes the husband can be held responsible for the debt even if the wife’s name is only on the account. Beyond that a judge can do whatever they want and every state has its own laws on the subject so the man will probably get screwed.

          Even after the divorce the creditors can come after both the ex-husband and the ex-wife. What the divorce agreement says doesn’t matter to them. They didn’t sign it so they will go after anyone connected to the account. In a community property (and “community debt” since community property means “community debt”) state, their actions I assume are legit. In a non-community property state I’m not sure but they can claim multiple names on the account no matter what. If you get married your credit reports do get tied together. I have enough of a annoyance purging my parents’ addresses for places I have never lived from my own credit report (I’m listed on some of their accounts in case something happens to them), and that’s nothing compared to these problems.

        • Niiiiccceee. So a man can be compelled to split his assets during a divorce and then he held responsible for debt his wife rang up too. That’s rather disturbing.

  4. This is nothing. The whole thing is going to collapse around women as the number of men eschewing marriage reaches a threshold.

  5. Who do you think is really behind this anti-feminist backlash we see today? Who really hates the feminists?
    The answer: Women (and likely most of them)
    The ‘conservative female supremacists’ (CFS) are pissed.
    The CFS’s only tolerated the feminists because they cracked down on rapists and wife beaters and because their influence led to the unfair family court system we see today.
    But the CFS’s never intended the ‘misandry bubble’ to get so out of hand that men would (in mass) opt out of marriage. And they certainly didn’t appreciate affirmative action devaluing men who would marry.
    All of this means the ‘gravy train’ is drying up. They are now seeing the ‘dark side’ of feminism.
    The feminists are thus shoving real independence down the throats of women whether they like it or not. And most don’t.

    • “The feminists are thus shoving real independence down the throats of women whether they like it or not.”
      Well, quite a lot of women prefer the choices they gained under feminism, but refuse the consequences of those choices made of their own free will.
      Segues to “I’m not a feminist BUT…” BS.

      “And most don’t.” Only when it comes time to pay the piper. People benefitting from a bias don’t see their own privilege, unless they are self-aware. MANY women are not self-aware.

      • “Only when it comes time to pay the piper.”

        That particular piper demands his paycheck every week. And women who find they don’t have a man to pay for them don’t need to be self-aware. That said, I don’t think most women were ever feminists. Women have always had the bulk of the real power.

  6. […] Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech – “Transferring the Costs of Misandry Back on to Women” […]

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: