no, but these are.
>hate
is a strong word.
for example even a wasp follows rules. It doesn't sting you just because. You can feed a wasp, and even a wasp will understand that you don't want to harm it, so it won't sting you.
with a female, that's not the case. they destroy families en masse, just because they feel like it. Feel bored. Feel whatever. Want to feel excitement. They never face consequences.
In fact why can a female break the contract of marriage in all sorts of horrific ways, and will not face the consequences for that? Like for example pretending that a child is the child of the man, while in reality it's another man#s child? Why isn't the female forced to pay literally everything back plus interest plus penalty plus additional emotional abuse money? Instead your evidence will be removed, because you didn't ask the criminal for consent. She didn't allow a DNA test regarding her child.
A wise man once said:
A man will sacrifice his happiness for his family.
A woman will sacrifice her family for her (potential) happiness.
When you marry as a man, you expect that there is a team, but that's most of the time only in your head. A fantasy, created by Disney movies.
>Well he did say "women shouldn't be allowed to vote."
That's not hate, but it makes logical sense.
Back then a FAMILY had ONE vote.
When you let females vote, you are going to socialism, because they will always vote for "security" and that the government shall take care of them as a fallback mechanism.
>You don't think men destroy families en masse?
No, 80% of divorces are initiated by women.
And not because of abuse or cheating.
It's because they "don't feel happy anymore" or some other bullshit.
And thanks to No-Fault-Divorce, they can do that, and get 50% of your belongings when they do.
Sounds really fair, doesn't it.
>50%+ of all husbands cheat during the first 5 years
you are crazy.
also read up on the statistics regarding the court cases lol, that's not the case.
Of course you love to shift blame to men, as you always do. Never blame women, they are innocent angels, always, even when they lie about rape. That's okay too. Don't lock these up, that would be bad for some weird reason.
When a child never faces any consequences, it will act very badly, because it learnt that it can.
>all
50+% of all marriages are ending in divorce within 5 years. That sounds like a really bad deal for a man. Imagine playing Russian roulette with these odds.
>fact
>75% fixed rate
that doesn't make any kind of sense.
And I never said that it would make much sense.
Plenty may even regret THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING dropping, not that they fucked over their husband or their child.
>they'd rather be broke
So you are saying that the men typically don't have to pay child support or alimony? They don't lose any of their assets? They don't lose their home? The woman is typically thrown out of the man's house?
Are you serious?
Or they do, but then who is going broke? The man has to pay, the woman receives, but the woman goes broke, the man is fine off despite paying, and not seeing his children?
>Domestic violence
>yes, sir, 50+% of all husbands beat their wives
You are getting ridiculous.
Fun fact:
there was a social experiment.
-
man slightly being violent against a woman - immediately people came to help
-
female being violent against man - no one gave a shit, in fact tons of people (like you) blamed the man for the violence of the female lol
>personal anecdotes beat court case statistics
You are reacting to the fact that 50+% marriages end in divorce within the first 5 years, and 80% of these are initiated by women with
>muh violence
(even pretending that it's only the evil man who would do that - which is not the case, tons of females abuse their partner emotionally and physically, also pretending that this would explain the 50+% rate, which it doesn't, unless you claim that there are tons of husbands beating their poor innocent wives, which is just ridiculous)
and
>muh cheating
same, pretending that 50+% of husbands would cheat on their wives within the first 5 years, which is also ridiculous.
But what's common in both of these ridiculous claims, is that you deflect the responsibility of women onto men. SOMEHOW men HAVE to be responsible, because women would never divorce without a totally valid reason, despite court case statistics saying that this is not the case, and the existence of No-Fault-divorce BS also showing that it's all BS, otherwise No-Fault-divorce could just get scrubbed off, as it should be.
No-Fault-divorce means no fault of the husband, the woman just felt like it. Wanted the dick of another man, who cares about family.
Hypergamy once again.
>tries the emotional insult game as a final way to win the argument
found the female.