Being a second wife is oppressing and uncivilized, but being a side-chick is liberating...

[Jubba_Man]

And the epicentre of modern civilization.


This side-chick anthem is confusing and mesmerizing

""Side Chick’ is about spreading the empowering message of liberation and that all women deserve to be loved. In this day in age, young girls don’t have to settle. They can command respect and not be afraid of going after their dreams of happiness,” says Diana Espir".

Being a side-chick to a man who doesn't want to claim you and your bastard kids and often depending on the government for support is liberating, empowerment, and civilized behavior. While being a second wife to a man who loves you and openly claims you and your kids as his is barbaric, oppressing behavior that is apart of the patriarchy and should be heavily shunned if not outright outlawed.

Feminist cultural marxism in a nutshell.

 

[Kanye]

Jezebel is like the BET of feminism. Some funny articles on there. The justifications for their morally depraved actions never seize to amaze me. Any wrong-doing a woman does, regardless of collateral is empowerment to them.

 

[Jubba_Man]

Jezebel is like the BET of feminism. Some funny articles on there. The justifications for their morally depraved actions never seize to amaze me. Any wrong-doing a woman does, regardless of collateral is empowerment to them.

While this is generally true and is more on the fringe relative to the mainstream, you're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a push by mainstream society towards the babymamma culture you see in the AA community. They continuously trumpet the decline of marriage via modern stats and the breakup of the nuclear family.

Decline of the nuclear family may have benefits, says judge

These aren't fringe people or crackpots, but respected academics and influential professionals who can manipulate the consciousness of the status quo. If say Ellen brought one of them on her show and claimed women are much more happier being single or in side-chick arrangements, it wouldn't raise any eyebrows. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but there is certainly an agenda in place that largely has the backing of the mainstream.

 

[NoName]

Feminist cultural marxism in a nutshell.

You're confused.

Blogger criticizing the singer/song = feminist.

The Voice singer in question ≠ not feminist

 

[Jubba_Man]

You're confused.

Blogger criticizing the singer/song = feminist.

The Voice singer in question ≠ not feminist

Go and read the comments. There are many that agree with her.

You're kidding yourself if you think side-chicks arrangements and the eschewing of traditional relationships is not the mantle of modern feminism, and traditional marriage and the nuclear family is.

Observe some of the stellar works of modern day feminists:

Married women are less successful, healthy, and more depressed than their single counterparts

Most women giving birth under 30 are now unwed

The academicians are calling that "progress". But it's all just a figment of our imagination, of course.

 

[SenseSays]

Go and read the comments. There are many that agree with her.

You're kidding yourself if you think side-chicks arrangements and the eschewing of traditional relationships is not the mantle of modern feminism, and traditional marriage and the nuclear family is.

Observe some of the stellar works of modern day feminists:

Married women are less successful, healthy, and more depressed than their single counterparts

Most women giving birth under 30 are now unwed

The academicians are calling that "progress". But it's all just a figment of our imagination, of course.

Keep cherrypicking unreliable sources that fit your point. Modern feminism is here to stay bud whether you want to mansplain or not.

 

[Jubba_Man]

Keep cherrypicking unreliable resources that fit your point. Modern feminism is here to stay bud whether you want to mansplain or not.

The NYT and psychologytimes are now unreliable sources? Never thought I would hear a lefty feminist say that.


You sound like you're trying to convince yourself of that more than anyone else. Matriarchies don't exist for long in the real world. History is not on your side.

 

[Mudug-Madman]

Keep cherrypicking unreliable sources that fit your point. Modern feminism is here to stay bud whether you want to mansplain or not.

I feel like this is the start of a really annoying gimmick account.

 

[NoName]

Observe some of the stellar works of modern day feminists:

Married women are less successful, healthy, and more depressed than their single counterparts

Most women giving birth under 30 are now unwed

The academicians are calling that "progress". But it's all just a figment of our imagination, of course.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the articles you posted. Could you explain? Also, what is it that academics are calling "progress"?

 

[SenseSays]

@hubbaman
Those sources are not reliable. All other reputable sources point otherwise. You're second paragraph is as sad as your thread. I'm a realist, Matchriarcy was practically nonexistent but from the looks of how things are progressing, it will change.

 

[Jubba_Man]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with the articles you posted. Could you explain? Also, what is it that academics are calling "progress"?

It seems you are incapable of reading between the lines or possibly live under a rock.

Here, let me give you an article that comes right out and says it:

11 reasons not to get married by Susan Cox, Feminist writer and thinker

7 reasons marriage is on the decline

Reason #6: Having kids out of wedlock is no longer seen the taboo it once was.

"Couples can conceive or adopt a child and raise it together (or alone) without all the other aspects of marriage that come with it. Young people no long care “what people will say” and they’re opting to choose to have babies but not husbands".

 

[Jubba_Man]

@hubbaman
Those sources are not reliable. All other reputable sources point otherwise. You're second paragraph is as sad as your thread. I'm a realist, Matchriarcy was practically nonexistent but from the looks of how things are progressing, it will change.

You're obviously disturbed if you're trying to dismiss university studies published in journals and the US government census data as "unreliable". You have no leg to stand on, sadly.

And your ideal matriarchal societies were practically nonexitent because they were always dismantled by neighboring patriarchal cultures every single time. The AA community is the closest thing you have to a matriarchy today, and please try to tell me with a straight face that such a society is stable in any sense of the word.

 

[Gibiin-Udug]

Second wives gets the attention, money and the love. I used to hate second wives because I thought they were evil women who didn't care about their fellow women but I was wrong. Get money bish!

 

[NoName]

It seems you are incapable of reading between the lines or possibly live under a rock.

You posted two articles - one was about the utility of marriage, and besides mentioning an influential book from the 70s, said more will be said on part II. The other one was examining the increase of having children without getting married. Have you even read these articles? Neither had anything to do with the "stellar work of feminists", as you have sarcastically said - nor academics calling anything "progress".

 

[SenseSays]

You're obviously disturbed if you're trying to dismiss university studies published in journals and the US government census data as "unreliable". You have no leg to stand on, sadly.

And your ideal matriarchal societies were practically nonexitent because they were always dismantled by neighboring patriarchal cultures every single time. The AA community is the closest thing you have to a matriarchy today, and please try to tell me with a straight face that such a society is stable in any sense of the word.

I never mentioned anything along the lines of "ideal". You are too immersed in your opinions to even grasp the prospects of the 21st century. You're traditional and it makes sense since you benefited from such privileges.

"Dismantled by neighboring patriarchal cultures every single time" Sounds like a fanfic in the making.

 

[Jubba_Man]

You posted two articles - one was about the utility of marriage, and besides mentioning an influential book from the 70s, said more will be said on part II. The other one was examining the increase of having children without getting married. Have you even read these articles? Neither had anything to do with the "stellar work of feminists", as you have sarcastically said - nor academics calling anything "progress".

You obviously have no familiarity with how academia works and how academicians in the liberal arts transmit their ideals or what is considered "progressive". You're also being incredibly obtuse or possibly trolling. You really expect anyone to believe modern feminists support the nuclear family unit or traditional marriage despite article after article I have posted from judges to feminist writers stating otherwise?


But, since you insist, here's more:

Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, morality, and the Law by associate professor of Feminist philosophy Elizabeth Brake

"This book examines the cost imposed by the special value attributed to marriage, and marriage-like cohabitation, in society and law. The privileging of marriage marginalizes the unpartnered and those in nontradtitional relationships[/URL]

A common book used in many gender studies departments. If that is not the mainstream of academia, then you're either completely clueless and have no business in this discussion, or more likely, are trolling.

 

[VixR]

There's little difference between a side chick and a second wife, especially in Muslim societies where ppl marry at the drop of a hat (to have sex). It manifests in Somali society in the form of the trucker phenomenon

The only difference is the chick is navigating outside the confines of marital responsibility and status, which may be a boon to her, or of no consequence to have the "wife status" as most second wives find themselves (whether known or unbeknownst to them). They get less or little in the way of support, and whatever claim to their children is either useless or leaves a lot to be desired.

If you're not the first wife,

 

[Jubba_Man]

There's little difference between a side chick and a second wife, especially in Muslim societies where ppl marry at the flip of a coin (to have sex).

The only difference is the chick is navigating outside the confines of marital responsibility and status, which may be a boon to her.

Little difference? There's little difference between a wife who is supported financially, mentally, and emotionally by her husband and their kids having the support of both parents, ideally a good male role model, and potentially his extended family as part of their support network vs a single parent typically dependent on the state in some form, no male role model, and a father and family that do not even acknowledge the kids as theirs? How has that been working out for the AA community?

To be honest, I expected you to say this. You believe in individualism or "freedom" and all of its social ills and irresponsibility as sacrosanct, so there's no getting through to you. Tradition and culture means nothing to you. I'm trying to get through to the Somalis who have adopted several western values while still believing they can reconcile with their native culture and religion.


Edit: I just saw your edit now. I agree with you that sadly there is a lot left to be desired in many of these relationships and a lot of oppression goes on. It goes without saying that humans aren't perfect. But if we're talking ideals here or even the real world, a second wife arrangement will always trump a side-chick/mistress arrangement when all factors are considered.

 

[NoName]

You obviously have no familiarity with how academia works and how academicians in the liberal arts transmit their ideals or what is considered "progressive". You're also being incredibly obtuse or possibly trolling. You really expect anyone to believe modern feminists support the nuclear family unit or traditional marriage despite article after article I have posted from judges to feminist writers stating otherwise?

Posting article after article that you seemingly haven't read yourself doesn't help you make whatever point you're trying to make. Now you appear to be saying that feminists don't support traditional marriage. How do the first two articles you have posted support that? The book you have linked to now apparently argues that marriage should be extended beyond 'amatonormative' couples. What's wrong with this?

 

[Jubba_Man]

@NoName Are you Somali and Muslim? What and who are you? You clearly do not share the values of most Somalis, which is why none of what I posted is at all controversial to you and is drawing nothing but the online equivalent of a blank stare. You also seem to believe that feminists actively working to destroy the institution of marriage and the nuclear family is controversial, despite the countless articles I have posted above and even a mainstream book taught in universities to aspiring feminists that argues exactly that. At this point only a troll could be this obtuse and can continue to ask useless questions that have been answered adequately time and time and time again by the articles posted.