The only people in my entire extended family who are doing well financially are those where the man controls all the finances, in every other relationship/family where the woman is in control of the finances, their situation is financial destitution.

But you will be called an "abuser" if you don't let the woman control the finances... I hear this in any situation where the man controls the families finances

>ohhh did you hear about Becky? That poor woman, her Husband is so controlling, shes has to ask him about buying stuff, thats financial and emotional abuse!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile in like 85% of relationships, the woman controls the finances of the household.... but OH MY GOD if the MAN controls the finances... NOW THATS ABUSE!

I am starting to think this is some kind of consoomer propaganda by banks and governments because they want women (retarded spenders) to be in control of finances...

Now if you put the stats right, 85% of women controlling a household finances... that leaves 15% of men doing it..... that pretty much explains why only a very small % of households are doing well financially, while the rest are 1 bad event away from financial ruin and are set-up permanently for future financial destitution, which keeps you slaving away, just like the system wants you to be.....no wonder there's so much propaganda against men controlling finances...

Despite being 50% of the population, women account for 90% of consumer spending.

>>510093602
I own my own home (no mortgage) in my 30's.

My sister is also in her 30's, shes basically a copy-paste of my mom, and she controls the finances of her marriage, and guess what? She and her Husband are PERMA-rentoids who overspent so much to the point where they no longer even have any chance of saving up a deposit for a house, let alone ever buying a house.

Why? Because my sister controls their finances, and always has, for the last 10 years, and she is an extremely reckless spender. In 2015 she got married, and they spent $60,000 on a wedding. I told her she should put that kind of money for a deposit on a HOME, and she ignored me.... she lost her chance to be a home owner because she wanted a big wedding.... $60,000 in 2015 was a huge amount for a deposit on a decent family home.


When I explained this to my sister and told her I would NEVER let a woman control my finances, she said.....

>Well I feel sorry for ANY woman who has to deal with you and your financial control!

>>510093452 (OP)
Yeah you found a small piece of a much larger puzzle. The solution is: it's the jews

divorce settlement would be the most popular political movement. It is the weakest link in the chain of all your social problems. every married man is held hostage by a flimsy law which allows any woman the freedom to destroy the family and confiscate the assets for any reason she desires. The only exception to this is when they woman fears being shunned by her family. But if women destroy all families there are no families to shun women. So now you know why women want to destroy nuclear families

>>510093452 (OP)
>White Women control 85% of household spending
That is what we've been telling our white friends on here. I think those of you who clown around with the, "women are livestock" posts get it, white women, in a certain light, could be saw as jewish owned economic livestock and a hedge against acceleration. We don't say white women are shallow to insult the white man, it's just with you guys all those red pills on female nature always seem to instantly go out the window the second a white female is involved.

>>510093872
No its women and they've always been this way

>>510093452 (OP)
women need to control 100% of their tone

>>510093452 (OP)
let women control money because money is of the devil

Son.... Never tell a woman how much money you have,

or they are sure to ask for some

>>510093452 (OP)
>lives in a gynocratic man hating shithole
>is surprised that women control finances in the family
NO WAY DUDE HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?

>>510093900
Women don't get shunned for anything nowadays except acting traditional.

>>510093452 (OP)
>I am starting to think this is some kind of consoomer propaganda by banks and governments because they want women (retarded spenders) to be in control of finances...
That's not wrong. Women are more impulsive with spending. They're also more susceptible to marketing tricks. "Hoe math" as they call it. They see an ad for a deal on their social media of choice for something that they weren't going to buy, but it's half off now so they buy it. They tend to see it as a great deal without realizing that somebody just had to write "50%" on an ad to get them to buy something they wouldn't otherwise have bought. Women's instincts to stay plugged in and available (social media) and their susceptibility to marketing tricks make them the best consumers. They also produce tons of free content for social media, which in turn promotes the ads on those platforms.

Since WWII one of the biggest metrics for success has been consumption, also known as GDP, right up there with shareholder value. I don't think it's any coincidence that the society which figured out how to do wicked shit like monetize friendships (therapy) would've also figured out, consciously or not, how to take money out of the hands of stingy men and put it in the hands of spendy women.

>>510094458
yeah look, no fault divorce is an extremely flimsy law. It would be so easy to reverse that. Idk how the fuck that even happened

where does the popular support for no fault divorce even come from

>>510094907
>Idk how the fuck that even happened
Freemasons have complete control over most countries except a few muslim shitoles. That's how it happened you have to be retarded to believe Freemasonry isn't real and it all happened by pure chance. Nothing ever happens by pure chance.

>>510094984
Freemason control over your culture.

>>510094984
obviously women support it

>>510094907
>>510094984
You need the context of fault divorce. Prior to no-fault, you needed to prove fault on the part of your spouse. Sounds easy but for court in those days you needed something called "evidence," which in a pre-smartphone world wasn't that easy to get, especially for a wife who couldn't spend money on an investigator without her husband knowing. Good luck catching him banging his secretary when the phone's attached to the wall, you don't own a camera and they only talk IRL in the hotel room they pay for cash. Additionally, loveless marriages existed then too and wanted to break up, but couldn't without someone being at fault, which led to very bitter contests between spouses over who was going to be the bad guy, often involving fake evidence and accusations.

With the general mid 20th century pivot to marriage as being about love first rather than being economics or family first, this all seemed quite backwards, primarily to feminists but also to everyone else, which is how the minority feminists got it pushed into courts. In the abstract it seems imminently sensible that if two people want to split up because there really is an "irreconcilable difference," that a court shouldn't waddle in to demand proof, it should just let them split. It would avoid all the terrible fake evidence and accusations, while promoting individual liberty. Easy win.

It seems dumb to us now but only in the context of having 60 years of evidence showing that the institution of marriage gets completely shredded when people aren't held to it by pretty severe force. Back then they probably thought women would be responsible with it and just use it when absolutely necessary.

>>510093452 (OP)
it depends
my tough as nails immigrant mother was a fiscal hawk
my father was the spendthrift who wanted to keep having the biggest toys of all his friend group

>>510095976
like I suspected the legal precedent is flimsy af. If this is reversed everything changes. Because as soon as fathers have a little bit of autonomy they will flip on all of it. This is the political base missing from scene and if that switch is ever flipped 304's done.

>>510095976
what is so despicable about no fault divorce is that good mothers and fathers suffer more than bad ones. So what incentive is there to be a good person at all. What is the legal precedent to declare "no fault" when the purpose of a legal institution is to uphold accountability? It's totally fraudulent

>>510093452 (OP)
>85% of household spending
That's why bankruptcies have skyrocketed.

>>510093452 (OP)
A man makes a house but a woman makes a home. Ive made sure to set up a financial plan for me and the missus to buy a home in the next 6-12 months but i think men (myself included) are happy to let the woman handle domestic affairs.

I flick her $100 every 2 weeks for my share of the grocery bill and let her decide what we are eating because if you left it to me (and any other single man for that matter) we'd eat nothing but minced meat and microwaved rice inside of a burrito.

>>510093452 (OP)
>85% of household spending
Let's check what they're buying