I was curious about what the statistics are for the alimony arrangements that currently exist. As the article says, any “non-modifiable agreement[s]” will continue to be so. I don’t really know how common that is or what that entails. But on the surface, this seems good. I, being a Floridian, am very happy that we are taking another step toward making our state slightly less shitty.
I also think it’s relevant to this discussion that the right to vote of men in the past was predicated on mandatory military service. Women have never had to do this.
If I had a choice between giving uo my right to vote and being forced to go die in a trench in WWI, I would seriously consider giving up my vote. I am grateful to be alive today instead of 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago when the US last drafted men against their will.
But even today, people still by and large believe that it is men’s natural duty to be sent to war, while women are seen as having no responsibilities.
I don’t think we should disenfranchise anyone, but recognise that forced conscription is just as great an injustice to men as disenfranchisement was to women (and black or non-landowning men), if not greater.
Forcing innocent men into harm’s way should be confined to the past and recognised for the barbaric practice that it is. Sadly that will not happen anytime soon, seeing how most people don’t even see it as injustice.
This is something feminists usually respond to with “but men start all the wars; therefore women shouldn’t have to fight them,” without realising it caring that only a tiny group of men make these choices; the millions of [usually working class] men who died never got a say in any of it. Feminism is not fighting to end conscription because it doesn’t affect women.