Dragging your kids throught the meat grinder; practice makes perfect!

Captain Capitalism has a new post titled The Arrogance of Divorcées about a woman named Cherie Bowser who is offering advice on the best way to drag your innocent kids through divorce.  She should know, this is her second go at it.  The double divorcée’s pearls of wisdom are offered in her Yahoo Shine piece Maintaining happy, healthy children during a separation and divorce:

Divorce is never easy the first time around, but learning from your mistakes can make the second divorce a lot less stressful

I don’t know.  Maybe she should have waited until she drug them through a third divorce before lecturing the rest of us on how to be good parents.  This woman clearly lacks initiative;  many women are able to drag their kids through 4 or more divorces without breaking a sweat. Write back when you have some real experience, piker.

Having never done this to my own children, I may not know enough to comment on it.  However my guess is her daughter [redacted] can’t be thrilled that her mom wrote about all of this using her full name, and included a picture of a smiley face [redacted] drew as proof of what a great mom she is.

But a great mom she really is.  Just this January [redacted]‘s mom wrote an article titled Mother’s Good Examples Will Pass Down to Children from Generations to Generations.

Yes, I’m afraid mother’s example is very likely to have a lasting generational impact.  This woman’s frivolity is so profound it reaches through time, haunting innocent children who are yet to be born.

In the January piece Ms. Bowser tells us more about herself:

I’m a full-time Mom of 3 girls ages 4, 9 & 13 & 1 step-son age 13. I have a wonderful devoting husband who is a chiropractor in Orange County.

I think I need a shot of Rumple Minze after reading this woman’s work.

If you are reading this [redacted], please know that others know you don’t deserve this.  I know it won’t help, but I’m deeply sorry for what your mother is dragging you and your sisters through for the second time.

Update:  Ms. Bowser appears to have removed her daughter’s name and artwork from the article, so I have redacted her daughter’s name from this post.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Ageing Feminists, Choice Addiction, Divorce, Motherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Dragging your kids throught the meat grinder; practice makes perfect!

  1. chels says:

    Ughhhh what a stupid, stupid, stupid woman!

    As a child of divorce myself, I can honestly say that some of the advice she gives is crap.

    Helping the children understand they will be living with one parent at a time

    Well duh, I’m sure even a 4 year old realizes that s/he will have 2 homes, but that doesn’t make it any better. The problem is not having 2 homes, regardless of how cool she makes it sound, the problem is again, divorce, not having 2 parents! I don’t know what child wants to live with mommy during the week, and with daddy during the weekend, it just complicates everything and makes everything worse.

    Trust the other parent be the parent when they are not in your care
    Help each other’s parenting needs by creating a new team

    This advice is ok, I wish my own parents would have done that. Parents should keep their problems away from their children, and should try to do as much as possible so as not to expose the kids to their own mess. However, that gem, when she said that the second time around she learned to put her own kids first is mind boggling. If parents would put their kids first always, I’m sure the divorce rate would substantially decrease.

    Seek professional counseling for your child

    This is complete crap. Most kids don’t want to talk about their feelings about divorce, and why should they? It’s not like they matter anyway, but they’re told to just suck it up. There’s nothing anyone can say that makes divorce easier, it’s not about “accepting” it or anything, because they know they’re going to have to do it, as they have no say in the matter.

    ____

    When my own parents divorced, it didn’t come as a surprise, they had a bad marriage, but I still wished they would have worked it out. However, I am thankful that my mother waited until the kids were grown to divorce; even though I was 18 when it officially happened, it didn’t make it any easier.

    The actual divorce wasn’t what bothered me that much, what bothered me was its consequences—having 2 families, 2 houses, 2 birthday parties, 2 Christmases, 2 Thanksgivings, 2 of everything; I hated that instability. As well, I found myself being jealous of intact families, of those who can do simple things with both their mother and father together–going to restaurants, going to the beach, etc.. Despite having more of everything than before, I still felt incomplete, like I was missing something. However, no amount of talk could have changed this, which is why I said that going to counselling is useless.

    Another consequence that makes divorce very hard on kids is their parents dating as it signifies the end of their previous life; every child of divorce hopes that their parents would get back together. However, once one of them starts to date, it ends that hope. Personally, I hated when my mother tried to introduce me to her boyfriends because I felt like I was somehow betraying my father, and I didn’t want a stepfather, I already had one, which is why I refuse(d) to meet those guys. What I wish more parents would realize is that kids don’t want a stepmother or a stepfather, they already have a mother and a father, regardless of how “bad” s/he is; it’s the only one they have and want.

    This woman doesn’t even grasp what divorce means for her kids and how complicated it is, she cites the usual psychobabble, without knowing it’s 100% useless to the kids. Her lack of understanding is not surprising though as the only people that can fully understand what divorce means is the children of divorce.

  2. deti says:

    So in January, her husband is “wonderful”.

    In September, nine months later, she and her “wonderful” husband are going through a divorce. This is her second divorce, of course.

    Anyone else find that reversal of fortune rather abrupt? This is just more proof of the principles and occurrence Dalrock and others write about: Women’s insistence that they must be “haaaaaappy” or else they won’t be fulfilled; that they must “have it all”; and their insistence on divorce for the flimsiest of reasons. The woman cares only for herself.

    Frankly, a woman who has been divorced once is not marriage material. Why anyone would marry her after that is beyond me.

  3. deti says:

    And this is more proof of what men looking for wives must do: The reason is that you have a moral obligation to your future children to choose their mother wisely:

    1. Use Dalrock’s posts on how to vet a woman as marriage material.
    2. Don’t marry anyone unless you are head over heels in love with her.
    3. Determine whether this woman worth your investment and commitment.
    4. Determine whether she will be in for the long haul.

    P.S. I’m shortening my handle to deti since that’s what everyone seems to call me anyway.

  4. Looking Glass says:

    Yeah, she’s really got no clue. No clue at all. And her kids are screwed to no end. They won’t be able to have stable relationships without completely disowning their mom in their actions. So, about a 1 in 5 chance of that happening.

    And, if you have an “amicable” divorce, why are you getting divorced? If you’re not at some sort of important odds, you could work through and solve the problems, right? But, no, that would take character and honesty. Can’t have that.

    And, the most important point, if divorce is necessary (it’s necessary in a few cases), is that you now have to spend *more* time and *more* energy with your children. Plus, you need to have a *really* good reason for ruining their lives. Yes, you are blowing up your children’s lives, that’s why divorce should be the last resort.

  5. dragnet says:

    Almost totally self-centered…and yet completely lacking in self-awareness.

    This crap ends when guys wake the hell up.

  6. Lavazza says:

    The only way for a divorce to leave children unaffected is for the parents to compensate. But that extra effort would have had more effect if invested in the marriage.

  7. Dalrock says:

    Some more info on Cherie Bowser (and pics). Her Linkedin page. Note that she references her work for Associated Content (the second article I linked to) as well as her work for Orange County Motherhood Examiner. Here is her profile at the former. Here is her profile at the latter.

  8. chels says:

    Where’s Doomed Harlot? This blog needs more debate

  9. Badger says:

    These people are sick. It shows why successful societies tightly controlled the marriage market (via inter-generational pressures) and the ability to divorce (by law or social shame or both). When marital status is subject to one’s daily-changing whims, they leave a lot of damage in their wake.

    It’s a sad prejudgment, but I can’t get around that if a woman tells me she’s divorced (and I meet more the older I get), I think in my head “there’s a two out of three chance the divorce was her fault.”

  10. grerp says:

    The only way for a divorce to leave children unaffected is for the parents to compensate.

    They will not be unaffected. Even if a divorcing couple works together to parent in the most mature, cooperative way and all of the other exceedingly negative outcomes of divorce for children are avoided, they will never look at marriages or even relationships in the same way – as permanent and not subject to betrayal or loss at any time.

    As far as this second divorce goes, second marriages are far more likely to end in divorce – the couple has so many more stressors on their relationship than first marriages do, especially if there are stepchildren. With the his/hers/ours kid set up, there are three sets of parenting rules at work. No one is going to find that fair. Kids have a tendency to work against their stepparents as well. Even if they know their parents aren’t going to get back together, they resent the interloper and seek to undermine him/her. All of this is why it is far better not to get divorced the first time around – because all of your choices post-divorce are compromised (and, most importantly, your kids will suffer – no one, NO ONE, will love your kid like his parent will ).

    We don’t know that Bowser initiated this divorce. It could be her husband who filed or he could have cheated and that’s all been revealed and hashed out since January. I might argue, with cold pragmatism, that it would be still better for the kids AND Bowser if she stayed even if he cheated/cheats. But that’s not a modern philosophy. And there’s no denying that the article she wrote is both full of falsehoods and incredibly self-serving.

  11. Anacaona says:

    Frankly, a woman who has been divorced once is not marriage material. Why anyone would marry her after that is beyond me.

    I often said that MRA should add shaming men that marry divorcees and single mothers (and since we are in the topic men that bang married women) I know they want women to fix everything they screwed themselves but that is not practical, women don’t leave a man because they thing being alone is better they leave them because they think they can get a better/the perfect man. When enough divorcees don’t get remarried that will also help. But men tend to believe the sad story of the poor neglected wife and think they can “rescue” her, sans abuse and cheating not ring for divorcees should be right next to no ring for sluts, YMMV.

  12. Brendan says:

    And, if you have an “amicable” divorce, why are you getting divorced? If you’re not at some sort of important odds, you could work through and solve the problems, right?

    Two different things.

    Having an amicable divorce is not having an amicable romantic or marital-type relationship. What it means is that the couple, realizing the marital relationship is finished, puts aside the acrimony they have against each other about that (and regardless of what anyone says, they *all* have acrimony about what happened to the marital relationship), and works to develop a new relationship with the ex-spouse on a basis that keeps the acrimony in a box, away from the relationship around the kids. It isn’t about “getting along just like we were married” — in fact, it’s quite the opposite, because it’s much easier to get along with someone when you do not have the expectations about the other person’s behavior that you do when you are married to them.

    I have seen couples where the marital acrimony dominates the post-marital relationship, and it spirals into a lifetime of bitterness and anger, and this gives the kids many more scars — these couples tend to continually fight about custodial arrangements, dragging the kids into court over the course of years and years. Believe me, having an “unamicable divorce” is the absolute level worst decision you could possibly make if you are getting divorced — it takes a bad situation and pours kerosene on it whilst tossing a match and watching your kids literally burn in flames. It’s by far the most selfish way to behave post-divorce, really, as it puts a premium on your own emotions and your need “to win”, your need “for justice” and so on above the needs of your kids.

    I have an “amicable divorce”. Does this mean my ex-wife and I can calmly and detachedly talk about what happened in our marriage, like disinterested old friends? No, not at all. It means we simply keep that in a box, and do not discuss it, because there is no point and it would only harm our son to do so, Having an amicable divorce means that we do *not* let the acrimony and recrimination we have about what happened in the marriage against each other in the post-marriage, but we instead keep it in the box so that we can deal with each other as parents in a way that doesn’t involve constant conflict over the former marriage.

    I fully agree that divorce damages kids no matter what happens. But, if you are getting divorced, you owe it to your kids to make the divorce and post-divorce as amicable as possible to avoid making a bad situation even worse.

  13. ruddyturnstone says:

    “Personally, I hated when my mother tried to introduce me to her boyfriends because I felt like I was somehow betraying my father, and I didn’t want a stepfather, I already had one, which is why I refuse(d) to meet those guys. What I wish more parents would realize is that kids don’t want a stepmother or a stepfather, they already have a mother and a father, regardless of how ‘bad’ s/he is; it’s the only one they have and want.”

    I hate even the use of the term “stepfather” or “stepmother” in the case of divorce. Check the origins of those terms, they refer to cases of death, where there is no father or mother. The wife of a divorced man is not his children’s “stepmother,” she’s their nothing. The husband of a divorced woman’s child is not her children’s “stepfather,” he’s their nothing. And it’s BS to pretend otherwise. It also does a disservice to the real parent. It burns me up when my nephew refers to his mother’s new fool as his “stepfather.” My brother, who his mother divorced for no good reason, is his father. My nephew doesn’t have a stepfather. His mother has a husband, but that is her affair, not his.

  14. Looking Glass says:

    Yeah, I don’t disagree that guys should *not* get involved with divorcees, but that falls right back into the White Knight problem. Widows are fine, Divorcees are not, but for a lot of guys, I imagine that’s going to massively constrain their dating pool, if they’re interested in a LTR. If not, it makes it bigger to just use them only for PUA practice. As cruel as that is.

    And don’t underestimate the “good reason” angle to the kids. Even with a really good one, they aren’t going to be happy with the parent that pulled the trigger. There’s no way to be, and you have to work through that. (And counseling only works for around 35% of the population, if they *want* the help then.)

    Yeah, she’s not horrible looking, but any guy seeing 2 divorces should steer clear.

  15. deti says:

    “[The children] will not be unaffected. Even if a divorcing couple works together to parent in the most mature, cooperative way and all of the other exceedingly negative outcomes of divorce for children are avoided, they will never look at marriages or even relationships in the same way – as permanent and not subject to betrayal or loss at any time.”

    I would think it would take herculean effort to prevent a child of divorce from devaluing marriage and interpersonal relationships. IME talking with many, many children of divorce who have grown into adulthood, their attitude is that marriage means little; that it should never be considered permanent; that spouses are disposable, fungible goods; and that human beings are little more than utilities to be discarded when their usefulness has ended. This is not to express any judgments about any other commenters here, not knowing the circumstances. I’m only offering this and the following anecdotes because I think they illustrate many people’s modern attitudes about marriage and divorce.

    I have two cousins, the product of their parents’ first marriage to each other. Their parents divorced after 8 years of marriage. Both remarried twice. Father is on his third marriage; mother divorced her second and third husbands and now lives with yet another man.

    Both of my cousins each have two ex-spouses of their own. My female cousin had tubal ligation in her early 20s, stating she did not intend to bring any children into this screwed up world. My male cousin has one daughter from his first marriage. His second marriage bankrupted him after his second wife left him. He and his second ex wife could not sell their insanely overpriced house on which they were very quickly underwater on the mortgage. Both cousins have said they’ll never marry again.

    Their attitudes uniformly were that if the marriage did not work out, they could always get divorced; and what matters is “how it all affects me”. Very little consideration is given to how their actions affect others around them.

  16. Arch says:

    Frankly, a woman who has been divorced once is not marriage material. Why anyone would marry her after that is beyond me.

    Confucius say “Never date woman who already have divorce lawyer.”

  17. Looking Glass says:

    @ Brendan:

    While I agree that keeping things “civil” during and after divorce proceedings is important, I do take “amicable” to the dictionary definition, which I think is the disconnect. (“characterized by friendly goodwill” and “getting a divorce” don’t really sit together in my mind) She might have been trying to place nice with the terms, but if you can be “amicable” over a very important topic like the children’s well-being, then you should be able to work through the emotions and at least settle the relationship quarrel. (Doesn’t mean the relationship can be saved, but as Dalrock is well to point out, a whole lot of the relationships that end in divorce were saveable)

    Also, extending on the “don’t marry divorcees” list, should we also extend that to ones who cohabited for a long time? Since it’s “marriage-lite”, those split up are “divorce-lite” then?

  18. anon says:

    Brendan,

    I, too have an “amicable divorce,” much like yours. I had to take a lot of hits along the way to make that happen. Maybe my ex thinks that she did the same, maybe not. With the passage of 14 years, I can sadly confirm that divorce scarred our son. But never-one-bad-word about my ex (and her learning to do the same wrt me) limited the damage. As did the “amicable” moves I’ve made over the years.

    I’m blessed with a good (and more compatible) woman these past dozen years. She’ll never be my son’s mother. Yet she’s stepped up to many mothering roles that his biological mother couldn’t or wouldn’t play, including offering key advice that has helped him tremendously in his professional training. So I have benefited from great good fortune, the second time around. Mileage varies of course. I wouldn’t hex my kid’s relationship with my wife by declaring it a nothing. Nothing to gain and a lot to lose from that philosophy-driven approach.

    – mgwk

  19. deti says:

    In light of Brendan’s comment, the post-marital acrimony between my cousins’ parents was probably the cause of their children’s dysfunctions. Their father and mother hated each other after the divorce, only coming to terms with each other after their children were adults. By then the damage was done and irreversible.

  20. deti says:

    LG: Re your comment at 11:17 am: Please don’t push this button too hard.

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    According to the “Longevity Project”, parental divorce is the single greatest factor in a shorter lifespan. It’s worse than smoking. So parents who divorce are hugely raising the odds that their children will not live even the median lifespan. Admittedly this data comes from a study started in the 1920′s, so perhaps there are multiple factors at work. But it ought to be sobering.

  22. chels says:

    I would think it would take herculean effort to prevent a child of divorce from devaluing marriage and interpersonal relationships.

    It can go either direction—I have an older brother who doesn’t care for marriage, but I do, I’m completely opposed to divorce and I believe marriage is forever.

    However, a lot of people don’t value marriage all that much even if they come from intact families, otherwise, the divorce rate wouldn’t be as high as it is.

  23. Brendan says:

    While I agree that keeping things “civil” during and after divorce proceedings is important, I do take “amicable” to the dictionary definition, which I think is the disconnect. (“characterized by friendly goodwill” and “getting a divorce” don’t really sit together in my mind) She might have been trying to place nice with the terms, but if you can be “amicable” over a very important topic like the children’s well-being, then you should be able to work through the emotions and at least settle the relationship quarrel.

    Yeah, I understand how it can seem that way logically, but relationships aren’t logic.

    The divorce is almost never “amicable” — you fight about some things no matter what. There is rancor and acrimony. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or is an extreme outlier. When people say they have an “amicable divorce”, however, they generally aren’t referring to the divorce proceeding itself, but rather the aftermath. My relationship with my ex-wife is certainly characterized by friendly goodwill at this point. It was not when we were in the midst of getting divorced — far from it. But, after a year or two we settled into a good, workable relationship around our son that is quite friendly and amicable, but is nothing at all like being married. It’s logical that if we managed that we should have been able to manage fixing the marriage, but relationships aren’t logical, and there’s a huge difference between an intimate marital relationship, on the one hand, and an amicable divorced relationship, on the other.

  24. chels says:

    I hate even the use of the term “stepfather” or “stepmother” in the case of divorce. Check the origins of those terms, they refer to cases of death, where there is no father or mother. The wife of a divorced man is not his children’s “stepmother,” she’s their nothing. The husband of a divorced woman’s child is not her children’s “stepfather,” he’s their nothing. And it’s BS to pretend otherwise. It also does a disservice to the real parent. It burns me up when my nephew refers to his mother’s new fool as his “stepfather.” My brother, who his mother divorced for no good reason, is his father. My nephew doesn’t have a stepfather. His mother has a husband, but that is her affair, not his.

    Co-sign to this; I have nothing against the guy, I’m sure he’s a perfectly nice man, but I don’t want anything to do with him. It’s not his fault, but I don’t have to accept him in my life either; I have a father and he’s irreplaceable. Even the word “stepfather” disgusts me.

  25. Anon says:

    I wonder if her version of family planning was aborting her former husbands sons and birthing only daughters. Nothing seems beyond this modern woman’s capacity for unrelenting evil.

  26. greenlander says:

    @Arch

    Confucius say “Never date woman who already have divorce lawyer.”

    lol

  27. Legion says:

    Brendan says:
    September 24, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Great comment. It was as though I was reading about my own divorce, right down to having one son. Additionally, my stress level dropped throught the basement once she decided to file for divorce and stopped blaming me for everything that was done or not done in her life.

    Other stresses have come into play. Our son turned 16 when we told him we were divorcing. We couldn’t sell the house until a few monthes after he turned 17 and a month before high school graduation. Now he is away at college. He was definately stressed and effected in other ways. I can’t imagine how young children respond.

    That this women has the gaul to do this twice to her children is amazing. She never thought about them in the first place.

  28. Lavazza says:

    “However, a lot of people don’t value marriage all that much even if they come from intact families, otherwise, the divorce rate wouldn’t be as high as it is.”

    For once I agree with chels. And when it comes to boys I would say that it is almost a service to them to make them scared of marriages. Men from intact homes are the guys who are most naive about women and who get f-ed over the most.

  29. chels says:

    For once I agree with chels. And when it comes to boys I would say that it is almost a service to them to make them scared of marriages. Men from intact homes are the guys who are most naive about women and who get f-ed over the most.

    I disagree, no one needs to be taught to be afraid of marriage. What people (mostly women) need to be taught is that marriage comes with responsibilities, that marriage is forever (as per their vows) and that it’s also about putting other people above yourself.

  30. ruddyturnstone says:

    For once Chels and I agree too! :)

  31. greyghost says:

    Well Chels it looks like you bring something to the table. Now i know why you are here. You are still a woman on the “blue Pill” so keep working at it and have faith in truth verses idiology.

  32. Lavazza says:

    chels: You’re right if you mean that marriage SHOULD come with responsibilities, but that is not laws/society is set up. So as long as laws/society look like they do fear/recalcitration is a good attitude for men.

  33. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    Your points on “amicable divorce” and sheltering your child make sense, with one caveat; what do you tell the child about the reason for divorce? Was no one to blame for bringing this great upheaval and pain in his life? Will his takeaway from the whole thing be that divorce “just happens”, that solemn promises don’t really need to be kept, and no one is to blame when they aren’t? If so, I don’t see how he would be able to use the tests I propose for a wife in good conscience.

  34. Dalrock says:

    @Chels

    I disagree, no one needs to be taught to be afraid of marriage. What people (mostly women) need to be taught is that marriage comes with responsibilities, that marriage is forever (as per their vows) and that it’s also about putting other people above yourself.

    They shouldn’t be taught to fear marriage, but they should be taught a very healthy fear of marrying a frivolous or otherwise unfit for marriage woman. Likewise they should have a healthy fear of smoking while working with accelerants, running the car in the garage with the garage door closed, walking on thin ice, etc.

  35. Lavazza says:

    What’s the right amount of fear is of course something to be learned in more detail over the years, but I think for a boy/man it is wise to have a quite fear heavy baseline in this matter.

  36. just visiting says:

    I come from a different viewpoint, but hear me out. I actually think that it’s easier to be married if you marry young. Your physiology hasn’t been rewired to accept multiple partners. The pair bond is pretty strong. This didn’t work for my parents, but has been very effective with all of my extended family. Even in a toxic culture, an extended family full of married people who can give advice is invaluable.

    My ex husband and I were teenagers when we got together. Both of us came from broken homes, but used my extended family as a template. We were also pretty aware of the lies society was pushing because of evaluating how our parents had been influenced by it.

    24 years was our run. We ended it 6 months ago. Which brings me to something I don’t see mentioned in the manosphere. How many marriages end because of substance abuse? Are most of these women who divorce men at a higher rate doing it because they’re flaky and frivilous? Or is there something else contributing?

    It’s pretty depressing having to consider dating again, but even more so when the attitude is don’t marry a woman who has been divorced, (and in my case, instigated it.), because shes flaky, selfish or an entitlement princess,

  37. Chels says:

    @ Dalrock

    I don’t think people need to be taught not to marry frivolous individuals, as I believe they already are by their parents. How many parents teach their sons/daughters to marry sluts or players? None, they’re pushed away from such people and encouraged to date “good” men/women. I think here lies the problem, they’re not actually taught what that actually means, and they are not taught to look for certain values in a person that leads to a good marriage–what these values are depends on each person, but I think that the questions you wrote are a good start (interviewing your potential spouse, if I remember correctly).

    Not only do they need to be taught to insist on the values that are important to them, they also need to be taught about the reality of divorce–what it means for a man and for a woman. Women especially need to be taught not to be so predatory and so entitled.

  38. Chels says:

    Just Visiting

    I’ve done some research about the causes of divorce and the most often cited are lack of communication, money problems, lack of sex, but abuse is at the bottom of the list. As well, it is very difficult to say what the most popular reasons are because they’re just categorized as “irreconcilable differences”.

    However, speaking from anecdotal evidence, most divorces do happen for frivolous reasons; I’m not sure why you chose to divorce your husband, maybe you had a good reason.

  39. just visiting says:

    meth addiction

  40. Dalrock says:

    @Just Visiting

    How many marriages end because of substance abuse? Are most of these women who divorce men at a higher rate doing it because they’re flaky and frivilous? Or is there something else contributing?

    I think there is a general suspicion of divorcées because:

    1) There are financial incentives for women to leave the marriage.
    2) There is an unbelievable level of encouragement to women, outright rooting for them to divorce as a sort of empowerment.
    3) Women in our society have been taught that they don’t have duties and obligations, and instead must only be true to themselves.
    4) The power of the rationalization hamster to find a plausible reason the woman could act on items 1-3 while avoiding facing fault.

    This doesn’t mean that men aren’t ever at fault; there are absolutely cases where they are. I’ve seen them, and I presume that my readers have as well. But any man should take a claim of a divorced woman with great skepticism when considering her for marriage. Pretty much all divorcées who want to remarry have a good story to tell. The challenge is how to distinguish between the truth, and a very believable story crafted by a rationalization hamster.

    The other risk a man needs to consider is the non frivolous reasons a woman would most often divorce for correlate highly with a large amounts of alpha (infidelity, abuse, gambling, even substance abuse). So even if he really was at fault, you have to consider that this could be a sign that the woman needs a large amount of alpha to stay attracted and not to become bored. Add to this the fact that the laws and courts have been tuned to make the risks of marriage line up almost exclusively to the man, and you can see why a wise man would not be eager to take on additional risk.

    It’s pretty depressing having to consider dating again, but even more so when the attitude is don’t marry a woman who has been divorced, (and in my case, instigated it.), because shes flaky, selfish or an entitlement princess,

    Fortunately for divorced women many men still aren’t wise to the risks outlined above. The more pure beta a man is, the more eager he will be to presume it was all the other man’s fault. There are also greater beta men on this board who have married divorced women and are very happily married. All of this is borne out in the stats. While divorcées face more of a challenge getting remarried than (especially younger) never married women and divorced men, roughly half of all US white women in their 50s who have ever divorced are currently remarried. I would say the fact that you can even consider the questions you do in your post easily puts you in the top half of divorced women, more likely in the top 20%. Per the joke in the previous post, you don’t have to beat the bear, just the other hikers.

  41. Opus says:

    First time as tragedy: Second time as farce.

  42. tspoon says:

    An ‘amicable divorce’ is one in which the female initiated and got everything she wanted unhindered. And then proceeds to LJBF the person she evicted from the family, just in case they could come in handy in some small way in future. IMO if you are male and have an amicable divorce something’s not right.

  43. tspoon says:

    Although I should qualify, ‘amicable divorce’ as quoted in my above statement, refers to the usage by such as the subject of the OP, not as differently defined by Brendon to be one in which adults deal with one another in a professional detached manner out of necessity.

  44. just visiting says:

    @ chels and Dalrock

    Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Certainly food for thought.

  45. Dalrock says:

    @just visiting

    meth addiction

    I didn’t see that when I wrote my last comment. I would say that is a very hamster proof reason. I’m not aware of someone being just a little addicted to meth. I feel for you for what you must have gone through.

    One thing I didn’t mention before is the AARP stats on the reasons for divorce. Check out figure 4 on page 21 of this survey. I also reviewed their findings on the reasons for divorce in this post. Even though it was an AARP survey almost all of the responses were from people who divorced when they were in their 40s (73%). Only 11% of the responses were from people who were 55 or older when they divorced. Their stats are questionable based on how they worded the question and the ever present hamster, but the responses only claimed alcohol or drug abuse was the primary cause 12% of the time.

  46. Chels says:

    @ Just visiting

    That’s horrible, it must have been hell for you, and it’s definitely an appropriate reason for divorce.

  47. just visiting says:

    It was pretty horrible. The nature of the drug is bad enough, but it brought down the family business, our house, savings, and I was pregnant by the time I realized there was a problem. (I suspect he realized he was losing control, and he probably thought that a baby would keep me in the marriage.) 22 arrests and jail time later………

    What amazes me is how fast it can happen. In a very short time you can go from having a happy marriage prosperous business, happy home, private school, the happieness of one last baby….. and then total annhilation.

  48. grerp says:

    just visiting – That sounds awful. I hope you are able to pull yourself and your kids through all that wreckage. What a terrible, terrible thing to happen to a family.

  49. Brendan says:

    what do you tell the child about the reason for divorce? Was no one to blame for bringing this great upheaval and pain in his life? Will his takeaway from the whole thing be that divorce “just happens”, that solemn promises don’t really need to be kept, and no one is to blame when they aren’t?

    In my opinion, you don’t get into the blow by blow with the kids. All it does is run one or both parents down in the eyes of the kids. Our son was young when we split (4) and doesn’t remember anything other than us being apart — which I realize is not good in itself, but can be somewhat less traumatic than the before and after comparison that happens when the kids are older — it depends on what happens after. His mother and I have agreed that we will tell him, if/when he eventually asks, that we both made mistakes and are both to blame for the divorce — not that it “just happens”, but also not that A did X and B did Y — no good comes from that kind of detail disclosure to your kids, in my personal opinion. The damage of the divorce is going to be there no matter what — getting into a blow-by-blow will add an even greater alienation from the parent(s), making the damage worse. Not a good idea, in my opinion.

  50. TFH says:

    One subject that is very under-discussed in this ‘sphere is how default female custody + childimony are itself INCENTIVES for divorce.

    Societies where men get custody, or where women cannot profit from divorce by using children as pawns – voila, the divorce rate is low for some ‘mysterious’ reason.

    The discussion of how to help children cope with divorce is itself flawed – divorces would be far fewer if not for the incentives dangled in front of the more guillible, less logical, more narcissistic gender.

  51. TFH says:

    After seeing example after example of this, I have no hesitation in making the unbiased conclusion that the father is much more likely to put the children ahead of himself, than the mother is.

    The whole ‘deadbeat dad’s’ narrative is so bogus. If anything, far more Mom’s are putting the children’s needs behind their own.

    If there was a Men’s Rights Movement, they would make more noise about this, and recruit fathers into the cause.

    If only there was a a Men’s Rights Movement that went beyond one man (Paul Elam). If only the world had 10 Paul Elams, just ten, feminism would be in serious trouble.

  52. just visiting says:

    @ Gerp

    It was pretty amazing, really. I found a strength and a serenity that I didn’t know that I possessed. My older children ceased being materialistic and self centered. They found a depth of character that I will always be grateful for. (Because with teens it could have been a very different story) We had to pull together and we did. (and do) I’m grateful for opportunities that have come our way that have allowed us to not be a burden of the state. And my toddler is a happy and sharp little fellow. I honestly don’t know how women could go their whole life without children. So much of my strength ,happieness, and serenity comes from knowing that material things may come and go, and a husband may stop being a husband, but the respect and love of my children is my true lifes work.

    In a very short time my older children will make lives of their own, loves of their own, and families of their own. If I’ve done my job right, they’ll be able to do these things with strength and dignity. And handle hardships with strength and dignity. True success.

  53. Johnycomelately says:

    There really needs to be a new expression which defines the legal construct of modern marriage and divorce. Traditional marriage is a non rescindable contract with punitive damages for the party ‘breaking’ the contract and divorce invokes negative connotations.

    Modern marriage is a ‘revocable at will’ offer of cohabitation with obligations to the by laws of the mutual association, so legally it isn’t a contract and divorce isn’t a dissolution of a binding contract.

    Something like ‘revocable at will cohabitation association’ or RAWCA, I’m sure brighter minds can come up with a better definition and acronym that expresses the modern nature of marriage and divorce.

  54. TFH says:

    There really needs to be a new expression which defines the legal construct of modern marriage and divorce.

    ‘Politicized Relationship’ is the term that works.

  55. grizzledwolf says:

    Divorce even when the kids are grown does not get any easier. While I think it is hard for the kids, its also quite hard when the kids themselves are also married. They’ve looked up to you for so long, seeing in you hope that they, too will work out. Then you throw some corrosive acid on those hopes and throw their own marriages into doubt. After all, divorce is like a communicable disease.

    “It was pretty horrible. The nature of the drug is bad enough, but it brought down the family business, our house, savings, and I was pregnant by the time I realized there was a problem.”

    I wonder though, would you take an addict husband back if he got help and managed to turn his life around? In Catholic circles, what is usually counseled in such cases is a separation (never a divorce), mostly so the f’ed up party can be given the space to pull themselves together.

  56. just visiting says:

    @ grizzled wolf

    This wasn’t his first time with drug addiction. Years ago, hubby had a problem with prescription drugs. It didn’t mess his mind up, but it did a real number on our sex life. He finally admitted to the problem, and I stood by him. This time, the addiction was with a very serious drug. As I mentioned, I was pregnant when I found out. Baby was 18 months old before I asked my husband to leave. During that time despite the fact that his drug use was obvious, had been observed, his drugs found, and numerous arrests, he would not admit to drug use let alone abuse. He would not undertake a drug test.with our family doctor (Though several were conducted when he was in remand) I stood by him as long as I could, told him I’d stand by him if he would only get help.

    The nature of meth is pretty nasty. I don’t think that even my husband understood what addiction would do to him. It ravages the body and mind. A few months after we had split, I begged him to get help. I truly believe that if he had not gone to jail, he’d have died. He was no longer capable of looking after himself. He was taking on schizophrenic characteristics. I’ve spoken to him on the phone a few times, and he doesn’t sound as crazy, but without being around him, it’s hard to say. I do not visit him in jail.

    I don’t think I could take him back at this point. (How much longer he remains in jail will be determined at his next hearing.)The trust is gone. The animosity that our children feel toward him is also something that has to be considered. I’m not a religious person, but I really feel sometimes that the strength and serenity I gained was an extension of grace in order to help my children cope. I feel no animosity toward my husband, and am trying to get my children to see that what happened was not about their father being malicious, just human frailty. I’m not sure unconditional love can exist between a husband and wife, Unconditional love, whether from the creator to his creations is paternal. Same with parent and child,paternal or maternal. He has my unconditional love, but it’s not the love that exists between a husband and wife.

  57. @TFH

    When I talk to women about why they initiating divorce, they don’t want to go into incentives, it just has to be cheating & abuse… Although I think those are low on the list….

  58. Anacaona says:

    @just visiting
    I think its obvious that you tried your best to stay married and couldn’t but just because legally speaking there is no a differentiation between a woman that divorces her husband because he was loyal but boring and a legitimate need to divorce doesn’t mean that you should think of your own case every time you hear any criticism about it, if you know in your heart that you are not one of the Eatpraylovers, then you have nothing to be afraid a good man will take the time to get to know and see you for your own worth. Never be afraid to be piled on the same pile of other type of women, even if many men are angry men, most of the time, are logical creatures if reality shows that you are not one to fear they won’t and the very few ones that will were not a good fit anyway.
    I wish you luck, in life and love.<3

    [D: Very well said.]

  59. just visiting says:

    @Anacaona

    Thanks for the encouragement. I guess I’ll find out how the dating pool will react when I jump in. Not ready yet, but I just passed my 42 birthday, and I’m feeling the pressure. Cats would not be my first choice of outcome.

  60. Pingback: We Need to Bring Back Duty « Traditional Christianity

  61. Looking Glass says:

    @ just visiting:

    2 years from the divorce. That’s pretty much a minimum for dating, if you want your kids to come out well. It’s rough, but if you’re only 6 months out (on a completely legitimate reason to terminate a marriage), you still have hell before you. That’s why people around here are none too kind to the “frivolous” divorcing types. Your kids still have a world of emotions to work through (not the 5 stages of grief, mind you, but there’s a lot of anger to work through), even though you had to make the decision for your and their own safety.

    It really, really sucks. Seen it first hand, so I, sadly, have a lot of experience with the topic. The anger is going to come out in a lot of places, be warned. It’ll be a topic that comes up, a lot, in the oddest of places. The older the children are, the more you’ll have to talk about it. The younger the children, the more tiring it will be. It’s going to be a massive amount of work over the next few years. That’s why the 2 years thing is a rough guideline before your children will be comfortable with the idea (and don’t expect them to be terribly comfortable with it, all stop). You have my sympathy, it’s a long road ahead.

    A few thoughts, though, before you go:
    - Finding a “Father” as your primary reason for a relationship is a BAD idea. It can be an important part of the decision process, but it’s a really bad primary reason.
    - You and your children have a “hole” in your personal selection criteria that blinds you to addictive personality types. Your children *have* this exact same blind-spot. You need to read up and learn about the personality type, then work with yourself & your children to address it.
    - Children attempt to replicate their parent’s relationship(s). That’s why solving that blind-spot is so important. (Yup, more work, but it’s also important)
    - You’ll need to be have long talks with your near-adult children about dealing with their Father. Part of them will *always* attempt to rebuild a normal relationship with him. That’s going to be very, very hard, as the addictions turn into attempts at manipulation, over time. It’s going to be rough, as well.

  62. greenlander says:

    This is wholly off-topic… but I wanted to share y’all the world’s foremost cat lady

  63. Pingback: Do not worry about ephemera. | Dark Brightness

  64. Benq says:

    OT but I don’t know where else to put this, and I want it to get as much visibility as possible. We know that traditionalists aren’t real allies of the MRM, but they have been planning on stabbing us in the back all along:

    The vast majority of MRA’s are tools(there are a few exceptions like W. F. Price and Welmer). The men in the PUAsphere have noted so and so have the men in the Tradosphere and the AltRightsphere. Now that they’ve served their initial purpose it’s time to Night of the Long Knives them.

  65. greyghost says:

    Benq Thanks for the comment. I think the whole christian community is full of shit. They have brown nosed feminism and joined in the shaming of men to keep the churches full of chistian in name carousel riders restoring their “virtue.” The whole conservative christian what ever, joined in on the feast and the men of the MRM are the casalties. The majority of which are and were committed husbands and fathers.

  66. Chris says:

    @Greyghost

    Nah.

    You are confusing “christian-lite” which is a pseudo-therapeutic movement (they beleive in self esteem as a valid measure of mental health, not realising that psychopaths (felons) have the highest measures of this) and Christianity.

    Christianity ain’t nice. Go ant look at Throne and Altar, Trad Christianigyt (though it is going girly) or Guicci Little Pig (M&M is good as well). Many of these men have been through the wringer — and are still saying the truth, even though it’s not nice.

    On remarraige: Like E Wapiti, if the marriage ended for legit reasons (and Just Visiting, many would argue yours is legit) then you can remarry. Stewart C. and Brendan disagree with me and say you can’t. But we argue this from the theology and then apply in to our lives, not do what feels right.

    The Christian response to the carousel is to use the logical equivelant of C4 and Napalm, not to “accept you”. Or, to use some Christian jargon, cheap grace ain’t grace.

  67. terri says:

    The Christian response to the carousel is to use the logical equivelant of C4 and Napalm, not to “accept you”. Or, to use some Christian jargon, cheap grace ain’t grace.

    Yes Chris, it’s true. The preaching of a lawless grace that permits any and every kind of behavior is not true Christianity.

    Oh, and we have not “gone girly” at TC, LOL. We have plenty of male contributors. You’re should become one.

  68. Höllenhund says:

    “The whole conservative christian what ever, joined in on the feast”

    They are also liars. However, their lies are only rarely debunked:

    http://traditionalcatholicism.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/paternity-a-la-paterfamilias/#comment-14089

  69. Höllenhund says:

    “Oh, and we have not “gone girly” at TC, LOL.”

    Are you kidding? Your comment threads provide perfect examples of female solipsism and gynocentrism.

  70. Höllenhund says:

    “The vast majority of MRA’s are tools”

    A young idiot enslaved to his own hormones – as evidenced by his propensity for tearing into other men and deploying classic anti-male shaming language against them – calling other people “tools” is a rather hilarious sight to behold.

  71. Höllenhund says:

    Benq,

    the thing you need to understand is that traditionalists never cared about men’s rights in the first place and never will. Their ideology is fundamentally opposed to the concept, and most of them normally support the tired old dogmas of female supremacism, the criminalization of male sexuality and male expendability. The only reason they hanged out on MRA sites is because they hoped to find new converts.

    Also notice that traditionalist women are just as likely as feminists to viciously attack and ridicule MRAs for no reason at all, make baseless accusations against them, show inability and unwillingness to empathize with men, and practice female solidarity i.e. circle the wagons immediately whenever a woman gets into conflict (of whatever nature) with a man or a group of men, not paying any attention to the nature of that conflict itself (which side started it, which side has superior logic, which side is justified etc.). You may recall an earlier comment thread here where Kathy came to the rescue of poor gazelle-eyed Doomed Harlot supposedly being mercilessly attacked by all the horrible, creepy, misogynist MRAs like TFH.

  72. terri says:

    Are you kidding? Your comment threads provide perfect examples of female solipsism and gynocentrism.

    Well we are girls, hollenhund, LOL. The difference is that we are fully aware of our solipsistic nature, although I patently disagree with your claims of gynocentrism.

    I think your critique of traditionalism leaves out something key. It’s not that we are uninterested in men’s rights. We’re not all that interested in women’s rights, either. We are more concerned with what’s best for societal stability as a whole and believe that frankly, the idea that everything that makes people feel good or makes life easier is a right is a distasteful notion. To put it mildly. I’d just as soon see all the “rights” women have had bestowed upon us rolled back and return to a time where we all lived with the consequences of the choices we make, for better or worse.

    Anyway, I thought Chris was referring to the preponderance of posts written by women of late as opposed to the male contributors

  73. Dalrock says:

    @Höllenhund

    Also notice that traditionalist women are just as likely as feminists to viciously attack and ridicule MRAs for no reason at all, make baseless accusations against them, show inability and unwillingness to empathize with men, and practice female solidarity i.e. circle the wagons immediately whenever a woman gets into conflict (of whatever nature) with a man or a group of men, not paying any attention to the nature of that conflict itself (which side started it, which side has superior logic, which side is justified etc.). You may recall an earlier comment thread here where Kathy came to the rescue of poor gazelle-eyed Doomed Harlot supposedly being mercilessly attacked by all the horrible, creepy, misogynist MRAs like TFH.

    I’ve called out Trad Con women on circling the wagons, shaming men into marriage, being unwilling to shame sluts, advocating marrying a man they don’t love, being true to themselves over being true to their faith, and having a bizarre obsession with making sure hookups are fair. But I think it is important to recognize that this isn’t universal. I’ve never seen Terri do these things, nor grerp, nor Laura Grace Robins. NATCWALT.

  74. slwerner says:

    Dalrock – ”I’ve called out Trad Con women on circling the wagons, shaming men into marriage…”

    Speaking of which…

    Years ago, when I was a devote Churchian conservative Christian, I used to read a lot of the pseudo-conservative editorialists. One of them was a woman by the name of Devvy Kidd.

    So, the other day, I came across a link to a YouTube video series by her entitled

    Where Have All the Men Gone,

    and made the mistake of giving it (the first part, anyway) a listen (thinking it might be commentary about the stuff having been put out gynocentrists ranging from Hanna Rosin to Kay Hymowitz about the “disappearance” of men)

    Turned out to be some of the worst traditionalist-like social conservative male shaming I’d ever encountered. The few minutes I did manage to get through was a non-stop stream of male-shaming (for men enjoying the activities they do) or the supposed dangers facing woman and children. (something about if you were watching football, you were abandoning woman to being raped – and I do wish I was just inserting hyperbole).

    I didn’t get to any part in which she suggested specific actions men should be taking in order to forgo their own desires and lay down their lives in the protective service of random woman, but from what I gather it was a call to duty, to a blind devotion to some “greater cause” of protecting women, and the reckless abandonment of men’s personal autonomy that would have made the likes of Mark Richardson and Laura Wood proud.

    If there is some doubt about just how closely those calling themselves social conservative traditionalists and anti-feminists actually resemble the most out-spoken of the defiantly male-hating gender-feminists, just listen to Devvy Kidd tell you about her “Conservative, anti-feminist” credentials as she berates men for not being adequately subservient to the needs of women. Then see what conservative Catholic Melanie McDonaugh has to say in defense of women committing paternity fraud: http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml

  75. deti says:

    slwerner: Your comment reminded me of that article. She finally gets around to the point on the second page, which is essentially: “Hey, I know it sucks that a few of you got cuckolded and cheated. But you’ve gotta do it FOR THE CHILDREN. So shut up and keep writing the checks, manginas.”

    A lot more men would be willing to take their hits for society if they were living in a society that was willing to require that women assume their share of the burdens (i.e. observe marital vows, submission to the husband, rejection of feminist worldviews, etc.)

  76. Brendan says:

    Yes I remember the McDonagh piece as well from last year. It’s kind of the poster example of exactly why traditional/conservative women are not reliable on any of these issues.

    I have finally come round to the view that for the overwhelming majority of women, regardless of intellect or ideological/religious commitment, these kinds of issues (viz. “visceral” intuition about a woman’s ability to pick the father/cuckold him), this is simply get very, very, very deeply-wired instinctual response. And McDonagh is right: DNA testing is a threat to the ability of women to “pick the father” by duping him — an ability that women have had since time immemorial and which clearly has been “baked into” the mating strategy of the female sex. As such, this is a visceral threat, and the vast majority simply cannot get past that threat in terms of dealing with the fraud side of the issue, because doing so would “hurt women” by taking away something they have taken for granted as a sex since we were swinging from the trees.

    The main problem, however, on this issue isn’t women. As I note, we’d expect most women to be viscerally uncomfortable with something that has such a huge impact on the balance of power between men and women in terms of reproduction and child support. The main problem, as always, is that men are disunited on this issue, and quick to defend the existing practice, quick to denigrate the idea of mandatory testing, and quick to shame other men into being cuckolds. Men are the problem — specifically the lack of unity among men, and the tendency of too many men to white knight.

  77. terri says:

    Well Brendan, I am in fact strongly in favor of MPT. If I had to wager a guess I’d say that LGR and Grerp agree with MPT, too.

    I so wish that somehow, some way, we could learn to judge individuals rather than swipe with a broad brush. sheesh.

  78. Brendan says:

    Terry –

    You’re the exception. Note that I didn’t say “all women”. I said the overwhelming majority of women, and I do believe this is the case.

  79. deti says:

    Brendan: I’m not sure I understand the point of the first paragraph. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I suspect the point is that women have the ultimate power to select who sires their offspring whether through husband or alpha interloper, and DNA testing undermines that power by transferring it back to the man (specifically, her husband and/or putative father) because DNA settles the question of who the father is once and for all. And women don’t like this at all because it removes that power from them and thus seriously undercuts her ability to dupe her beta husband into supporting offspring she has convinced him are his. And women can’t see it from the male POV (fraud, lying, cheating, untrustworthiness) because it undercuts their power. I agree with this.

    One of the corollary issues is, I suppose, shaming. The woman whose husband demands the paternity test berates her husband for essentially calling her an unfaithful slut and accuses him of not trusting her. Mandatory paternity testing would, as has been argued here and elsewhere, remove that from the equation.

    Candidly, many men wouldn’t seek MPT if women were more trustworthy.

  80. zed says:

    I so wish that somehow, some way, we could learn to judge individuals rather than swipe with a broad brush. sheesh.

    How many of the mushrooms that pop up in your front lawn after a rain do you harvest and incorporate into the family dinner? After all, NAMAP. Shouldn’t each individual mushroom be judged on its own merits, and the fact that it belongs to a group with a high percentage of very toxic members be ignored – unless and until it makes you sick? The problem for you and your family is – by then it is too late to practice discernment. ;-)

  81. deti says:

    Terry’s right. MOST women, not all women.

    And Brendan’s second paragraph illustrates how often male-female relationships ultimately become about powier: who has more poiwer at a given time or in a given set of circumstances. Much of Game consists of instructing men on where their greatest advantages are and how to leverage them to greater benefit. Even in marriages, power plays happen: who got their orgasm, who has the upper hand, how the tables can turn, where sometimes surreptitious conduct occurs or is even encouraged.

    I lament that relationships have become largely about power. Intergender relationships should ideally be selfless giving of oneself for the benefit of the other; not about tugs of war or who has the advantage right now.

  82. Pingback: A lower view of sex (& marriage). | Dark Brightness

  83. Höllenhund says:

    @terri

    “Well we are girls, hollenhund, LOL.”

    Well, then why the objection to the notion that you’re girly?

    “It’s not that we are uninterested in men’s rights. We’re not all that interested in women’s rights, either.”

    In other words, you oppose the idea of personal autonomy because it isn’t compatible with your ideology of gender interdependence, community and complementarianism. I can theoretically accept that POV. However, I can’t help but notice that traditionalists – especially the women – didn’t put up much resistance when female personal autonomy was radically widened both through technological progress (reliable contraception, safe abortion, the proliferation of safe, easy office jobs) and social change. (The Vatican disapproves abortion and artificial contraception, of course, but this is universally ignored among Western Catholics.) However, the same traditionalists always loudly object when anyone promotes wider personal autonomy for men. Why the double standard? This is largely a theoretical question on my part, because we all know the answer: gynocentrism.

    “Anyway, I thought Chris was referring to the preponderance of posts written by women of late as opposed to the male contributors”

    Not to mention the solipsistic discussions in the comment threads about your butts, breastmilk, cooking, the supposed awesomeness of your marital sex lives etc.

    @Dalrock

    “But I think it is important to recognize that this isn’t universal. I’ve never seen Terri do these things, nor grerp, nor Laura Grace Robins. NATCWALT.”

    The funny thing is that Alte accused LGR of being a masculinist i.e. accepting the logic of the gender war and fighting for the opposing side.

    @Brendan

    “The main problem, as always, is that men are disunited on this issue, and quick to defend the existing practice, quick to denigrate the idea of mandatory testing, and quick to shame other men into being cuckolds.”

    In other words, men refuse to think in terms of a gender war whereas women are perfectly willing to do so i.e. they think that their own sex is either advantaged or disadvantaged by any specific social or political change. This obviously sucks for individual men. However, I think it’s important to point out that if men actually had the same gender war mentality, women would be deeply, utterly fucked (in more ways than one), reduced to birthing machines and sex slaves.

    Women and only women are responsible for the so-called gender war. Let’s just be honest about that.

    Again, all of this is perfectly explained by evo psych, of course.

  84. Höllenhund says:

    @deti

    “And Brendan’s second paragraph illustrates how often male-female relationships ultimately become about power: who has more power at a given time or in a given set of circumstances.”

    Well, to make a reference to Ruth Wisse, it was women, not men, who largely accepted the feminist doctrine that the relationship between the sexes should be based on power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation. The female commenters here will probably object, but I don’t care. It’s the truth.

  85. deti says:

    hollenhund:

    Sadly, I’m beginning to agree with you that many women view intergender relations as dominated by power, not reciprocity. I don’t want it to be that way, but I am afraid it is.

  86. terri says:

    @ hollenhund:

    However, I can’t help but notice that traditionalists – especially the women – didn’t put up much resistance when female personal autonomy was radically widened both through technological progress (reliable contraception, safe abortion, the proliferation of safe, easy office jobs) and social change.

    Obviously, I can’t speak for the traditional women who were women when all of this took place. Most of these things were happening while I was too young to have really given it much thought. Secondly, I was not raised to be a feminist and spent my 20′s at home flipping pancakes and changing diapers. As my awareness of the issues has increased, I have tried to be an influence as much as I can.

    Not to mention the solipsistic discussions in the comment threads about your butts, breastmilk, cooking, the supposed awesomeness of your marital sex lives etc.

    Well yes, hollen. I will not apologize for talking with other women about the things women talk about when they gather. We do that. But more importantly, we talk about the things women should talk about but don’t. Seriously, we gush over our husbands and how much we love them, yes. We compare recipes and talk breastfeeding, yes. If that bothers you I think there’s actually a breastfeeding post pending, LOL. And yes, we discuss our struggles to stay in shape- for our MEN.

    The real deal here is that you have concluded that women, all women, are the enemy. And I don’t think we should attempt to be men when we write or comment. We were born female through no fault of our own, sir. And there is no reason why we should have to attempt to present a unisex persona in order to be accepted by men who may read our stuff when we have clearly shown that we are fighting for the same values.

    There are men like Dalrock, Athol, Ulysses, Elusive Wapiti etc. writing great stuff with a distinctly masculine flavor. Two of the aforementioned have contributed posts over at TC.

    And finally, if you ever expect us to take the position that women are irredeemable and men are sinless saints, you will be left wanting. There are no perfect people of either gender. I agree with you that women’s promiscuity and selfishness has been subsidized by the legal system and that men are getting the shaft. But that’s as far as I’m willing to go, sir. It doesn’t make men any more virtuous than women by nature.

    To submit to that would be to betray the tenets of my faith.

  87. terri says:

    Oh and one more thing:

    I wasn’t objecting to the notion that we are girly.

    As I thought I’d explained, I thought Chris was referring to the posts and the preponderance of articles written by females of late since the writings were more evenly distributed between men and women recently. That’s what I thought he meant by “going girly.”

    I was not referring to the comments threads, which do tend to get girly but there are still a number of men who comment regularly. But if the blog is girly, no matter so long as its smart and we stick to our principles.

    Aren’t you tired of a world where women are trying to be like men? I know I am.

  88. Höllenhund says:

    “I wasn’t objecting to the notion that we are girly.”

    Well, for some reason you decided that you cannot let the claim that you’re girly go unaddressed.

    “if you ever expect us to take the position that women are irredeemable”

    Funny you should be saying that. Your fellow bloggress Alte has stated that women won’t change their current behavior unless a financial collapse hits them hard:

    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/why-traditionalist-women-cant-convert-feminist-women/#comment-12587

    In other words, women can only be expected to improve their behavior if they are completely robbed of their state-subsidized financial independence and are thus once again rendered economically dependent on men on an individual basis – because they will act horrible whenever and wherever they can afford to.

    If this counts are “redemption”, well…

  89. Höllenhund says:

    “The real deal here is that you have concluded that women, all women, are the enemy.”

    Again, this conclusion is based on the simple realization that women are perfectly willing to accept the notion that they, as a sex, have common interests that must be defended and pursued in opposition to men’s interests.

  90. Höllenhund says:

    “Aren’t you tired of a world where women are trying to be like men?”

    I don’t really see that happening, to be honest. I see women trying to become bad, misshapen caricatures of men due to the encouragement of feminists. If women actually could become more like men in some respects (i.e. dropping the Team Woman mentality, adopting an innate sense of justice, understanding cause and effect), it would be a huge improvement.

  91. However, I can’t help but notice that traditionalists – especially the women – didn’t put up much resistance when female personal autonomy was radically widened both through technological progress (reliable contraception, safe abortion, the proliferation of safe, easy office jobs) and social change. (The Vatican disapproves abortion and artificial contraception, of course, but this is universally ignored among Western Catholics.) However, the same traditionalists always loudly object when anyone promotes wider personal autonomy for men. Why the double standard? This is largely a theoretical question on my part, because we all know the answer: gynocentrism.

    I would like to know why trad-con women seem so unconcerned about the misandry that permeates within nearly all forms of modern Christianity. It’s just as bad as feminism, if not, worse. & Christianity certainly isn’t an adequate solution to any of the modern injustices against men. Praying really hard doesn’t change unfair laws.

    My religious education taught me that God put women on Earth to be taken care of by men. Women are much too weak and feeble minded to make sound decisions for themselves. Women should guard their innocence and not let themselves get seduced by any bad men. Sluts are just innocent women led astray by bad men. Men have to control their sexuality and lustful urges; lest they become sex addicted hell-bound sinners. Good Christian women become housewives [i.e. a good Christian woman should only consider marrying a man that can provide said lifestyle]. A good Christian husband will make sure his wife never has to do anything strenuous or stressful.

    It teaches young women to use Christ’s divine word to justify a laundry list of selfish fantasies, while it teaches young men that their sole purpose in life is to take care of women while simultaneously stigmatizing natural male sexuality.

    …interestingly enough, the current situation within modern Christianity could easily be explained via Tarot card symbolism:

    The Hierophant/The Pope card represents the divine masculine; placing a strong emphasis on the ability to bring order from chaos. Men built civilization, men founded organized religion. In a reading, the card usually represents a traditional religious individual.

    The High Priestess/The Popess card represents the divine feminine; placing a strong emphasis on the possession of powerful hidden knowledge and the ability to use said knowledge – possibly for one’s own personal gain. In a reading, it may represent a seductress; a cunning woman who could easily have men wrapped around her finger.

    Put these two cards next to each other, it means a woman has embraced an ideology to further her own agenda i.e. although the Hierophant may be in complete control of the kingdom he created, the High Priestess knows his every weakness and don’t think she wouldn’t consider using said knowledge to usurp the Hierophant’s throne. The woman depicted on the High Priestess card is Pope Joan, the legendary female Pope – a woman who used deception to seize a power that should only belong to men.

    Why is Christianity being used to shame masculinity and beta-ize young men? My intuition says feminism ruined Christianity quite a few decades ago.

    Gosh, I still can’t believe all the feminist nonsense I had been taught. Love isn’t about fulfilling a checklist of entitlements allegedly dictated by God. No wonder atheists have a lower divorce rate than Christians.

  92. Badger says:

    I think Butterfly Flower is taking the red pill. Good on her.

    The sexual/relationship lessons of most American churches, including the Catholic church, are so out of whack and damaging.

  93. Pingback: We Make No Apologies For Being Women « Traditional Christianity

  94. terri says:

    Butterfly Flower:

    Hope you’re doing well!

    I don’t have any beef with your critique of the church or the majority of so-called conservative people, women in particular.

    I do think you should always distinguish however, between the modern church, and Christianity. They are not one and the same. They should be able to be identified as such, but sadly, they cannot be.

  95. I think Butterfly Flower is taking the red pill. Good on her.

    I didn’t intentionally take the red pill, it happened naturally.

    According to modern Christianity, I’m supposed to just hand my boyfriend a long list of God-approved demands. I cannot do that to him. I genuinely love my boyfriend. I fell in love with him because he’s such a wonderful, kind, honest person. I refuse to use religion to pressure my future husband into providing me with a comfortable lifestyle. I already know he’d give me the world. The whole concept of women using religion to manipulate their significant other…it just seems so heartless. I feel like any woman who genuinely loves their significant other would find something insanely wrong with such behavior.

    I don’t have any beef with your critique of the church or the majority of so-called conservative people, women in particular.

    I never meant to generalize, but I honestly don’t know many decent conservative Christians. It seems like conservative Christians today would rather perform the rituals and keep up a religious appearance than actually behave like genuinely kind, compassionate followers of Christ. Lately I’ve noticed non-believers are significantly nicer than conservative Christians – it’s one of the reasons why I doubt my faith.

  96. grizzledwolf says:

    “The sexual/relationship lessons of most American churches, including the Catholic church, are so out of whack and damaging.”

    The Catholic Church is not an American church. Although I do know that the American bishops are a mixed bag, so that may be where you are coming from.

    “It seems like conservative Christians today would rather perform the rituals and keep up a religious appearance than actually behave like genuinely kind, compassionate followers of Christ.”

    Kinda hard to be nice when you see the entire culture arrayed against you. Its the siege mentality. I know I get it from time to time. Only the victor gets to be complacent.

    One thing though, I don’t care if there are assholes in my tent as long as its pitched in with the right army.

    “No wonder atheists have a lower divorce rate than Christians.”

    Wrong. Considering that the study this dumb assertion comes from measured divorce per person, the only reason atheists have lower divorce rates is because they have much lower marriage rates. Coincidentally, they also have much higher abortion rates. (Fewer shotgun marriages.)

  97. Pingback: Unwed mother? Blame feminism. | Dalrock

  98. Pingback: Civilization, Feminism and “Manning Up” « elephants and trees

  99. Pingback: Solo Fathers are invisible in Church.

  100. Pingback: Why so many wives wish their husbands would cheat. | Dalrock

  101. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Homage to Quiplinks Edition « Patriactionary

  102. Pingback: Lowering the boom, a testamonial. | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s